On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:07:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/15/2017 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?


Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?

Bill
For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
addressed, year after year.

I think number one on the list were blower motors when I was still in
the business, GM. Followed by alternators, and AC compressors.


And intake manifolds and gaskets, and timing cover gaskets - and
basically anything that moves. In 100,000km I replaced the ball joints
and other front end parts twice -0n the TranSport, while never
replacing any parts in 240,000km on each of 2 Aerostarrs and 350,000km
on the ranger, and over 240,000 on my last Chrysler (88 New Yorker) -
and none in 150,000+/- on the PT Cruiser.
And wheel bearings - at leasat 6 on the TranSport and none between
the 3 Fords and 2 Mopars.
A friend has an Impala, a Sierra and a Silverado - and with
relatively low mileage on all three, has spent more on repairs on EACH
of the vehicles than I have on my last 5. _ and that's not counting
the warranty repairs. - and none of mine have had any warranty left
when I bought them.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:09:13 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:43:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com, says...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.

You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.

Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.

They are or should be an inspection item.

In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.

That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.

According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.
Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
The hard lines are not mentioned.

My state's Safety Inspection requirements includes this:

"All brake lines and hoses - check for leaks, cracks, chafing, restrictions,
and improper support"

And that is TOTALLY different from required or specified "maintenance"
And notice it doesn't manage rust - - - as long as it's not leaking
"yet" it passes.

Here in Ontario visibly obviously rusted lines can be failed.

Of course, it also includes this:

"Brake equalization - test vehicle for a straight stop without significant wheel pull."

I don't recall any vehicle I've ever had inspected being driven as part of the
inspection process.
EVERY vehicle I ever inspected was driven as part of the inspection -
without exception.. However the safety inspection is only required for
transfer here in Ontario.

On the other hand, I always have my vehicles inspected by one of my 2 trusted
indys who know that if the vehicle was pulling, I would have told them about it
long before it became a safety Inspection issue.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:34:32 -0500, Bill
wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:
I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.

You motivated me to read about the "2019 Ranger" at Car and Driver.
What I found most interesting was the comments people posted. I found
it insightful to read about what people are looking for versus what is
available.

It's going to be interesting to see how popular the new Ranger really
is. FWIG, the Ranger was discontinued because they were almost as
expensive to make as the F150 and they couldn't get anywhere near the
price so the margins weren't there. I don't see that as changing.

BTW, I had an '01 Ranger and replaced it with a '13 F150. I probably
would have replaced it with a Ranger but I really like the F150. The
back seats are actually usable (both extended cabs). ;-)

On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/14/2017 4:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?

Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.

But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.

The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.

My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.

One more think, if, just because you can hear it in central Ontario
doesn't mean the same think here in the states...

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, wrote:

Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.

I "think" you might be over thinking this....

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/15/2017 12:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:


I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.


https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur

Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.

Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.

AIUI, brake fluid is hygroscopic.

On 2017-02-16, wrote:

AIUI, brake fluid is hygroscopic.

Depends on the type

DOT5 brake fluid is hydrophobic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Boiling_point

nb

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, wrote:

Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.

I "think" you might be over thinking this....

I think he might not be, but he might be punning?

Markem writes:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, wrote:

Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.

I "think" you might be over thinking this....

I think he might not be, but he might be punning?

The poster clare responded to had incorrectly used 'break'
several places in the post where the OP mean to type "brake". Clare
was playing on that original post.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.
Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.

Jack wrote:

Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....


It was my summation that they realize that it is not in their best
interest to build cars that "last forever". This situation seemed to
improve when some of the Asian competition started making them look bad.

On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.



Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
the moisture in the brake fluid.

In article ,
says...

On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
be used and why that alloy and not some other
alloy?

Engineering is always a compromise.

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.

--
Jeff

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:04:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
be used and why that alloy and not some other
alloy?

Engineering is always a compromise.

And a major factor in engineering is economics, always a compromise.

In article Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.

If there were NO brakes then the system had been
neglected for a long time. Any car or light
truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
have a split braking system that continues to
work with reduced capability with a brake line
completely missing. After a while you can pump
it dry but you have to pretty much be an idiot
to not notice that there's a brake problem
before that happens.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:15:35 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.

If there were NO brakes then the system had been
neglected for a long time. Any car or light
truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
have a split braking system that continues to
work with reduced capability with a brake line
completely missing. After a while you can pump
it dry but you have to pretty much be an idiot
to not notice that there's a brake problem
before that happens.

Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop

On 2/16/2017 4:58 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:

Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....


It was my summation that they realize that it is not in their best
interest to build cars that "last forever". This situation seemed to
improve when some of the Asian competition started making them look bad.

Killing off their customers would not seem a good way to prevent cars
from lasting forever. Bumpers, rocker panels, quarter panels tailgate
cables etc. rusting out would seem a better way to go than brake
failure, at least to me...

I'm certainly not too worried about VW fudging a bit on the MPG, yet
they get fined a $Billion or so for that.

I think GM should be fined a few Billion for the faulty brake system on
their cars, and VW should just get mentioned on page 20 of the
Washington Post.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/16/2017 12:40 PM, Markem wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, wrote:

Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.

I "think" you might be over thinking this....

I think he might not be, but he might be punning?

Yes, he was punning me for using break instead of brake, and I was
punning him back for using thinK instead of thinG. Tit for tat so to
speak...

EVERYONE types incorrect words when their brain is let loose on it's
own. ThinK instead of thinG is really common, but break instead of
brake, hall instead of hall, and maid instead of made are common
examples of brains running wild. Leon used maid instead of made in the
very next message after Clare screwed up his pun on me. No biggie, only
the really anal get their undies in a bunch, sort of the same ones that
hyperventilate over punctuation and spelling. I find it most
interesting when they misspell/misuse words in the very post they are
pointing out others errors, just as happened to Clare.

I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2017-02-17, Jack wrote:

I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"

Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
actually funny?

nb

On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.



Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
the moisture in the brake fluid.

In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.

Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
another planned obsolescence scheme?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too

Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/16/2017 7:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
be used and why that alloy and not some other
alloy?

One that makes them not rust out. Your local stainless steel
manufacture will gladly help them out. I could tell them but no reason
on earth they can't find out from a better source.

Engineering is always a compromise.

Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...

(Posted at end of NUMEROUS lines of extraneous text to conform to
ignorance level of previous poster[s])
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/16/2017 10:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.

If there were NO brakes then the system had been
neglected for a long time. Any car or light
truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
have a split braking system that continues to
work with reduced capability with a brake line
completely missing.

The first time my lines failed my SIL borrowed my truck to pick up a
load of granite block. He and my daughter backed out of the driveway,
and the pedal went down almost to the floor. He drove 40 miles 20 with
a heavy load and luckily got back, telling me my brakes sucked. I
checked and immediately knew half the brakes were gone, and it was
rusted brake lines.

$700 later all was well, I thought. Turns out the jerks at the garage
missed two lines and 3 months later, one of those burst. Luckily, I was
driving at night on a secluded road rather than in traffic. Breaking
distance with half a system works, but really poorly. I had forgot
something and hit my brakes to turn in a road to turn around, and
sailed right past it when the brakes semi failed. Had I been in traffic
things could have been bad...

After a while you can pump it dry but you have to pretty much be an
idiot to not notice that there's a brake problem before that happens.

I pretty much told my SIL the same thing.

Anyway, How can you pump it dry? The dual systems are isolated and to
pump them both dry you'd need a leak in both systems. While that could
happen, it would be highly unusual.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Jack wrote:

I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"

Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
actually funny?

Puns are rated upon the groan factor by me.

On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
Snip



Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
be used and why that alloy and not some other
alloy?

One that makes them not rust out. Your local stainless steel
manufacture will gladly help them out. I could tell them but no reason
on earth they can't find out from a better source.

Engineering is always a compromise.

Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...

Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)

A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.

How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.

Has anyone heard of someone that has been injured on a non SawStop TS?
Yeah....;~)
Has any one heard of some one that has been injured on a SawStop. Not
so far, by me.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:48:39 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Jack wrote:

I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"

Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
actually funny?

Puns are rated upon the groan factor by me.
And actually it was not meant as a pun. Not meant to be funny.

In article ,
says...

On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too

Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.

I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
and something like Fluid Film would potentially
be a good countermeasure.

On 2/17/2017 6:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too

Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.

I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
and something like Fluid Film would potentially
be a good countermeasure.


The solution is simple rally. You just have to use a non-corrosive
material. I had my brake lines gold plated. So far, no corrosion.
Looks good when the car is up on a lift too!

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:26:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
goes.

So you never go through a car wash?

Never, at least not with this truck.

And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?

The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!

sigh

Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?

Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.

As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?

At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.


Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.

Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too

Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.

I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
and something like Fluid Film would potentially
be a good countermeasure.
Not just potentially - has been for decades.
It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
equipment (like plow moldbords etc)

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:47:28 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, wrote:

I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.

First I ever heard of that.



Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
the moisture in the brake fluid.

In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.

Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
another planned obsolescence scheme?

Or perhaps you don't listen?

On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Jack wrote:

I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"

Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
actually funny?

Everyone else thinks he should get punished.

On 2/17/2017 7:48 PM, wrote:

I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
and something like Fluid Film would potentially
be a good countermeasure.
Not just potentially - has been for decades.
It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
equipment (like plow moldbords etc)

Seems it would be good to use on the inner workings of a table saw.
Thoughts on that?

On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, wrote:


Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop


All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.

-BR

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:47:32 -0700, Brewster wrote:

On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, wrote:


Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop


All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.

The star-wheel doesn't get indexed by a notch at each brake
application, rather only when the brakes have worn enough for the
ratchet to fully index (otherwise the shoes wouldn't last a month ;-).
The point about frozen adjusters is quite valid and applies to both
the brakes and "parking brake". You should notice that the parking
brake isn't working but if you never use it...

On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:

Engineering is always a compromise.

Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...

Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)

A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.

Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely. Brake lines
rusting out is also somewhat new I believe. Never had any rust out
until the 3 GM vehicles I owned since 2001. So that is 100% brake line
failure for GM vehicles. The fact you are/were unaware of the problem
means little to me. The fact I became aware from first hand experience,
and both garages I go to were also aware of it. I suspect the ABS
problem has been fixed, not so sure about the brake lines, but I quit
buying GM products, so won't ever have additional 1st hand experience
with them. Also, someone sent me the GM recall on the ABS, and the fix
was to clean the sensors. THAT didn't work, but shows there certainly
was a problem, besides just my truck.

How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.

How many died from stubbing their toe, or whacking off a finger on a TS?
Many thousands die in auto accidents, and many more are seriously
injured, far worse than 99.999% of table saw accidents. Defective brake
system would seem to be something that deserves more attention than
fudging on a MPG test. (I mention stubbing toe on TS because I read here
that if an idiot walks into his saw an breaks a toe, it would go down as
a TS accident...)

Has anyone heard of someone that has been injured on a non SawStop TS?
Yeah....;~)
Has any one heard of some one that has been injured on a SawStop. Not
so far, by me.

Well, I've never been injured by a table saw in almost 60 years of
usage, with no safety devices, and I know only one person that has ever
been cut, and it was not serious, and he was not very handy. Wait, I
also know a mechanic that got cut on a saw, also not very seriously, but
he was handy, but also drunk...

Are you saying Braking systems on cars are less important than fudging
on mpg stats, or having a gadget on a table saw to protect everyone from
themselves?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com