manoyes
05-06-2006, 12:24 AM
Well, this really breaks my heart but I am discusted at the lack of engineering (or deliberate mis-engineering) of recent Ford products. After Ford recovered from its poor quality debacle in the early eighties I've purchase three Ford products. Two of the three are great examples of durability(they date from 91 to 94). However, I recently purchased a used 2001 Mustang GT that died as a no-start in my garage. I isolated the problem to the fuel pump that was open. In the Mustang trunk (or luggage compartment), they have a spare tire well where Ford could have easily placed an access port to remove and replace the fuel pump from above the fuel tank. No! The entire fuel tank needs to be removed at about $400 to drop the fuel tank and another$200 for the fuel pump assembly.
I remember (back in the 70's) Datsun's had the fuel pump mounted to a rail near the fuel tank so that if the pump failed you could replace it without major repairs although the fuel pump was not cheap.
I asked my Ford dealer to give me back the fuel pump and I did a post-mortm on it. The windings on the motor were ok but the method of brush contact with the commutator had failed. Overall, the motor contstruction reminded me of the cheap junk that Ford puts in the power windows of their products.
We are getting sold cheap junk at high repair prices and I am no longer a Ford customer.
Martin
I remember (back in the 70's) Datsun's had the fuel pump mounted to a rail near the fuel tank so that if the pump failed you could replace it without major repairs although the fuel pump was not cheap.
I asked my Ford dealer to give me back the fuel pump and I did a post-mortm on it. The windings on the motor were ok but the method of brush contact with the commutator had failed. Overall, the motor contstruction reminded me of the cheap junk that Ford puts in the power windows of their products.
We are getting sold cheap junk at high repair prices and I am no longer a Ford customer.
Martin