Why fuel gauges don't always work
Thread Starter
It's my pot and I'll stir it if I want to. If you're not careful, I'll stir your's as well!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,256
Likes: 207
From: Central Mexico.
Why fuel gauges don't always work
Here is a story I just read in a Canadian newspaper. Sorry, it's bit long but may be of interest to some of you. Has anybody heard of a similar problem in Chrysler products?
Dec. 20, 2003. 01:00 AM
Why the fuel gauges in GM cars don't always work
Company has part that can fix problem
Ottawa says gauges don't pose a risk
TONY VAN ALPHEN
BUSINESS REPORTER
Barbara Elliott was cruising about 115 kilometres an hour in the passing lane of northbound Highway 400 last June. It was a typical rush hour drive out of Toronto — a crowded road and everyone in a hurry.
As the Barrie resident went under the overpass near Bradford, rushing to pick up her daughter from day care, her yellow 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier abruptly lost power. She pressed the accelerator. Again. And again. Nothing happened.
The cars in her rear-view mirror grew larger and larger.
"I was scared to death," she recalled. "They (the cars) were all up on top of me."
She flicked her right turn signal and over several harrowing seconds managed to steer her lifeless car to the middle and right lanes as speeding cars swerved around it. Elliott made it to the side just as her tires stopped turning and the steering wheel locked.
Heaving a great sigh of relief, Elliott called General Motors Roadside Assistance and was quickly told that she'd run out of gasoline.
Impossible, she replied. Her gauge showed the tank was about one-quarter full. A tow truck driver soon arrived with a gas container. He talked of faulty gauges and poured 15 litres of gas into her tank. The car roared to life.
Elliott was dumbfounded. It was the first she'd heard about gauge problems, but hers was scarcely an isolated case.
Last spring and summer, faulty gauges left hundreds of drivers with empty tanks on roads and highways around Greater Toronto.
That's because General Motors Corp. has continued to manufacture vehicles with potentially faulty gauges, despite having developed a new part that eliminates the hazard in response to similar problems three years ago.
The problem: So-called elemental sulphur, a corrosive material that periodically appears in gas and can cause gauges to go haywire.
There was never any recall, which would have cost millions of dollars, nor were motorists warned directly of any problems.
Transport Canada concluded there was no safety concern, saying it had received no reports of injury as a result of the fuel gauge problem.
Stranded drivers were left feeling they've been caught in a blame game between the auto maker and the oil companies, particularly Petro-Canada and Shell Canada Ltd.
A Star investigation — sparked by the rash of stalling vehicles — discovered GM's continuing use of a fuel tank sensor that can cause the gauge to show drivers there's gas in the tank when it's actually empty.
GM has acknowledged it continued to build and sell numerous North American models with silver sensors in fuel tanks that can work improperly when the corrosive material appears in gas.
The Detroit-based auto maker quietly started switching at assembly plants last year to a redesigned, corrosion-resistant sensor that would eliminate the problem — but only on models as they were being relaunched or redesigned.
Under that timetable, a senior General Motors executive, who requested anonymity, estimated it would be 2007 or 2008 before the auto maker yanked the last silver sensor from its assembly lines.
But on the eve of publication of the Star's findings, GM revealed this week it is accelerating the changeover.
"We are not waiting for a model change," said Stew Low, General Motors of Canada Ltd.'s director of public relations. "We're implementing the changes across many car lines as fast as possible."
Low did not say what prompted the speed-up or when all GM vehicles would have the new sensor.
GM started working with its top parts supplier three years ago to change the metal composition of the critical contact portion of the sensor after a problem surfaced in late 2000 when the corrosive elemental sulphur appeared in gas in other parts of Canada and the United States. The tiny contacts in the redesigned part contain a precious-metal alloy that can tolerate elemental sulphur and avoid the wild fluctuations and false readings in gauges and possible highway danger.
GM insists there is no flaw in the silver sensors unless elemental sulphur appears in gas. "We're the innocent victims here," Low said in an interview before the accelerated changeover to the new sensors was disclosed. "There is nothing wrong with our fuel gauge systems."
Low compared the presence of elemental sulphur in gas to finding poison in food. "There's nothing wrong with a sandwich if there isn't any arsenic in it."
While Low acknowledged the gauges raised a safety issue, he characterized the problem as more of an inconvenience.
Drivers who had problems last spring and summer primarily pumped gas from Petro-Canada and Shell stations. The two firms later confirmed their gas had contained elemental sulphur. It was picked up as it flowed from a refinery through a Toronto-area pipeline that had carried other petroleum products.
After the Star discovered GM was not using the new corrosion-resistant sensor in all its models, the company said it had proceeded with gradual implementation because of contract commitments with parts suppliers and the cost of computer changes required for the component's metal contacts to work properly.
"It all depends where we are in the (model's) life cycle, the commitment we have to a particular supplier, the parts and the contracts that are written," Low said. GM has publicly refused to identify which models continue to contain silver sensors. "I'd rather not open the watch on that one," Low said.
But the Star found late-model Chevrolet Cavaliers and Malibus, Pontiac Sunfires and Oldsmobile Aleros consistently popped up among the vehicles that ran into trouble this year. All four of those models experienced the same problem in late 2000.
In addition, there were also reports of faulty gauges in Chevrolet Impalas, including some driven by Ontario Provincial Police officers.
Despite Low's refusal to identify the models in production with the silver sensors, the GM executive who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed they continue to be used in Cavaliers, Malibus, Sunfires and Aleros.
GM has sold about 1.4 million of those four models across the continent, including at least 240,000 in Canada, since 2002, when it started using the corrosion-resistant sensor in some other models.
The GM executive also revealed the auto maker had changed over to the new sensor on less than half its lineup by last summer. The company makes about 80 models and produces more than 5.5 million vehicles annually in North America.
GM worked with Troy, Mich.-based Delphi Corp., the world's largest auto parts supplier, in late 2000 and early 2001 to change the sensor.
That followed a bout of fuel gauge problems involving elemental sulphur in gas sold in British Columbia, New Brunswick, the Quebec city area and Maine.
At that time, GM sent notices to thousands of customers in Eastern Canada, B.C. and the United States warning about a possible gauge problem. Elemental sulphur was identified as the likely source and the company told car owners what they should do to deal with it.
GM never issued a recall then, but in 2001, Audi of America Inc., a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, did exactly that in Canada and the U.S. because of complaints about faulty gauges south of the border. Audi's cost was about $40 million (U.S.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`We're the innocent victims here. There is nothing wrong with our fuel gauge systems.'
Stew Low, GM spokesman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi traced the problem to elemental sulphur and called its original part "defective." In the recall, Audi replaced the sensor with a part containing a new alloy.
One industry insider noted most other auto makers also use silver sensors. But the computer system used by GM in its cars makes them more vulnerable to readings showing some fuel when there is actually none, the source said.
Rather than a costly change in the computer programming, GM, like Audi, decided to pursue different materials to solve the problem, the insider said.
GM told dealers about this year's problem and how to handle complaints, but, in contrast to 2001, the company did not warn its customers directly before they faced possible trouble.
And GM acknowledged that when it replaced sensors after customers complained this year, it used silver sensors again on a number of models instead of the one that could tolerate elemental sulphur. Some drivers said sensor replacements this year did not solve the problem.
"I'm stunned," said George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association, which represents motorists' interests. "It's hard to believe and understand that GM continues to produce a critical part which might influence the reliability and safety of a vehicle because of a supplier contract."
Clarence Ditlow, head of the U.S.-based Center for Auto Safety, said if an auto maker had a better part, it should not have been using an old design when the component could lead to safety problems.
"This is General Motors trying to save money at the expense of the consumer," he said.
Ditlow said GM's use of problem sensors is likely more of an issue outside the U.S. because Washington has stricter regulations on sulphur in gas.
The office of GM Canada president Michael Grimaldi refused two requests for an interview about the this year's problems. An official at GM's headquarters in Detroit referred questions back to Oshawa-based GM of Canada. The parent company described it as a regional issue.
The auto maker informed Transport Canada about the gauge problem in June, but the federal agency concluded it didn't think there was a safety concern. The department supported its view by saying it had received no reports of injuries or deaths. It didn't order a recall.
Although Transport Canada downplayed safety risks, more than 50 angry drivers told the Star they feared for their lives when their cars stalled without warning.
"Someone could have easily rear-ended me," Denise Turner said after her 2000 Cavalier stalled on Highway 10 in the rain near Caledon with speeding traffic behind her. "I could have been seriously injured, but so could have others."
Hundreds of motorists complained about stalling cars or faulty gauges in the 2 1/2-month period from the end of April until mid-July. While a few owners of Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz vehicles reported problems, most cases involved GM vehicles.
Motorists in Toronto and surrounding regions said they ran out of gas, lost power and stalled on some of the busiest highways in Canada. Some avoided that predicament by noticing wild gauge fluctuations early enough and contacting their dealership or service station.
GM said if a fuel injector cleaner didn't solve the problem after a few fill-ups, it would replace the sensors at no cost to owners of vehicles less than four years old. GM treated compensation for repairs on older cars on a case-by-case basis.
The auto maker would not disclose statistics about the number of customers who complained during the 2 1/2-month period, the number of free repairs or costs to the company.
But in an indication of the extent of the problem, one insider said complaints to GM's customer service line had surpassed 1,000 before mid-June.
Gas-related calls to the Canadian Automobile Association surged in May and June to more than 3,000 in its central Ontario region, which includes Toronto. GM customers accounted for more than half the calls. Calls in May alone jumped 62 per cent from the same month a year earlier.
Police forces in Toronto and neighbouring regions say their traffic accident reports do not contain enough detail to determine whether empty tanks and faulty fuel gauges contributed to collisions and injuries.
But Sgt. Cam Wooley, a road safety expert for the Ontario Provincial Police, agreed with drivers that faulty gauges are clearly a potential serious safety issue.
"If someone runs out of gas and loses power in a live lane on the 400 series of highways, there often is no reasonable opportunity for a vehicle to get off the road and it could get rear-ended."
Wooley noted several OPP officers also ran out of gas in their Chevrolet Impalas on duty during the summer because of faulty fuel gauges. If those problems would arise when officers were racing to a serious medical emergency or violent incident, it would become a major safety issue, he said.
GM said its dealers handled complaints well. But in some cases, customers rejected the company's claim that it offered to replace sensors of newer models at no cost if fuel injector cleaner didn't do the trick.
More than two dozen said the company and dealers dodged their responsibilities on the repairs, which cost an average of about $400 (Canadian) per vehicle. They said dealers urged them to use more fuel injector cleaner, advised them to stay away from Petro-Canada and Shell stations or told them to go to the oil companies with their complaints rather than replace the sensors.
But Low stressed GM told dealers to replace sensors at no charge if fuel injector cleaner did not solve the problem. "We didn't tell them to direct customers to go to other gas stations, nor do we shun our responsibilities and refer them to the oil companies.
"The bottom line is the auto and oil industries need to work together so all systems are compatible."
But while stressing co-operation during a post-mortem of this year's problems, Low, at the height of the crisis, sparked a confrontation with Petro-Canada when he said GM's engineers believed the problem originated with the fuel.
GM did not determine the root cause until later after a probe with Petro-Canada and Shell Canada, but customers said the auto maker should have alerted them that their gauges could give false readings and create a safety hazard.
"I never got an apology or an idea what created this problem," said Eric Shendelman of Thornhill, whose 2001 Pontiac Sunfire stalled on busy Highway 7 just north of Toronto.
"There didn't seem to be any consideration for the human reaction, unhappiness, inconvenience or safety. The company knew about the problem. They should have been proactive rather than reactive."
In late August, Petro-Canada and Shell Canada confirmed to the Star that elemental sulphur in their gas caused "interaction" with sensors in fuel tanks in the Toronto region during the spring and summer. Neither company issued a public statement about their finding.
The two oil companies said they were not responsible for motorists' problems and that their gas met or exceeded government fuel standards even with the elemental sulphur in it.
The federal fuel quality regulator, Environment Canada, did not launch a probe.
Iny, of the Automobile Protection Association, said that in addition to GM, oil companies and governments must share responsibility for the safety threat.
"The oil companies see this as a public relations and marketing problem," he said.
"Fuel quality is belatedly moving into the 21st century. You need the government to create a system so if fuel is causing vehicle failure on the roads, the oil company is also accountable. No one ever seems to be accountable."
Dec. 20, 2003. 01:00 AM
Why the fuel gauges in GM cars don't always work
Company has part that can fix problem
Ottawa says gauges don't pose a risk
TONY VAN ALPHEN
BUSINESS REPORTER
Barbara Elliott was cruising about 115 kilometres an hour in the passing lane of northbound Highway 400 last June. It was a typical rush hour drive out of Toronto — a crowded road and everyone in a hurry.
As the Barrie resident went under the overpass near Bradford, rushing to pick up her daughter from day care, her yellow 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier abruptly lost power. She pressed the accelerator. Again. And again. Nothing happened.
The cars in her rear-view mirror grew larger and larger.
"I was scared to death," she recalled. "They (the cars) were all up on top of me."
She flicked her right turn signal and over several harrowing seconds managed to steer her lifeless car to the middle and right lanes as speeding cars swerved around it. Elliott made it to the side just as her tires stopped turning and the steering wheel locked.
Heaving a great sigh of relief, Elliott called General Motors Roadside Assistance and was quickly told that she'd run out of gasoline.
Impossible, she replied. Her gauge showed the tank was about one-quarter full. A tow truck driver soon arrived with a gas container. He talked of faulty gauges and poured 15 litres of gas into her tank. The car roared to life.
Elliott was dumbfounded. It was the first she'd heard about gauge problems, but hers was scarcely an isolated case.
Last spring and summer, faulty gauges left hundreds of drivers with empty tanks on roads and highways around Greater Toronto.
That's because General Motors Corp. has continued to manufacture vehicles with potentially faulty gauges, despite having developed a new part that eliminates the hazard in response to similar problems three years ago.
The problem: So-called elemental sulphur, a corrosive material that periodically appears in gas and can cause gauges to go haywire.
There was never any recall, which would have cost millions of dollars, nor were motorists warned directly of any problems.
Transport Canada concluded there was no safety concern, saying it had received no reports of injury as a result of the fuel gauge problem.
Stranded drivers were left feeling they've been caught in a blame game between the auto maker and the oil companies, particularly Petro-Canada and Shell Canada Ltd.
A Star investigation — sparked by the rash of stalling vehicles — discovered GM's continuing use of a fuel tank sensor that can cause the gauge to show drivers there's gas in the tank when it's actually empty.
GM has acknowledged it continued to build and sell numerous North American models with silver sensors in fuel tanks that can work improperly when the corrosive material appears in gas.
The Detroit-based auto maker quietly started switching at assembly plants last year to a redesigned, corrosion-resistant sensor that would eliminate the problem — but only on models as they were being relaunched or redesigned.
Under that timetable, a senior General Motors executive, who requested anonymity, estimated it would be 2007 or 2008 before the auto maker yanked the last silver sensor from its assembly lines.
But on the eve of publication of the Star's findings, GM revealed this week it is accelerating the changeover.
"We are not waiting for a model change," said Stew Low, General Motors of Canada Ltd.'s director of public relations. "We're implementing the changes across many car lines as fast as possible."
Low did not say what prompted the speed-up or when all GM vehicles would have the new sensor.
GM started working with its top parts supplier three years ago to change the metal composition of the critical contact portion of the sensor after a problem surfaced in late 2000 when the corrosive elemental sulphur appeared in gas in other parts of Canada and the United States. The tiny contacts in the redesigned part contain a precious-metal alloy that can tolerate elemental sulphur and avoid the wild fluctuations and false readings in gauges and possible highway danger.
GM insists there is no flaw in the silver sensors unless elemental sulphur appears in gas. "We're the innocent victims here," Low said in an interview before the accelerated changeover to the new sensors was disclosed. "There is nothing wrong with our fuel gauge systems."
Low compared the presence of elemental sulphur in gas to finding poison in food. "There's nothing wrong with a sandwich if there isn't any arsenic in it."
While Low acknowledged the gauges raised a safety issue, he characterized the problem as more of an inconvenience.
Drivers who had problems last spring and summer primarily pumped gas from Petro-Canada and Shell stations. The two firms later confirmed their gas had contained elemental sulphur. It was picked up as it flowed from a refinery through a Toronto-area pipeline that had carried other petroleum products.
After the Star discovered GM was not using the new corrosion-resistant sensor in all its models, the company said it had proceeded with gradual implementation because of contract commitments with parts suppliers and the cost of computer changes required for the component's metal contacts to work properly.
"It all depends where we are in the (model's) life cycle, the commitment we have to a particular supplier, the parts and the contracts that are written," Low said. GM has publicly refused to identify which models continue to contain silver sensors. "I'd rather not open the watch on that one," Low said.
But the Star found late-model Chevrolet Cavaliers and Malibus, Pontiac Sunfires and Oldsmobile Aleros consistently popped up among the vehicles that ran into trouble this year. All four of those models experienced the same problem in late 2000.
In addition, there were also reports of faulty gauges in Chevrolet Impalas, including some driven by Ontario Provincial Police officers.
Despite Low's refusal to identify the models in production with the silver sensors, the GM executive who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed they continue to be used in Cavaliers, Malibus, Sunfires and Aleros.
GM has sold about 1.4 million of those four models across the continent, including at least 240,000 in Canada, since 2002, when it started using the corrosion-resistant sensor in some other models.
The GM executive also revealed the auto maker had changed over to the new sensor on less than half its lineup by last summer. The company makes about 80 models and produces more than 5.5 million vehicles annually in North America.
GM worked with Troy, Mich.-based Delphi Corp., the world's largest auto parts supplier, in late 2000 and early 2001 to change the sensor.
That followed a bout of fuel gauge problems involving elemental sulphur in gas sold in British Columbia, New Brunswick, the Quebec city area and Maine.
At that time, GM sent notices to thousands of customers in Eastern Canada, B.C. and the United States warning about a possible gauge problem. Elemental sulphur was identified as the likely source and the company told car owners what they should do to deal with it.
GM never issued a recall then, but in 2001, Audi of America Inc., a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, did exactly that in Canada and the U.S. because of complaints about faulty gauges south of the border. Audi's cost was about $40 million (U.S.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`We're the innocent victims here. There is nothing wrong with our fuel gauge systems.'
Stew Low, GM spokesman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi traced the problem to elemental sulphur and called its original part "defective." In the recall, Audi replaced the sensor with a part containing a new alloy.
One industry insider noted most other auto makers also use silver sensors. But the computer system used by GM in its cars makes them more vulnerable to readings showing some fuel when there is actually none, the source said.
Rather than a costly change in the computer programming, GM, like Audi, decided to pursue different materials to solve the problem, the insider said.
GM told dealers about this year's problem and how to handle complaints, but, in contrast to 2001, the company did not warn its customers directly before they faced possible trouble.
And GM acknowledged that when it replaced sensors after customers complained this year, it used silver sensors again on a number of models instead of the one that could tolerate elemental sulphur. Some drivers said sensor replacements this year did not solve the problem.
"I'm stunned," said George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association, which represents motorists' interests. "It's hard to believe and understand that GM continues to produce a critical part which might influence the reliability and safety of a vehicle because of a supplier contract."
Clarence Ditlow, head of the U.S.-based Center for Auto Safety, said if an auto maker had a better part, it should not have been using an old design when the component could lead to safety problems.
"This is General Motors trying to save money at the expense of the consumer," he said.
Ditlow said GM's use of problem sensors is likely more of an issue outside the U.S. because Washington has stricter regulations on sulphur in gas.
The office of GM Canada president Michael Grimaldi refused two requests for an interview about the this year's problems. An official at GM's headquarters in Detroit referred questions back to Oshawa-based GM of Canada. The parent company described it as a regional issue.
The auto maker informed Transport Canada about the gauge problem in June, but the federal agency concluded it didn't think there was a safety concern. The department supported its view by saying it had received no reports of injuries or deaths. It didn't order a recall.
Although Transport Canada downplayed safety risks, more than 50 angry drivers told the Star they feared for their lives when their cars stalled without warning.
"Someone could have easily rear-ended me," Denise Turner said after her 2000 Cavalier stalled on Highway 10 in the rain near Caledon with speeding traffic behind her. "I could have been seriously injured, but so could have others."
Hundreds of motorists complained about stalling cars or faulty gauges in the 2 1/2-month period from the end of April until mid-July. While a few owners of Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz vehicles reported problems, most cases involved GM vehicles.
Motorists in Toronto and surrounding regions said they ran out of gas, lost power and stalled on some of the busiest highways in Canada. Some avoided that predicament by noticing wild gauge fluctuations early enough and contacting their dealership or service station.
GM said if a fuel injector cleaner didn't solve the problem after a few fill-ups, it would replace the sensors at no cost to owners of vehicles less than four years old. GM treated compensation for repairs on older cars on a case-by-case basis.
The auto maker would not disclose statistics about the number of customers who complained during the 2 1/2-month period, the number of free repairs or costs to the company.
But in an indication of the extent of the problem, one insider said complaints to GM's customer service line had surpassed 1,000 before mid-June.
Gas-related calls to the Canadian Automobile Association surged in May and June to more than 3,000 in its central Ontario region, which includes Toronto. GM customers accounted for more than half the calls. Calls in May alone jumped 62 per cent from the same month a year earlier.
Police forces in Toronto and neighbouring regions say their traffic accident reports do not contain enough detail to determine whether empty tanks and faulty fuel gauges contributed to collisions and injuries.
But Sgt. Cam Wooley, a road safety expert for the Ontario Provincial Police, agreed with drivers that faulty gauges are clearly a potential serious safety issue.
"If someone runs out of gas and loses power in a live lane on the 400 series of highways, there often is no reasonable opportunity for a vehicle to get off the road and it could get rear-ended."
Wooley noted several OPP officers also ran out of gas in their Chevrolet Impalas on duty during the summer because of faulty fuel gauges. If those problems would arise when officers were racing to a serious medical emergency or violent incident, it would become a major safety issue, he said.
GM said its dealers handled complaints well. But in some cases, customers rejected the company's claim that it offered to replace sensors of newer models at no cost if fuel injector cleaner didn't do the trick.
More than two dozen said the company and dealers dodged their responsibilities on the repairs, which cost an average of about $400 (Canadian) per vehicle. They said dealers urged them to use more fuel injector cleaner, advised them to stay away from Petro-Canada and Shell stations or told them to go to the oil companies with their complaints rather than replace the sensors.
But Low stressed GM told dealers to replace sensors at no charge if fuel injector cleaner did not solve the problem. "We didn't tell them to direct customers to go to other gas stations, nor do we shun our responsibilities and refer them to the oil companies.
"The bottom line is the auto and oil industries need to work together so all systems are compatible."
But while stressing co-operation during a post-mortem of this year's problems, Low, at the height of the crisis, sparked a confrontation with Petro-Canada when he said GM's engineers believed the problem originated with the fuel.
GM did not determine the root cause until later after a probe with Petro-Canada and Shell Canada, but customers said the auto maker should have alerted them that their gauges could give false readings and create a safety hazard.
"I never got an apology or an idea what created this problem," said Eric Shendelman of Thornhill, whose 2001 Pontiac Sunfire stalled on busy Highway 7 just north of Toronto.
"There didn't seem to be any consideration for the human reaction, unhappiness, inconvenience or safety. The company knew about the problem. They should have been proactive rather than reactive."
In late August, Petro-Canada and Shell Canada confirmed to the Star that elemental sulphur in their gas caused "interaction" with sensors in fuel tanks in the Toronto region during the spring and summer. Neither company issued a public statement about their finding.
The two oil companies said they were not responsible for motorists' problems and that their gas met or exceeded government fuel standards even with the elemental sulphur in it.
The federal fuel quality regulator, Environment Canada, did not launch a probe.
Iny, of the Automobile Protection Association, said that in addition to GM, oil companies and governments must share responsibility for the safety threat.
"The oil companies see this as a public relations and marketing problem," he said.
"Fuel quality is belatedly moving into the 21st century. You need the government to create a system so if fuel is causing vehicle failure on the roads, the oil company is also accountable. No one ever seems to be accountable."
Administrator / Scooter Bum
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,086
Likes: 49
From: Central VA
Re:Why fuel gauges don't always work
This is exactly why I use the trip-odometer along with the fuel gauge to determine when to refuel.
These people really think that all of a sudden their fuel milage increased 100%......... :
These people really think that all of a sudden their fuel milage increased 100%......... :
Thread Starter
It's my pot and I'll stir it if I want to. If you're not careful, I'll stir your's as well!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,256
Likes: 207
From: Central Mexico.
Re:Why fuel gauges don't always work
As far back as I can remember, whenever I fill up I turn my trip odometer back to zero. I use that rather than my fuel gauge to tell me when to fill up again.
I was banned per my own request for speaking the name Pelosi
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,908
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Michigan
Re:Why fuel gauges don't always work
Of all the vehicles I've driven over the years I have never experienced a faulty fuel gauge. Some people drive more than one car and aren't gonna always know how much gas was put in last time, you can't put the liability on the owner. I can see Gm being a fellow victim initially. They should have handled it better though.
Transport Canada has an unacceptable attitude. Just becuse an ijury has not been reported to THEM yet, doesn't make a situation safe.
If GM wants to play the victim card, maybe they should lobby towards stricter standards for the lack of regulations on the oil companies.
Transport Canada has an unacceptable attitude. Just becuse an ijury has not been reported to THEM yet, doesn't make a situation safe.
If GM wants to play the victim card, maybe they should lobby towards stricter standards for the lack of regulations on the oil companies.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 0
From: FL
Re:Why fuel gauges don't always work
[quote author=Redleg link=board=10;threadid=24035;start=0#msg226859 date=1071932691]
Of all the vehicles I've driven over the years I have never experienced a faulty fuel gauge. Some people drive more than one car and aren't gonna always know how much gas was put in last time, you can't put the liability on the owner.
[/quote]
Nope I don't buy it. The driver is responsible for the vehicle. Just like commercial vehicles. A fuel gage is only for convenience. Trip odometers are the real deal for fuel consumption. Just like oil dipsticks and tranny dipsticks. The lights and gages are just there for your convenience. Now they have onboard tire monitoring systems. Are owners just that lazy they can't bend down once a week and check their tires? Get in the habit of walking around the vehicle (takes what...15 seconds??) and look at the tires. I have no sympathy for someone running out of fuel (unless of course they have a fuel leak) when we have as many filling stations as we do. IMO of course.
Of all the vehicles I've driven over the years I have never experienced a faulty fuel gauge. Some people drive more than one car and aren't gonna always know how much gas was put in last time, you can't put the liability on the owner.
[/quote]
Nope I don't buy it. The driver is responsible for the vehicle. Just like commercial vehicles. A fuel gage is only for convenience. Trip odometers are the real deal for fuel consumption. Just like oil dipsticks and tranny dipsticks. The lights and gages are just there for your convenience. Now they have onboard tire monitoring systems. Are owners just that lazy they can't bend down once a week and check their tires? Get in the habit of walking around the vehicle (takes what...15 seconds??) and look at the tires. I have no sympathy for someone running out of fuel (unless of course they have a fuel leak) when we have as many filling stations as we do. IMO of course.
Chapter President
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
Re:Why fuel gauges don't always work
[quote author=spots link=board=10;threadid=24035;start=0#msg226952 date=1071948035]
[quote author=Redleg link=board=10;threadid=24035;start=0#msg226859 date=1071932691]
Of all the vehicles I've driven over the years I have never experienced a faulty fuel gauge. Some people drive more than one car and aren't gonna always know how much gas was put in last time, you can't put the liability on the owner.
[/quote]
Nope I don't buy it. The driver is responsible for the vehicle. Just like commercial vehicles. A fuel gage is only for convenience. Trip odometers are the real deal for fuel consumption. Just like oil dipsticks and tranny dipsticks. The lights and gages are just there for your convenience. Now they have onboard tire monitoring systems. Are owners just that lazy they can't bend down once a week and check their tires? Get in the habit of walking around the vehicle (takes what...15 seconds??) and look at the tires. I have no sympathy for someone running out of fuel (unless of course they have a fuel leak) when we have as many filling stations as we do. IMO of course.
[/quote]
I agree with spots on this.
So Don, all I have to do when I get pulled over for speeding is tell the cop my spedo is broke, to get out of a ticket? Officer my spedo is not working, so it's not my falt I was speeding.
[quote author=Redleg link=board=10;threadid=24035;start=0#msg226859 date=1071932691]
Of all the vehicles I've driven over the years I have never experienced a faulty fuel gauge. Some people drive more than one car and aren't gonna always know how much gas was put in last time, you can't put the liability on the owner.
[/quote]
Nope I don't buy it. The driver is responsible for the vehicle. Just like commercial vehicles. A fuel gage is only for convenience. Trip odometers are the real deal for fuel consumption. Just like oil dipsticks and tranny dipsticks. The lights and gages are just there for your convenience. Now they have onboard tire monitoring systems. Are owners just that lazy they can't bend down once a week and check their tires? Get in the habit of walking around the vehicle (takes what...15 seconds??) and look at the tires. I have no sympathy for someone running out of fuel (unless of course they have a fuel leak) when we have as many filling stations as we do. IMO of course.
[/quote]
I agree with spots on this.
So Don, all I have to do when I get pulled over for speeding is tell the cop my spedo is broke, to get out of a ticket? Officer my spedo is not working, so it's not my falt I was speeding.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dodgezilla
Suggestions, Comments and Site Questions
6
Jan 29, 2003 10:47 AM