Deerdude said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

my bad, I meant the old Power Stoke 6.7. I'll edit.

---

2000 I think had the old 7.3. A friggin tank, they were bulletproof

---

It did. I had a 2001 with the 7.3. Still regret selling that truck. Even at 412k miles it was running like a champ and I was just dumb for getting rid of it.

7.3's were great, even after 1999 when Ford really detuned them to meet emissions requirements. The 6.4's were crap. The 6.7's have been good, especially if you reinforce it by swapping out the head bolts with good ones.

CDUB98 said:

---

Disagree

---

Backup cameras save lives. (period)

Lane warning help prevent accidents.

In both cases it's not the owner/driver of the car that's being protected, but others outside of the car. These two requirements are not different than the requirement to have functioning brakes.

Now, if the roads were privately owned, the road owners could make what ever strictures they want. But the government owns the roads and "public safety", in this context is a valid governmental task.

cecil77 said:

---

Geez, y'all Luddite much? I'm the one supposedly shaking my fist at clouds.

It's not nearly the draconian feature y'all think. And in every vehicle I've seen it's easily turned off. In my Aviator it's a setting off a dashboard button and can be left off. In my wife's GLC43 it's a button right next to the transmission lever and takes maybe half a second to push upon each start.

---

That's fine. Except with most cars it defaults to on, so you have to turn it off every time you start the car.

Quote:

---

Banning guns saves lives. (period)

---

cecil77 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Disagree

---

Backup cameras save lives. (period)

Lane warning help prevent accidents.

In both cases it's not the owner/driver of the car that's being protected, but others outside of the car. These two requirements are not different than the requirement to have functioning brakes.

Now, if the roads were privately owned, the road owners could make what ever strictures they want. But the government owns the roads and "public safety", in this context is a valid governmental task.

---

Why stop. Why let people drive at all? We could prevent all driving deaths.

Nope. Stop with the non option add one. If you want a camera, you can get one.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Disagree

---

Backup cameras save lives. (period)

Lane warning help prevent accidents.

In both cases it's not the owner/driver of the car that's being protected, but others outside of the car. These two requirements are not different than the requirement to have functioning brakes.

Now, if the roads were privately owned, the road owners could make what ever strictures they want. But the government owns the roads and "public safety", in this context is a valid governmental task.

---

Why stop. Why let people drive at all? We could prevent all driving deaths.

Nope. Stop with the non option add one. If you want a camera, you can get one.

---

OK, but if you cause a death a camera could have prevented, you pay big time.

Yes there's a limit to what should be required, but I could use the argument, why even have brakes or lights or turn signals, right? What's the difference in requiring brakes and lights and requiring backup cameras and lane warnings? The only difference is that brakes and lights are 100+ year old technology. Seriously, why shouldn't I be able to drive a car w/out brakes and lights if I choose to?

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

flakrat said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

---

What vehicle doesn't allow you to turn off auto-stop-start?

I think you should. And I think you should be responsible if an accident occurs because of your lack of break lights.


But sure, because roads are a public good, not govt owned, we could agree to minimum standard.

Lights, indicators, a horn and even seat belts and air bags.


Everything else you should have to decide and pay for on your own. If you like a camera for safety or to help in hooking up a trailer, great. You spend the 1500 bucks for the system. Maybe you'll get a discount on your insurance.

Mandating it is just a other tax and big govt interference.


You know what's coming right? Speed limited vehicles(to the speed limit), self reporting vehicles for traffic violations, either to the state or your insurance company.

So f'ing stupid. Need to move BMW up a few inches? Better damn have foot on the break because the lurch when it kicks in will get you to the garage wall or car in front of you quickly.

I hate pulling into garage. I want to kiss the curb stop with the tires. If you brake to a full stop it instantly kills engine.

cecil77 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

---

What vehicle doesn't allow you to turn off auto-stop-start?

---

You have to do it each time you start the vehicle, i.e. it's not a permanent toggle.

As posted above, there are many ways around this via software or physical bypass wiring.

cecil77 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

---

What vehicle doesn't allow you to turn off auto-stop-start?

---

Im not aware of one that doesnt default to "on" every restart of you vehicle. That's different that permanently turning it off

CDUB98 said:

---

Is your name Al Bundy by chance?

---

I remember the car wash episode, he couldn't find his car, took it in brown and he bought it red

Only reason he knew it was his is the porno mags in the trunk

Man what a classic show, we really could use something like it these days to laugh, because we all do a little of what that family did in some ways.

Quote:

---

But sure, because roads are a public good, not govt owned, we could agree to minimum standard.

Lights, indicators, a horn and even seat belts and air bags.

---

Agree. So who draws the line, and where. I put back up cameras above air bags, because air bags only are a benefit to the car that has them, whereas a backup camera potentially is a good to others. Seat belts can allow a driver to maintain control, and perhaps prevent an accident. However, lane warnings can just as easily prevent an accident, so it's not unreasonable to include them on the required list, especially as these functions become very cheap.

Heck air bags were fought by the car companies and magazines and were going to blow people's heads off.

Cecil, I am truly sorry you experienced such a significant loss. I really am. I cannot imagine the pain your family has experienced.

However, you are displaying a classic case of a personal tragedy driving forced regulation and cost all in the name of safety.

As you, yourself, and taught all of us over the years, the gov't will use any excuse it can, in the name of safety, to remove liberties. It all starts with one minor item, then grows.

These items should 100% be available to any consumer who wants them, but it adds significant burden to those of lesser means. It is truly a driver of added cost to all cars that is not necessary for cars to function. They also add to very costly repair bills for people when they go out, and all it takes is one tiny strip of tin to melt on a circuit board to kill each one.

I'm sorry, but your brake example is just poor as a car cannot function properly without them. Cars can, and did, function for decades without all the fancy gadgets we have now.

I've said my peace.

One of my son-in-laws is an auto mechanic.
He told me that starter motors are on of the parts of an automobile that is the first to fail from overuse.
They are not that hard to replace and/or repair. I had a 1966 Ford Mustang 2+2 with a 289 cubic inch V-8. Their starter motor (or fly wheel) [It has been a long time] had an extra cog in it. Trying to get any FOMOC dealership to sell you the correct starter motor was a son of a gun.
In fact, the whole vehicle was put together with what the assembly plants' had on their shelves. In that car I had a universal bearing on the drive shaft wear out. I had to buy two different "U-joints" to get it to fit as the bearing cups did not fit correctly.
One of my father's hunting buds helped me with getting it back on the road where the floor gear shift lever would not rattle away.

"one" not "on"

Heres the problem- we've given some bureaucrat the authority. Or, perhaps the ntsb or whomever is making these decisions has usurped the authority and are making these decisions to justify their existence.

I'd say we agree to the minimum standard. Lights, horn, indicators, wipers, mirrors are all that is needed for safe operation.

Everything else can be added in by you for your peace of mind, enhanced safety, or reduced insurance fees.

Congress should pass a law stating the minimum standard. The nhtsa should not be able to tax the public by forcing extra conveniences like cameras into every vehicle.

All that said, the American driving public has been conditioned to certain expectations. Im not sure market really exist for vehicles without anti lock breaks, power steering, seat belts or even air bags. Im not overly concerned that of we set thr minimum standard as above there'd be a ton of Uber basic vehicles rolling around.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Heres the problem- we've given some bureaucrat the authority. Or, perhaps the ntsb or whomever is making these decisions has usurped the authority and are making these decisions to justify their existence.

I'd say we agree to the minimum standard. Lights, horn, indicators, wipers, mirrors are all that is needed for safe operation.

Everything else can be added in by you for your peace of mind, enhanced safety, or reduced insurance fees.

Congress should pass a law stating the minimum standard. The nhtsa should not be able to tax the public by forcing extra conveniences like cameras into every vehicle.

All that said, the American driving public has been conditioned to certain expectations. Im not sure market really exist for vehicles without anti lock breaks, power steering, seat belts or even air bags. Im not overly concerned that of we set thr minimum standard as above there'd be a ton of Uber basic vehicles rolling around.

---

You can pay for those add ons.

Owlagdad said:

---

I asked my dad when I was a kid why he didn't turn key off at stoplight to save gas. He said, "cause it takes more gas to fire it up". This was 1961 thinking though.
My F150 has it,and finally I learned to disable it after I start it. Wife even does it if I forget. I want to get as much as I can out of those $300 batteries.

---

And starters and starter solenoids.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Did they ever demonstrate that it could save an appreciable amount of fuel in typical driving patterns?

---

Had a rental car for a week and it tracked how much fuel was saved by the auto off, so I left it on out of curiosity. At the end of the week it saved 0.05 gallons. That was going through about 20 red lights per day.

128 oz/gal * 0.05 gal = 6.4 oz

Half a can of coke over the course of ~ 100 start stops

Who?mikejones! said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Now, if they could get rid of back up cameras, blind spot warnings, auto stopping stop warnings, check the backseat pings, and other stupid requirements, we'd really be getting on

---

I'll admit - backup cameras are the tits. Especially when you are regularly hooking up a trailer by yourself. I have no problem with that feature sticking around at all.

---

I'd say 95% of people like backup cameras. Maybe 60% like blind spot warnings and auto stop warnings. 20% like backseat pings. .0001% like the auto off feature Zeldin is repealing.

---

The point is you should be able today decide if you want one or not.

It should not be forced onto you by the govt.

---

Correct

CDUB98 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

Depending on the vehicle, it's not just software. Like displacement on demand, or whatever it's called in the different makers.

---

The displacement on demand has 100% farked the GM 5.3L and 6.2L engine lifters. GM has been having lots of problems and THE number 1 reason I went back to get a Ferd over a GM.

---

How many taillights have YOU had stolen?

Not to get into automotive brand smack. The federal government has totally FUBARed the automotive industry in this country.

---

Not sure what that has to do with DoD screwing engines other than mandated fuel economy.

---

Where did I mention Department of Defense?


I was emphasizing a point you made earlier
..

Quote:

---

---

CDUB98 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Have a 2013 and '15 F150 in the household with 3.5 Ecoboost and have had to do rebuilds on both after about 130k costing around 5k

---

I have a 2013 with the same engine. 167k miles and zero issues with the cam phasors or turbos.

I'm beginning to feel like my truck is a unicorn though.

---

My son worked as a mechanic last Summer, yours is a unicorn for sure and honestly you may want to consider making a change because that rebuild is probably a matter of time.

---

Well, considering I ordered a new truck last week, same engine, I am making a change.

---

You should go to Vegas!

In all seriousness I loved that engine and the pickup until I didn't. I'd really think about how much past 130k you should go on the new one, though maybe they have figured it out.

DoD

Displacement on Demand

Who?mikejones! said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

---

What vehicle doesn't allow you to turn off auto-stop-start?

---

Im not aware of one that doesnt default to "on" every restart of you vehicle. That's different that permanently turning it off

---

I had a 2020 Volvo where I could permanently disable it with just a one-time button push.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Did they ever demonstrate that it could save an appreciable amount of fuel in typical driving patterns?

---

Of course not, but it made a bunch of people feelz good.

---

Like masks, plexiglass cashier windows and separation reminder floor stickers...

What's the carbon cost of engine starters burning out and being replaced at a statistically significant rate because of auto start/stop?

The Fife said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

The Fife said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

This was so ridiculous for so many obvious reasons but the one I hated the most, only when I was unlucky enough to drive one as a rental, is it was so damn disconcerting to have it sound like the engine died at every red light. It's such an uneasy feeling, especially in a rental, where you're already not familiar with your surroundings.

---

I'm permanently scarred from driving colossal POS cars that were older than me. Stalling out at a stoplight and not being able to start the car again is just about panic-inducing!

---

It was a feature, not a bug.

But, you have to admit, a lot of those old cars had character.

---

*car stalls*
pump gas 3 times, turn key
*no start*
pump pedal 1 time, turn key
*turns faster for a sec, no start*
---LIGHT CHANGES---
ohcraphcrapohcrap!!!
hold pedal to the floor, turn key
*car comes back to life, drive off quick and pretend that nothing happened!*

My F-100 still has character but I can't wait to swap from a carb and breaker points to EFI and ignition. I can handle the later but the former is just voodoo to me

---

Don't wait on replacing the points. A pertronix electronic ignition is $100 and <20 minutes. If your carb is in good shape, the ignition takes 90% of the personality out of the engine.

Bring back wing windows, and dimmer switch on floor.
Make sun roofs an option on a truck that may actually leave asphalt on a regular basis.
Make rubber mat interiors an option, not a special expensive upgrade.
When a rear camera can be viewed while driving, it will be worth having. You know those times when you hit the road with a trailer or something in the bed, and then wonder down the road if you latched trailer or secured that item in bed?

cecil77 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Disagree

---

Backup cameras save lives. (period)

Lane warning help prevent accidents.

In both cases it's not the owner/driver of the car that's being protected, but others outside of the car. These two requirements are not different than the requirement to have functioning brakes.

Now, if the roads were privately owned, the road owners could make what ever strictures they want. But the government owns the roads and "public safety", in this context is a valid governmental task.

---

They are significantly different. But you will never see that.

cecil77 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

MGS said:

---

Please include a rule that forces auto companies to offer a free software update to permanently remove this feature in existing vehicles.

---

This times a million!

---

What vehicle doesn't allow you to turn off auto-stop-start?

---

Many models don't have a feature that disables it - you have to turn it off every time you turn the key to start the vehicle up. My 2020 GMC Sierra was that way and it was annoying AF.

I get that is in jest...but, the point was determining what the minimum safety requirement should be.

So- lights, indicators, wipers, mirrors, maybe seat belts and airbags probably are all necessary at the to safely operate a vehicle at the bare minimum level. That is where the govt mandates should end, imo.

Back up cameras, blind spot indicators, auto turn off of engine, auto stopping, stopped obstacle warnings, look in rear reminder pings, auto lowering of volume until seat belt is buckled, et all, shouldn't be required. They should be optional upgrades that each consumer can add to the vehicle.

Otherwise, it's just a tax and additional barrier to using a public good.

Deerdude said:

---

Bring back wing windows, and dimmer switch on floor.
Make sun roofs an option on a truck that may actually leave asphalt on a regular basis.
Make rubber mat interiors an option, not a special expensive upgrade.
When a rear camera can be viewed while driving, it will be worth having. You know those times when you hit the road with a trailer or something in the bed, and then wonder down the road if you latched trailer or secured that item in bed?

---

Ball chillers too

And I can turn my rear and cargo camera on while driving on my truck. It isn't even a particularly new truck either.