Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

I thought for sure Mate must have been exagerating or something! How can they justify that cost!
You get a bit up close and personal to take that photo Willem?

Willem posted:

500mm telephoto lense....lol I stay far away from those big geckos....

The old punmps used to cost around $700 to repair. Probably $1000 now. But the newbies...wow!!!

Cheers

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

did you take that photo when you were out and about or was that at a park? See now that is why you don't leave your rubbish out at night at camp!

Willem posted:

Photo was taken across the Letaba River, in Kruger National Park, South Africa, in 1983.

Cheers

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

hahah!
yeh I (being a girl) have run out of petrol before in our old XD that didn't have a working fuel gauge and didn't need to do anything except fill up the tank.. I've never had an experience with a diesel, so if there is any differences between the fuels I wouldn't know about them.

Member - Phil G (SA) posted:

Its the same with any diesel motor - old ones too. But the older inline pumps probably tolerated a little better than the rotary pumps. The injection pump relies on the diesel fuel to provide lubrication. When you run it dry, its like running your motor without oil.

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

Ahh thankyou Phil! You just topped up my knowledge fountain for the evening!

Member - Phil G (SA) posted:

And petrol vehicles are not a lot better. Run the tanks dry and those electric in-tank pumps, which rely on the petrol for cooling, stuff up and they aren't cheap either.

Exploder posted:

You injectors also rely on diesel fuel for lubrication and cooling, about 80% of the fuel taken from the tank is used to cool, lubricate and keep air from the system, running any diesel dry is not good.

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

I agree with you Ken. The first thing I said to Mark when he was relaying what Mate said was 'If the vehicle is brand new then mitsu better wanna cough up'.
To which they did not and the owner of the vehicle had to wear the cost because he was the one that let the tank run empty.

goingplatinumcomau posted:

Hi Ken

Well said.

Regards John

Trevor R (QLD) posted:

Ken,

You sound like the bloke that drove his new Winnebago down the freeway, put it on cruise control and went down the back of the motorhome to make a coffee. When he rolled the Winnie he decided to sue Winnebago for damages because he was not told cruise control, is not auto pilot.

Since when in your life have you ever known a vehicle to run on air. Running without petrol just doesn't happen so why should someone blame someone else for their stupidity in running it dry. People should face up to the consequences when they do something wrong.

Regards, Trevor.

PS. I figure you are a troll looking for this response, so no sense typing back as you won't get anymore out of me.

gottabjoaken posted:

No, Trevor,
that is nonsense. You are mmaking a foolish (and urban myth) analogy. and why would you class my comments as a troll.
I discounted any particular manufacturer in the meaning of my comments.

It just ain't right that a fuel pump on a vehicle could be so severely damaged simply by running dry.

Sorry, but that just is not acceptable. The manufacturers should not release such a pump if it can't take a bit of a hiding.

It is not like running the engine without oil. - which however, without adequate education could also be the reason why there are warning lights and, on some vehicles, automatic shut down provisions.

Running out of fuel is considered to most drivers the world over, as a risk of inconvenience, not serious mechanical failure. Dielse drivers (ought to) know that they may need to bleed the fuel system - and that would be stated in the manual.

However, as I mentioned, IF it is strongly worded in the owners manual AND (for eg) inside the fuel filler flap, that running the tank dry would cause a serious mechanical failure, then, perhaps, with sufficient other owner education, it might be considered to be within the bounds of fair practice.

Hey, just think that this simple act could cause a 10 year old car to be a write-off.

Ken

Pezza (Bris) posted:

I know Trev won't be bothered, but I will.
Going by your analogy Ken there should be a big sign in front of the driving position to also let people know there is a risk of serious damage if the vehicle runs out of oil, same sign if run out of water, you say it's not the same with oil because there are warning lights, do new vehicles not have low fuel warning lights ?

"It just ain't right that a fuel pump on a vehicle could be so severely damaged simply by running dry.

Sorry, but that just is not acceptable."
Why ain't it just right ? Why is it not accectable ? Ever tried running your tyres without air and see how long they last ? No sign any where telling you not to do that is there ?

You say "The manufacturers should not release such a pump if it can't take a bit of a hiding." IMO running out of oil, water or fuel is not 'just' "a bit of a hiding".

"IF it is strongly worded in the owners manual AND (for eg) inside the fuel filler flap, that running the tank dry would cause a serious mechanical failure,"

Where, near the oil filler cap or dipstick does it state likewise regarding oil ?
"Driver education " What driver education ? People buy cars and they drive them, there is no "education" that goes along with it.
Most of us know about the oil or water situation because it is common knowledge proven to us by people that found out the hard way, the same way we are now finding out about the fuel pumps on modern technology engines via others finding out the hard way for us.

Seems to me that you're the type of person that specializes in finding ways to always blame others for your own incompetencies.
If you accept a bit of responsibility in vehicle ownership and regularly check oil, water, battery water level, clutch & brake fluid level, tyre pressures, fuel level etc then the above scenario should never happen and if it does, don't try to blame someone else for it.

Pezza

Ron George posted:

Pezza, give it a rest, you have contributed not one iota to the original debate, all we hear is this long winded diatribe that amounts to exactly zip, have you nothing better to do than try to cut people off at the knees with your meaningless jibber!!! I dare you to come up with a plausible reason as to why the fuel pump failed, which was pretty much the thrust of the original post. Cheers.

Pezza (Bris) posted:

Hi Ron,
Not sure exactly what your problem is and why I should even bother replying, but anyway, here goes...
"Meaningless Jibber" ? Coudn't have been too meaningless, it fired you up.
Is there a law somewhere that says I have to contribute to the original debate before I can make an follow up ?
If I wanted to contribute to the original thread I would've done it via a 'reply', I made my comment via a 'follow up' because I had something to say about Ken's comment, not the original thread.
I don't see anywhere in the original thread that is asking for a "plausible reason" as to why the fuel pump failed, all I see is a statement that may be of interest to some people that own diesels.
No where in the original thread did it ask anyone to come on and try to impress people with there self imposed knowledge on fuel pumps and try to give "plausable reasons" as to why they fail, so it seems your diatribe is as meaningless as mine :-)
Now be a nice lad and crawl back into your cave and leave me alone :-)

Cheers
Pezza

Ron George posted:

Arrrrr, good on ya Pezza, true to form, mate you`re so bloody predictable, you & your ilk... The "pedants" of this world will rise to the occasion every time someone throws you a little tit bit... I luvs yas all. And I ain`t going back to my cave, & no!!!... I won`t leave you alone, I`m havin to much fun. Cheers Ron.

obee posted:

many moons ago I read article that reported toyota leaving the factory at $5000 and retailing in Australia at $20,000. Mostly taxes and intemediate handlers in both countries. I reckon the same happens now except that our tax dept complains because Toyota takes all the profit on the way here and only leaves a small margin here upon which to apply tax. The dealers here make so little on a sale they have to make it up on services and spare parts.

Owen

The Landy posted:

I'm with you Stephen, they'll be heaps of problems that only cash will fix in the future.....that is why I went back to the future....

Good luck

Patrol22 posted:

$AUS10,000 for a new pump for 100 series 4.2 turbo deisel. Complete with gold embossed fittings.

Member - Stephen M (NSW) posted:

Hi Patrol, are you fair dinkum with that price ??? Thats bloody crazy. Regards Steve M

Member - Nick (TAS) posted:

Gee we sourced one for $1500 new.(pump only)

Member - Kiwi B posted:

Mmmmm, $10k and only 4 cylinder. How's the mighty V8 gunna get on??

Pete and Lez S.A. posted:

Why don't you just fill the tank when you get down to a 1/4 tank left? It's not rocket science.

Camoco posted:

While it's easy to say that and for the most part you are right, it's the 1 in 1000 situation that can cause this issue. Imagine someone borrows your vehicle that you completely understand the fuel consumption of, and they go for a trip on sand or tow your van (whatever) and the consumption goes harder than expected, while at the same time your gauge goes west. It would be easy to underestimate the consumption and bang, there goes your engine (provided the modern pump is that sensitive).

Rocket science isn't all that hard either. rocket mathematics (guidance) is another issue.

I understand this post is really about the small one-off but big cost breakdown. For everyday operation this just doesn't happen.

V8 Troopie posted:

I think Richard hit the nail on the head here.

When the fuel pump runs dry it tries to pump air - the motor stops, it wont run on air alone!
Ditto the injectors running dry.
So, on what facts exactly are the damage comments above based? A stationary fuel pump with air in the lines??
Klaus

Ron George posted:

Yeah you`re on the money there Richard... This has gotta be the biggest crock of... No fuel, errrr duh, engine stops. The pump isn`t "dry" either, there will be residue fuel left on all moving parts to adequately take care of lubrication. This is just a beat up to bring out the "chicken little's" of the world. I`m thinking if it were true ( which it ain`t) the manufacturer would have built in a fail safe system ; EG automatic engine shut down with minimal fuel in tank, to bloody easy. I reckon it`s a furphy started by Toyota or Nissan!!!!
Cheers Ron.

ross posted:

x3 It sounds like BS to me . The residue diesel in the pump will lubricate it for a few seconds more than adequately.
Ive seen engines run with no oil in them for few minutes with no noticable affects and there is no combustion taking place inside a fuel pump.

It sounds like the dealer just saved himself $5000 on a warranty claim by attributing it to running out of fuel.

Member - Kiwi Kia posted:

So what happens in a brand new engine on the production line that has never had fuel in the system. Do they pour fuel into the pump to prime it or do they just crank the engine till fuel comes through and lights the fires ?

If they just crank the engine to get the fuel through and if running dry damages the pump then the pump has been damaged before it leaves the factory !

Robin hood posted:

No there is a bleeding procedure just like any diesel engine that you are supposed to follow.
This applies to running out of fuel or a new engine assembly out of the box.
Part of this procedure is to be followed when changing fuel filters on service too.

Regards
Jason

Member - Kiwi Kia posted:

But that only bleeds up to the filter. You then slacken unions at the injectors and crank the engine which some people are sugesting is a no-no.

Robin hood posted:

Yes it bleeds upto the filter then there are several more steps we have to follow to ensure the rail is pressurised, then bleed the injectors and then repressurise the rail. Only then can we attempt to start the vehicle and if it doesnt fire up, repeat the whole procedure.
Also I know unless there is a minimum pressure achieved in the rail while cranking then the engine will not start.
Each manufacturer will have a slightly dfferent method of ensuring that fuel is present wherever it is required prior to start up. Im just talking from my personal experience on the brand I work for.

As for cracking the injector line, that is a big NO-NO!!! These common rail engines run at extremely high pressure(50Mpa at idle thru to 120Mpa at full power) to achieve the emission levels required. It is enough to pierce the skin and enter the blood stream if a line is cracked so it is in the repairers best interest to never open the system whilst running!!!

Regards
Jason

Member - Kiwi Kia posted:

Thanks Jason,
As you can see I have no experience with common rail technology :-)

gottabjoaken posted:

The response from the Mitsubishi Web site Query was as follows:

==============
We acknowledge recent receipt of your e-mail regarding the Mitsubishi
Pajero.

Please be advised that Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) do not
recommend that you run any vehicles fuel tank dry, however if you do and
the correct priming procedure is followed as per owners manual on page
6-8 there should be no reason for replacement of the fuel pump.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, may we suggest you contact
your nearest Mitsubishi Dealership

================

I believe from this response that there is no expectation that a fuel pump will be damaged by running dry.

Ken

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

yeh good point. They have made something in the vehicle to give you notification of low fuel, if you ignore that then obviously you will run out of fuel and logically then any damaged caused would be your own fault for ignoring the warning. Sounds fair enough to me, but like Ken(?) wrote earlier, maybe a good idea would be to also have a sticker or something rather visible sitiuated where you can see it with a warning to the potental problems that could be caused by running a diesel dry.
All who have had diesels before would obviously know what they are like but a first time diesel buyer may not know any different and assume it is the same as petrol.

The Landy posted:

Maybe they could do that, but then how many other warnings would they need to give for other parts that make up the vehicle. You could write a book of warnings that would most likely end up stating the obvious.......

The other problem associated with such warnings is that running it dry may not only affect the fuel pump, but injectors and a whole host of other items. You'd need to list them all otherwise they'd be open to people saying...well you only said it would affect the fuel pump. That's why they have a low fuel warning light.......

Running out of fuel in a city is absurd (and irresponsible) when you consider there is a service station almost every two-three kilometres these days. Run of fuel in the bush/outback and the cost a replacement pump might very well be the least of your problems.

Mark & Jo, S/side, Bris posted:

Good points Landy.

Member - Kiwi Kia posted:

If you are looking for maximum range and have duel fuel tanks then running the fuel down on one tank till the engine hesitates and then switching over is (I believe) the normal way of doing things.

Robin hood posted:

Even that way can invite trouble Kia, those few seconds of air in the system can be the start of cavitation or seizure.
Regards
Jason

Member - Kiwi Kia posted:

Hi Jason, I am not doubting you, just thought that this was the normal way of doing things. I have not (yet) had any problems and will be interested in other peoples comments.

Robin hood posted:

It was the "norm" wth the old style of injection systems, as the tolerances were much bigger so damage was less likely to occur. It is only on the common rail engines that everyone is having a rapid learning curve-I know we are at work lol, I spend my whole day dealing with remote breakdowns etc

Regards
Jason

Pete and Lez S.A. posted:

Don't understand why you would wait that late to swap tanks anyway.

The Landy posted:

Whoops....TD5 is $1,400, TDI is cheaper.

Ron George posted:

G/day Landy, mate it`s a beat up... the price of the pump might be right???? a $ or a few thou either way, I`ve a big Q over the $1000 labour bill???? just how long does it take for a tech to fit an injector pump????? I`d be very interested in the reply Ken gets back from Mitsubishi. Cheers Ron.

The Landy posted:

Hi Ron

Something wrong somewhere because an injector pump for a Pajero is around $1,500.

ross posted:

It kind of shoots the dealer's theory down in flames.LOL

I would be straight down there with a copy of this in hand and asking for proof that the pump running dry caused the problem.

Member - John (Vic) posted:

Thats from Mitsubishi, isn't the main line of this thread regarding Nissan's problem?

Whats needed is the same response from Nissan and Toyota for that matter.

ross posted:

Last I heard,Pajero's were made my Mitsubishi;)

Member - John (Vic) posted:

Sorry your right Ross, bloody thread was so long I forgot what vehicle the original post was about :-)
Maybe I should have just stayed in bed today?