 | |
Re: Escalating garage costs...what can I do?
Cars Maintenance General car maintenance (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Escalating garage costs...what can I do? -
05-17-2007
, 10:12 AM
|
Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around. Ummm, no. First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably wouldn't have lasted six months or however long. |
by the same (original) fault is *far* higher than the probability that
two completely different faults occured within 6 months that by
coincidence resulted in an identical component failure.
Sorry, but I'll stick with Occums razor on this one.
Incidentally, the starter motor's current does *not* pass through the
ignition switch. The ignition switch may operate a relay (solenoid)
which switches the current to the starter motor. So if the garage are
wanting to replace the starter motor, I'd say they are either
incompetant or dodgy.
--
Cynic
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Excessive current through the starter motor I think is what they mean to say. Except there is absolutely no way the starter motor is wired directly through the switch - the thing would evaporate in a tenth of a second even with a normal starting current. Sounds like this guy has been spun a load of b*ll*cks by the garage. Yes, the main feed for the motor's direct from the battery, but the solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could easily burn the switch out. |
well).
--
Cynic
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Yes, the main feed for the motor's direct from the battery, but the solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could easily burn the switch out. The solenoid *is* a relay (and may or may not do other things as well). |
motor... Older stuff may well have had a remote solenoid, but I've not seen
one on anything made in the last few decades.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Cynic (cynic_999 (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Yes, the main feed for the motor's direct from the battery, but the solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could easily burn the switch out. The solenoid *is* a relay (and may or may not do other things as well). The solenoid is usually a (relatively) integral part of the starter motor... Older stuff may well have had a remote solenoid, but I've not seen one on anything made in the last few decades. |
been boat engines. And the one's I've worked on certainly do have a
separate solenoid.
--
Cynic
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 16 May 2007 19:31:26 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around. Ummm, no. First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably wouldn't have lasted six months or however long. I disagree. The probability that two identical failures were caused by the same (original) fault is *far* higher than the probability that two completely different faults occured within 6 months that by coincidence resulted in an identical component failure. Sorry, but I'll stick with Occums razor on this one. Incidentally, the starter motor's current does *not* pass through the ignition switch. The ignition switch may operate a relay (solenoid) which switches the current to the starter motor. So if the garage are wanting to replace the starter motor, I'd say they are either incompetant or dodgy. |
also forces the starter gear into the flywheel. A dodgy solenoid can easily
draw +10amps and it's fairly common to see smoke coming from the ignition
switch, you are thinking of old inertia starters. A pre engaged starter
solenoid would take a least 30mins to replace once the starter was removed,
and the actual starter is probably as shagged as the solenoid.
So if the "incompetant or dodgy" garage charged the customer to remove
/repair and refit the semi shagged starter, would they be doing him a favour
by not fitting a guaranteed new starter?
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 17 May 2007 15:32:35 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Cynic (cynic_999 (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Yes, the main feed for the motor's direct from the battery, but the solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could easily burn the switch out. The solenoid *is* a relay (and may or may not do other things as well). The solenoid is usually a (relatively) integral part of the starter motor... Older stuff may well have had a remote solenoid, but I've not seen one on anything made in the last few decades. Dunno. The only engines I've messed about with in recent years have been boat engines. And the one's I've worked on certainly do have a separate solenoid. |
Well if the cars been in the water then the starter motors going to be the
least of its issues.
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably wouldn't have lasted six months or however long. I disagree. The probability that two identical failures were caused by the same (original) fault is *far* higher than the probability that two completely different faults occured within 6 months that by coincidence resulted in an identical component failure. Sorry, but I'll stick with Occums razor on this one. Incidentally, the starter motor's current does *not* pass through the ignition switch. The ignition switch may operate a relay (solenoid) which switches the current to the starter motor. So if the garage are wanting to replace the starter motor, I'd say they are either incompetant or dodgy. This is a Pre engaged starter, the solenoid switches the battery power and also forces the starter gear into the flywheel. A dodgy solenoid can easily draw +10amps and it's fairly common to see smoke coming from the ignition switch, you are thinking of old inertia starters. |
solenoid and not the starter motor. The solenoid acts as a relay to
switch the actual starting current as I stated. The solenoid may well
operate the engagement mechanism as well.
No fault in the starter motor would cause excessive current through
the ignition switch, and I stand by what I said regarding the
probability of two different faults being a heck of a lot less than
there being one fault.
--
Cynic
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:26:00 +0100, "Fred" <Don't-ask (AT) hidden (DOT) co.us wrote: First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably wouldn't have lasted six months or however long. I disagree. The probability that two identical failures were caused by the same (original) fault is *far* higher than the probability that two completely different faults occured within 6 months that by coincidence resulted in an identical component failure. Sorry, but I'll stick with Occums razor on this one. Incidentally, the starter motor's current does *not* pass through the ignition switch. The ignition switch may operate a relay (solenoid) which switches the current to the starter motor. So if the garage are wanting to replace the starter motor, I'd say they are either incompetant or dodgy. This is a Pre engaged starter, the solenoid switches the battery power and also forces the starter gear into the flywheel. A dodgy solenoid can easily draw +10amps and it's fairly common to see smoke coming from the ignition switch, you are thinking of old inertia starters. No I am not. The current through the ignition switch is from the solenoid and not the starter motor. The solenoid acts as a relay to switch the actual starting current as I stated. The solenoid may well operate the engagement mechanism as well. No fault in the starter motor would cause excessive current through the ignition switch, and I stand by what I said regarding the probability of two different faults being a heck of a lot less than there being one fault. |
However, to all intents and purposes, the solenoid is part of the starter
motor.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
No I am not. The current through the ignition switch is from the solenoid and not the starter motor. The solenoid acts as a relay to switch the actual starting current as I stated. The solenoid may well operate the engagement mechanism as well. No fault in the starter motor would cause excessive current through the ignition switch, and I stand by what I said regarding the probability of two different faults being a heck of a lot less than there being one fault. However, to all intents and purposes, the solenoid is part of the starter motor. |
not possible to replace the solenoid (and engagement mechanism if
applicable) without needing to replace the entire starter motor.
But that's beside my main point, which was that it is far more likely
that the reason for the original ignition switch failure was the same
as the reason for the second failure than the probability that they
were caused by two entirely separate faults.
A poster suggested that the first fault must have been different
because excessive current would cause a failure in a very short period
of time. I disagree completely, because the length of time that an
ignition switch will last in overload depends upon how serious the
overload is, and that is unknown. If the solenoid were shorted out, I
can believe that the ignition switch would fail almost immediately -
but the solenoid was still working so it was obviously not as bad as a
dead short.
--
Cynic
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.