Weird Starting Problem/ Solution

Will someone else vote GA for this gentleman and give him the credit he deserves?

This problem is not limited to Ford. I have experienced it on older BMW's as well.

Assume that after 10 years, any chassis ground is suspect and replace it.

It was that connector on the ground of the fuel pump that had us slamming the hood. Right on the money.

Ed, your post has given rise in my mind to another question, one related to vehicle age, that hasn't been mentioned thus far. That question: would you see these faulty grounding connections you have mentioned as faults arising from design flaws (be it faulty engineering, materials, ...)? Or as a result of "good" engineering...in the sense that drive-ability is impaired (and continued driving without vehicle replacement is discouraged) before the potential for catastrophic failure due to vehicle age becomes to high?

I think this is a design philosophy issue. Automotive design philosophy is very much cost driven. In this ground, it is a simple low cost good, therefore you have to judge the engineering as "good", since it meets the design philosophy.

Most auto makers do not want cars to last 16 years, because it messes with sales of next years models (planned obsolescense).

Most owners do not hold a car more than 4 or 5 years, so are not worried about things wearing out over 15 years.

Some owners and mechanics want simple and easy to fix to keep the car operating longer.

I think this particular case is an example (of many) where "cost-out" engineering is bad practice. Here, we're dealing with driveability issues...the worst case, where a vehicle may not start due to "decay" over time, or even worse may (often times, suddenly) stall and shut down with no warning. I've had this happen several times during my old mechanic days.

Then, getting into engineering, and actually working in a "cost-out" situation (not automotive) I see the extremes that engineering staff is pushed by finance/purchasing staff to cut as much cost from a consumer product.

There are instances where it is acceptable; then, if the quality is maintained to an adequate level, and the cost-out doesn't involve risking consumer safety, then OK. However, there are certainly instances where one would be playing with fire (sometimes literally). For example, Ford with the little dinky wiring harnesses and switches for their cruise control systems which are well publicized to go up in flames with little or no notice, or the TFI ignition systems which will suddenly shut down going down the highway.

And, I am not picking on just Ford, or automotive engineering; these situations can be seen across the board throughout industry.

So, at times it's OK...sometimes, it's not. That's where the checks and balances have to come in to ensure that the things we build don't cause more harm than good.

But, let me also state that it can range from one extreme to another, regarding the checks and balances bit. Where I work, just a couple of years ago we could push through engineering changes relatively easily and fast...sometimes, too easily and fast. We got burned (figuratively) a few times with this method.

Now, I have a board that I must go in front of to propose and have test sequences approved for the process. The problem with this is the board is very conservative with its approvals and engineering changes that should take 6 to 9 months (in my opinion) often take twice as long. So, by trying to be proactive and prevent the previous problems, I deal with a bureaucratic maze to get my job done, which doesn't endear me with the bean counters.

I just want a fair, well timed process which considers the gravity of my requests for engineering changes and designs, and allows me to design products with an acceptable level of performance, depending upon the needs that need to be met.