Eric that was a wonderful dissertaion on problem solving....
Modular maintenence is always more expensive and highly less effective.
My bet is on the Starter drive gear being stuck on the flywheel and now it's
not got the butt to make it start.... but like you I'd have to isolate it
one item at a time....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Murray" <email@example.com>
To: "Steve Budde" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: No Start Update.
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:57:55PM -0600, Steve Budde wrote:
> > OK Folks, last time I was looking for a logic check. Now I'm baffled,
> > stumped, befuddled and stymied. My truck still won't start, I have
> > installed a new starter, battery cables, and battery. Yes, I know the
> > battery is good as it starts my Impala with the upgraded engine. All
> > contacts are clean and lubed with dialectic grease. The last time it
> > running, it was running just fine so I'm not suspecting any mechanical
> > difficulties. Where do I start??
> As Robert Pirsig says in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> (paraphrased): "now it's time to get serious and use the scientific
> In case you have forgotten, this means that youy come up with hypotheses
> and then tests to test those hypotheses. And write them down, both
> the hypothesees and the tests and their results.
> Also, I would recommend a technique that I developed working on bikes and
> honed while debugging software: devise tests that split up the problem
> into smaller and smaller pieces until you have discovered the part
> which is broken.
> An example in your case would have been to swap the known good starter
> the Impala to the truck. If the truck starts with it, then you know the
> is in the truck starter. If it doesn't, then you know that the starter
> isn't the problem, something else is.
> Then you try the solenoid, etc.
> When I do this I try to come up with tests that will split the
> problem space in half, more or less. Then I know which half of the system
> has the problem, and I can split that in half again. Once you have done
> that a couple times, you have a much smaller problem space and can start
> testing indiviual components, if you haven't already figured it out.
> The examples above don't work that way because I can't think of a way to
> this particular problem in half... doesn't mean that you can't.
> But the key to this technique is NOT to say "maybe its the ignition
> and test or replace that... it's to think of tests that will help narrow
> down where the problem is. Once you have done that, then you worry
> about what the problem might be. Making random guesses can often
> get lucky (or be based on prior experience), but when that fails, it's
> to get serious about finding out where the problem is instead of
> making stabs at it.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to email@example.com or try
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk