Quote Originally Posted by trbankii View Post
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut



So, as mentioned, a certain number of people carry a spare PMD. Should they be going through and replacing the switches, sensors, connectors, and such? And, if those are the actual problem, why does a new PMD rectify the situation - at least for some period of time?
Fault tolerance: Durability.

I think the underlying cause(s) are rarely identified, let alone corrected. A more "durable" component will often continue under the same conditions while a less durable component will fail earlier. Stanadyne's (and most other's) solution, albeit hardly a solution, wasn't/isn't to correct causal conditions, and it shouldn't be. Stanadyne answered GM's requirements. The system was designed and tested in a laboratory environment (to include prototype and test vehicles). The system was then applied to a flawed practical environment, and left to the random environmental affects of the public consumer. The two systems (the fuel injection system, and the vehicle chassis), are incompatible in practice, but it worked often enough to be called a success and marketed to the consumer. Bean counters caused the problem. Bean counters continue the problem. It is us diehard fanboys who tolerate their ineptitude.

Should all the (supposed) causal components be replaced or upgraded? I dunno. How are we to know which components, even when new, are marginal in performance, and how many and which of the system components need to be marginal before we create the perfect storm that leads to inevitable failure?