GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
Math is a bitch when it doesn't go your way. I'm not arguing in any way, form or fashion that the EB is more reliable than the 5.3. What I am saying is that using Google as any type of indicator of reliability is poor at best. Now, if there was some type of report that showed the 3.5 EB was suffering 5% failure rates versus an industry standard of 1% (numbers are made up) than I would absolutely agree that the EB has problems.
Not defending the use of Google, but you can't say "math is a bitch when it doesn't go your way", when the math you use (in exaggeration, I hope) involves rating the number of incidents on two different constructions as the same or (constant) over time. That's a terrible way to extrapolate data and fundamentally flawed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
When you state "math is a bitch when it doesn't go your way", you imply that the math you used is correct, when in actuality, it has no more legitimacy as "google hits".

That is my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
Well, certainly, the one thing we do know here is that you absolutely do want to believe that it is true. But then, that isn't a surprise, and realistically you've really only served to prove my point, but then we all knew it to be true already anyway. This may or not be an accurate story, there's simply no way to know, and the reality that there have been issues with EB engines has nothing to do with that.
His conjecture is as good as yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
That was more or less my point.
I don't read anywhere where impala02 'absolutely wants to believe that (the failure) is true'. All he did was state that there was more information provided on another forum, in addition to the photographic evidence shown here.

This is not the usual "copy and paste" comment trolled on 48 forums. It may or may not be true. With what information has been provided, and the written demeanor of the OP, I find it difficult to dismiss arbitrarily as have you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
And I'll happily invite you to point out where I said I didn't want to believe it's true. Once again, you're just proving my point. As for the comments, if that meets your sniff test criteria be my guest, but being long winded and overly-detailed has never been a criteria I've see used to determine legitimacy. If that was the case Germeezy would be the King of 'truthiness'. I'm not saying it is true, I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying there's nothing to prove either out and that, on a GM website, a topic focused on bashing Ford is all but useless for obvious reasons.
Then you should have left it at that; however, you decided to read more into impala02's statement than what was there. You do it again with your "sniff test" comment. How can you possibly interpret "It may or may not be true" and "I find it difficult to dismiss it arbitrarily" = passing the sniff test? If anyone if reaching, it is you.

Your criticism of the OP for being long winded, your distractions over germeezy, and this being a GM enthusiast site, have no bearing on the FACT that you've painted in much of a blank picture with your own conspiracies about how we're all out to bash Ford, when that is just not true.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top