On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 13:14:14 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 7:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> > On 9/01/2022 1:10 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> >
> >>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
> >>> with "cheap replacement chains".
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....
> >
> > Maybe Jerky can put up his evidence to show where they were actually
> > falling over at 40 thousand km's from new?
> As soon as you post evidence of your qualifications Darren.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Why no comment on:
* Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements* *....
Did U not understand the statement W'OT..??

On 10/01/2022 4:09 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 10/1/22 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:

>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>>> life.
>>
>> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
>
> Not at all Keith. They normally wouldn't last till 100,000 but quite a
> few failed as low as 40,000 km. Getting them *over* 100k was the real
> trick.

How the fuck would you know, shit-fer-brains, You hung up the tools
nearly 30 years ago!!!

My Navara was flawless, except for one error code that dissapeared.
100,000 klms on the clock, nearly 10 years old, and not a drama. NO
timing chain issues. They were cured more than 12 years ago, from
memory in the second iteration of the YD25 engine. And 4 *real* nissan
mechanics will vouch for it. Want their phone numbers, shit fer brains??

I can speak from experience, as an owner. REAL experience, not some
dreamt up "transferred experience" . You, a spineless fucking google
sponge? FOAD. Quickly. Please.

On 10/1/22 4:44 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>>> life.
>>
>> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
>
> Lol :) Just a little bit :) Standard fare I'm afraid. When fairytale one
> doesn't work on you, they'll move onto version two, like they're doing
> here with this ridiculous nonsense.
>
> I don't know anyone *anywhere* who has ever declared a timing chain to
> be a lifelong component, and to argue that it should last the life of
> the engine because it's not a regular service item is complete lunacy.

Get it right, the *service life* of the engine. The service life is
different to the total life of the engine. The chain will need to be
replaced at engine overhaul time, done heaps of them. In some case you
don't find excessive wear but you see it as prudent to replace the
chain, tensioner and guides at overhaul because you know it may not see
another full service life interval.

> Head gaskets aren't regular service items either, but many engines go
> through them long before the engine has seen the end of it's days.

We aren't talking about the end of the engine's days, we are referring
to that part of the engine's life up to the first overhaul. Why do you
persist in shifting goalposts?
>
> I have no idea what a "useful service life" of an engine is as the only
> "service life" I know of is a regular one where an engine does it's job
> as expected, and it's difficult to imagine what a "useless" service life
> would actually be.

Just look at *your own* service life. That's about as *useless* as one
gets. Anyway, I was sure your English comprehension was poor, thanks for
proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Anyway, the timing chain on a Morris Marina OHC engine is good for
200,000+ kilometres. Even the guides and tensioner weren't known for
issues and chain stretch was rare. For a 70s engine, that wasn't bad,
especially given the length of the chain as an OHC engine. That a Nissan
*diesel* engine can't reliably get past 100,000 klms before its timing
chain gives up the ghost on post 2000 models is simply pathetic.
>
> Engine service life is dependent on many things, and it can be long or
> short. Components wear out or fail for whatever reason, and *none* of
> them are "set for life". Camshafts wipe lobes. Lifters fail to pump up
> or lose their hardness. Oil pumps suffer from excessive clearance and
> fail to provide adequate pressure, piston rings break, pistons split
> skirts, valve springs go off. Valve guide seals fail. The list is
> comprehensive, and *all* of these things can happen *long* before an
> engine has seen it's final days.
>
> To suggest that a timing chain shouldn't need to be replaced before an
> engine itself needs to be replaced is inexperience writ large.

You really like to bang on about experience, don't you? It's the only
card left for you to play since your lack of qualifications has been
proven. But what *experience* did you really have Darren? As a
shitkicker TA in a workshop? That's the best you could manage as an
unqualified person in the trade.

Anyway, getting back to *reality*. the service life of an engine is
typically considered to be that time of operation up until the first
overhaul. The first overhaul was typically when the engine required
rings, bearings and, possibly, a rebore/resleeve. Some don't make the
grade, that is to be expected because the service life is *extremely
variable* and maintenance the same. If you think this is not the case,
then explain why *timing belts* have a definite service interval,
between 60,000 & 100,000 kms, as specified in the service schedule, but
timing chains do not. Like all the other items in your list above, you
replace them *if* they go faulty or *when* overhauling the engine. All
of those items will show *symptoms* telling you something is amiss. Of
course, given your lack of training, you probably wouldn't be able to
diagnose them.
>
>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
>
> Yeah, ask Keith. But before you do, why don't you ask this goalpost
> shifting fuckatrd to post the cites of what he's talking about so we can
> see *exactly* what was said at the time and not have to rely on his
> sketchy fairytale telling :)

You would know all about sketchy fairytale telling, eh Darren. DLI gave
you special dispensation, waved their magic wand, and you were instantly
a qualified mechanic. The DLI must have been the magic fairy too, they
managed to resurrect your *cancelled apprenticeship* from the *dead*.
Hey, that's worthy of inclusion in the bible! Hahahhahahhaha

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/01/2022 3:09 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 10/1/22 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>> <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is
>>>>>>>>> due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
>>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>
>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>>> life.
>>
>> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
>
> Not at all Keith. They normally wouldn't last till 100,000 but quite a
> few failed as low as 40,000 km.

Cite?

> Getting them *over* 100k was the real
> trick.
>
> The Jeep engine of around 2008-2010 was a classic case of shit happening
> before they got to 100k. A few mods straight after you bought them new
> would see them right until 200k. Well known in Jeep circles.
>>
>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>> <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
>>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
>>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
>>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
>>>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
>>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
>>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
>>>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
>>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
>>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>>> service life.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
>>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>>
>>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
>>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
>>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons
>>> Toyotas are popular - reliability.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
>> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
>> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
>> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
>
>
> a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
> up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
>
Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)

On 10/1/22 7:18 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>> <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
>>>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
>>>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
>>>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
>>>>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
>>>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
>>>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K
>>>>>>>>>> from new.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when
>>>>>>>>> they were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed
>>>>>>>>> replacing at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an
>>>>>>>>> appalling track record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
>>>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump
>>>>>>>> drive chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early
>>>>>>>> life failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
>>>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of
>>>>> the engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>>>> service life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another
>>>>> that had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>>>
>>>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
>>>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
>>>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the
>>>> reasons Toyotas are popular - reliability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
>>> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
>>> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
>>> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
>>
>>
>> a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
>> up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
>>
> Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)
>
>
He didn't get to be a multi-millionaire by profligate spending.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 23:31:36 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notg...@happen.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that
> >>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen. Far to
> >>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
> >>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
> >>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
> >>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
> >>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
> >>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
> >>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
> >>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
> >>>> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at
> >>>> around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track
> >>>> record.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
> >>>> see for yourself.
> >>>
> >>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
> >>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
> >>> rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
> >>> cheap third party chains.
> >>>
> >>
> >> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
> >> with "cheap replacement chains".
> >
> > That is not what the company in my link are saying
> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service life.
>
> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your mate
> why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that needed
> chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had far worse
> failures and earlier.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You`re the one making the noise, *YOU* ask him.

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 16:20:18 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/1/22 2:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
> > On 8/01/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
> >>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
> >>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is
> >>>>> nothing new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in
> >>>>> modern cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has
> >>>>> had issues with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and
> >>>>> others, have had problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes
> >>>>> have proven less than stellar while virtually everyone who has made
> >>>>> a DSG style gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had
> >>>>> *many* problems with their V6 engines not the least of which was
> >>>>> massive oil consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known
> >>>>> for their head gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued*
> >>>>> with problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to
> >>>> a 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
> >>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
> >>> head gasket issue.
> >>
> >> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
> >> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
> >
> >
> > The 2.5L engines are renowned for head gasket issues.
> Indeed they are.
>
> https://sunwestautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DSC_0478-scaled.jpg
>
> This pic pretty much shows why some blow head gaskets and some dont.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chalk and cheese *engine design*.

>
> Note how the cylinders are *restrained* in the horizontal plane but are
> free in the vertical plane. Anyone who has heated a ring of steel knows
> what happens - it expands. The cylinder *top* will do the same but it is
> constrained in the horizontal so movement will be limited. All expansion
> will be directed to the vertical plane. While it isn't a lot of
> movement, over time it chafes away at the gasket through repeated heat
> cycling, short runs being worse than long continuous runs of course.
>
> What makes matters worse is they tried to fit the larger cylinder of the
> 2.5 into the space of the 2.0 cylinders with commensurate close
> siamesing of the cylinders. That leads to issues with coolant
> circulation and localised overheating problems. You really don't need
> that if you already have created a head gasket chafing issue.
>
> WRX engines don't blow head gaskets - even if they are 2.5 litre?
> Easy to see why, a couple of links to WRX blocks below;
>
> https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1252.jpg?20210309044458
>
> https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1255.jpg?20210309044426
>
>
> Closed decks, makes a huge difference to that head gasket as expansion
> is under much better control.
> >
> > Subaru in general had plenty of common issues over the years I worked
> > for them.
> Why am I not surprised
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supposedly a treatise on block design 101 from ol' shitfer.......Who were you trying to impress with that bowl full of the most basic basics?. Maybe felix? or even ticcy? (Since he knows not about windscreen construction, could be block design is beyond him also).

> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 18:35:25 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 10/1/22 4:44 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 10/01/2022 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> >>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> >>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
> >>> life.
> >>
> >> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
> >
> > Lol :) Just a little bit :) Standard fare I'm afraid. When fairytale one
> > doesn't work on you, they'll move onto version two, like they're doing
> > here with this ridiculous nonsense.
> >
> > I don't know anyone *anywhere* who has ever declared a timing chain to
> > be a lifelong component, and to argue that it should last the life of
> > the engine because it's not a regular service item is complete lunacy.
> Get it right, the *service life* of the engine. The service life is
> different to the total life of the engine. The chain will need to be
> replaced at engine overhaul time, done heaps of them. In some case you
> don't find excessive wear but you see it as prudent to replace the
> chain, tensioner and guides at overhaul because you know it may not see
> another full service life interval.
> > Head gaskets aren't regular service items either, but many engines go
> > through them long before the engine has seen the end of it's days.
> We aren't talking about the end of the engine's days, we are referring
> to that part of the engine's life up to the first overhaul. Why do you
> persist in shifting goalposts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your buddy ticcy said 'The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>> engine'

> >
> > I have no idea what a "useful service life" of an engine is as the only
> > "service life" I know of is a regular one where an engine does it's job
> > as expected, and it's difficult to imagine what a "useless" service life
> > would actually be.
> Just look at *your own* service life. That's about as *useless* as one
> gets. Anyway, I was sure your English comprehension was poor, thanks for
> proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nup, youse was whupped boi.... :):):)

>
> Anyway, the timing chain on a Morris Marina OHC engine is good for
> 200,000+ kilometres.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To bad the car has rusted away...

Even the guides and tensioner weren't known for
> issues and chain stretch was rare. For a 70s engine, that wasn't bad,
> especially given the length of the chain as an OHC engine. That a Nissan
> *diesel* engine can't reliably get past 100,000 klms before its timing
> chain gives up the ghost on post 2000 models is simply pathetic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a certain someone didn`t own one, you would not even mention it. Let alone bring up ancient history.
> >
> > Engine service life is dependent on many things, and it can be long or
> > short. Components wear out or fail for whatever reason, and *none* of
> > them are "set for life". Camshafts wipe lobes. Lifters fail to pump up
> > or lose their hardness. Oil pumps suffer from excessive clearance and
> > fail to provide adequate pressure, piston rings break, pistons split
> > skirts, valve springs go off. Valve guide seals fail. The list is
> > comprehensive, and *all* of these things can happen *long* before an
> > engine has seen it's final days.
> >
> > To suggest that a timing chain shouldn't need to be replaced before an
> > engine itself needs to be replaced is inexperience writ large.
> You really like to bang on about experience, don't you? It's the only
> card left for you to play since your lack of qualifications has been
> proven. But what *experience* did you really have Darren? As a
> shitkicker TA in a workshop? That's the best you could manage as an
> unqualified person in the trade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No shit?. No *bit of paper*? Check out my poast of a couple of hours ago.. *I* have done very well, sans ANY *formal* qualifications...(Excepting a wallet full of licences and permits etc. Now Theres a wee bait for ya. )
>
> Anyway, getting back to *reality*. the service life of an engine is
> typically considered to be that time of operation up until the first
> overhaul. The first overhaul was typically when the engine required
> rings, bearings and, possibly, a rebore/resleeve. Some don't make the
> grade, that is to be expected because the service life is *extremely
> variable* and maintenance the same. If you think this is not the case,
> then explain why *timing belts* have a definite service interval,
> between 60,000 & 100,000 kms, as specified in the service schedule, but
> timing chains do not. Like all the other items in your list above, you
> replace them *if* they go faulty or *when* overhauling the engine. All
> of those items will show *symptoms* telling you something is amiss. Of
> course, given your lack of training, you probably wouldn't be able to
> diagnose them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
O goalposts, where art thou. HAhahaha...
> >
> >>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
> >>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
> >>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
> >>> had far worse failures and earlier.
> >
> > Yeah, ask Keith. But before you do, why don't you ask this goalpost
> > shifting fuckatrd to post the cites of what he's talking about so we can
> > see *exactly* what was said at the time and not have to rely on his
> > sketchy fairytale telling :)
> You would know all about sketchy fairytale telling, eh Darren. DLI gave
> you special dispensation, waved their magic wand, and you were instantly
> a qualified mechanic. The DLI must have been the magic fairy too, they
> managed to resurrect your *cancelled apprenticeship* from the *dead*.
> Hey, that's worthy of inclusion in the bible! Hahahhahahhaha
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 19:18:38 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> > On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
> >>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that these
> >>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen. Far to
> >>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
> >>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
> >>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
> >>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
> >>>>>>>>>> reliable.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
> >>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
> >>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
> >>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
> >>>>>>>>> new.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
> >>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
> >>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
> >>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
> >>>>>>>> track record.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
> >>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
> >>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
> >>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
> >>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
> >>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> >>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> >>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
> >>>> service life.
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
> >>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
> >>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
> >>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
> >>>>
> >>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
> >>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
> >>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons
> >>> Toyotas are popular - reliability.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
> >> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
> >> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
> >> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
> >
> >
> > a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
> > up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
> >
> Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, *that* statement is worthy of a *D`OH*. <FBG>

On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 20:39:02 UTC+11, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 16:20:18 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> > On 9/1/22 2:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
> > > On 8/01/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > >> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> > >>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
> > >>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
> > >>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
> > >>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is
> > >>>>> nothing new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in
> > >>>>> modern cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has
> > >>>>> had issues with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and
> > >>>>> others, have had problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes
> > >>>>> have proven less than stellar while virtually everyone who has made
> > >>>>> a DSG style gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had
> > >>>>> *many* problems with their V6 engines not the least of which was
> > >>>>> massive oil consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known
> > >>>>> for their head gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued*
> > >>>>> with problems.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to
> > >>>> a 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
> > >>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
> > >>> head gasket issue.
> > >>
> > >> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
> > >> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
> > >
> > >
> > > The 2.5L engines are renowned for head gasket issues.
> > Indeed they are.
> >
> > https://sunwestautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DSC_0478-scaled.jpg
> >
> > This pic pretty much shows why some blow head gaskets and some dont.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Chalk and cheese *engine design*.
> >
> > Note how the cylinders are *restrained* in the horizontal plane but are
> > free in the vertical plane. Anyone who has heated a ring of steel knows
> > what happens - it expands. The cylinder *top* will do the same but it is
> > constrained in the horizontal so movement will be limited. All expansion
> > will be directed to the vertical plane. While it isn't a lot of
> > movement, over time it chafes away at the gasket through repeated heat
> > cycling, short runs being worse than long continuous runs of course.
> >
> > What makes matters worse is they tried to fit the larger cylinder of the
> > 2.5 into the space of the 2.0 cylinders with commensurate close
> > siamesing of the cylinders. That leads to issues with coolant
> > circulation and localised overheating problems. You really don't need
> > that if you already have created a head gasket chafing issue.
> >
> > WRX engines don't blow head gaskets - even if they are 2.5 litre?
> > Easy to see why, a couple of links to WRX blocks below;
> >
> > https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1252.jpg?20210309044458
> >
> > https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1255.jpg?20210309044426
> >
> >
> > Closed decks, makes a huge difference to that head gasket as expansion
> > is under much better control.
> > >
> > > Subaru in general had plenty of common issues over the years I worked
> > > for them.
> > Why am I not surprised
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Supposedly a treatise on block design 101 from ol' shitfer.......Who were you trying to impress with that bowl full of the most basic basics?. Maybe felix? or even ticcy? (Since he knows not about windscreen construction, could be block design is beyond him also).
Addendum: Head gasket chafing?? more to do with combustion fluids lying agin the gasket in a shut down engine.
> > --
> > Xeno
> >
> >
> > Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> > (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/01/2022 9:13 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 18:35:25 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>> We aren't talking about the end of the engine's days, we are referring
>> to that part of the engine's life up to the first overhaul. Why do you
>> persist in shifting goalposts?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Your buddy ticcy said 'The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>>> engine'

Not hard to see where the goalpost shifting is going on here.

Hmmm. Must be time for another incredibly long winded and completely
irrelevant waffle about drum brake operation that has nothing whatsoever
to do with the utterly nonsensical idea of trying to simulate the feel
of an unboosted brake system by disconnecting the vacuum supply on a
boosted system....

>> Anyway, the timing chain on a Morris Marina OHC engine is good for
>> 200,000+ kilometres.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To bad the car has rusted away...

Lol :) The rest of the engine would be long dead as well :)

> Even the guides and tensioner weren't known for
>> issues and chain stretch was rare. For a 70s engine, that wasn't bad,
>> especially given the length of the chain as an OHC engine. That a Nissan
>> *diesel* engine can't reliably get past 100,000 klms before its timing
>> chain gives up the ghost on post 2000 models is simply pathetic.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If a certain someone didn`t own one, you would not even mention it. Let alone bring up ancient history.

Again, it's an issue that occurred *long* after he "retired hurt",
meaning his *only* knowledge of it comes from Google....

>> Anyway, getting back to *reality*. the service life of an engine is
>> typically considered to be that time of operation up until the first
>> overhaul. The first overhaul was typically when the engine required
>> rings, bearings and, possibly, a rebore/resleeve. Some don't make the
>> grade, that is to be expected because the service life is *extremely
>> variable* and maintenance the same. If you think this is not the case,
>> then explain why *timing belts* have a definite service interval,
>> between 60,000 & 100,000 kms, as specified in the service schedule, but
>> timing chains do not. Like all the other items in your list above, you
>> replace them *if* they go faulty or *when* overhauling the engine. All
>> of those items will show *symptoms* telling you something is amiss. Of
>> course, given your lack of training, you probably wouldn't be able to
>> diagnose them.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
> O goalposts, where art thou. HAhahaha...

*Jesus* this moron waffles on with some utter shit. What the fuck does
timing belt service schedule recommendations have to do with whether an
engine "makes the grade" with regards to reconditioning? :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/01/2022 6:21 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 4:09 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 10/1/22 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>>> service life.
>>>
>>> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
>>
>> Not at all Keith. They normally wouldn't last till 100,000 but quite a
>> few failed as low as 40,000 km. Getting them *over* 100k was the real
>> trick.
>
> How the fuck would you know, shit-fer-brains, You hung up the tools
> nearly 30 years ago!!!

Longer than that. He reckons he went into teacher training in 1981 if I
remember correctly, meaning he last worked on a car for a living before
Bob Hawke was Prime Minster :) He spent the following 20 years walking
around wearing a grey smock teaching antiquated automotive practices to
uninterested kids who probably knew more about the game than he ever did.

Man, that *must* have been a rewarding experience :)

> My Navara was flawless, except for one error code that dissapeared.
> 100,000 klms on the clock, nearly 10 years old, and not a drama. NO
> timing chain issues. They were cured  more than 12 years ago, from
> memory in the second iteration of the YD25 engine. And 4 *real* nissan
> mechanics will vouch for it. Want their phone numbers, shit fer brains??

Lol :)

Mine's been perfect, and the two or three I know personally have also
been fault free. That doesn't mean they're immune to problems and no one
is suggesting they are, but if you listen to this clueless fuckwit an
his idiot clog wearing man Friday they'll have you believing the things
have a 100% failure rate.

> I can speak from experience, as an owner. REAL experience, not some
> dreamt up "transferred experience" . You, a spineless fucking google
> sponge? FOAD. Quickly. Please.

Yep. Best thing he could do not only for the rest of the world but for
his own integrity would be to find a quiet corner somewhere and die
without annoying anyone.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/1/22 10:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 9:13 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 18:35:25 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> We aren't talking about the end of the engine's days, we are referring
>>> to that part of the engine's life up to the first overhaul. Why do you
>>> persist in shifting goalposts?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Your buddy ticcy said 'The original chains are supposed to last the
>> life of the
>>>>> engine'
>
> Not hard to see where the goalpost shifting is going on here.
>
> Hmmm. Must be time for another incredibly long winded and completely
> irrelevant waffle about drum brake operation that has nothing whatsoever
> to do with the utterly nonsensical idea of trying to simulate the feel
> of an unboosted brake system by disconnecting the vacuum supply on a
> boosted system....

Well, that was where *you* shifted goalposts and obviously didn't
understand the technical detail. Unsurprising for a person like you who
didn't even meet the *minimum educational requirement* to enter an
apprenticeship.
>
>>> Anyway, the timing chain on a Morris Marina OHC engine is good for
>>> 200,000+ kilometres.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   To bad the car has rusted away...
>
> Lol :) The rest of the engine would be long dead as well :)

Nope, that's where you're dead wrong. The E Series engines were the best
engines of the lot. The cars would fall apart round the engine but the
engine would keep on keeping on.
>
>>   Even the guides and tensioner weren't known for
>>> issues and chain stretch was rare. For a 70s engine, that wasn't bad,
>>> especially given the length of the chain as an OHC engine. That a Nissan
>>> *diesel* engine can't reliably get past 100,000 klms before its timing
>>> chain gives up the ghost on post 2000 models is simply pathetic.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> If a certain someone didn`t own one, you would not even mention it.
>> Let alone bring up ancient history.
>
> Again, it's an issue that occurred *long* after he "retired hurt",
> meaning his *only* knowledge of it comes from Google....
>

To be sure, no one *I know* is stupid enough to *own* a Navara.

>
> *Jesus* this moron waffles on with some utter shit. What the fuck does
> timing belt service schedule recommendations have to do with whether an
> engine "makes the grade" with regards to reconditioning? :)

Nothing to do with making the grade with regard to reco. The service
life of an engine is that part from new until its first overhaul. FWIW,
these days, if the car is not a piece of crap like a Navara, the engine
will last about as long as the rest of the car - and then you toss it
all in Sims direction. Navaras arrive at Sims prematurely.

BTW, did you know the design life of the Navara engine was 300k klms?
Such a pity the engines barely make it to half that before they self
destruct in the timing chain department, a process that, it has to be
said, takes out the engine by making it an uneconomic repair. Do you
know why? Accountants Darren, they *cheapened* the engine, unfortunately
in a critical area.

150k to self destruction? Hmmmm, now I see the reasoning behind the two
Navara owners getting shed of their beasts before that time. Makes a lot
of sense. And my Toyota will just keep on running to 300k and beyond!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/1/22 10:15 pm, Noddy wrote:

>
> Yep. Best thing he could do not only for the rest of the world but for
> his own integrity would be to find a quiet corner somewhere and die
> without annoying anyone.

Wow, the Nissan owners are such a sensitive bunch. Not surprising
really, having bought a turkey and now (seeking to) offload it before
the inevitable happens and it self destructs or, as John Cadogen would
put it, "does poopies in its trousers".

Hilarious!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/01/2022 8:38 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 23:31:36 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:

>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your mate
>> why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that needed
>> chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had far worse
>> failures and earlier.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You`re the one making the noise, *YOU* ask him.

Well, he can but given that I won't see it unless it gets echoed by
someone else I'll take this oportunity. I presume the whinging twat is
talking about the VZ-VE Commodore timing chain issue and relating that
to the Nissan YD25 chain problem, and if he is then I'll take a moment
to correct his bullshit here.

In the first instance, I've never "defended" Nissan for any of their
faults and they need to be dragged over the coals for treating their
customers like mugs just like anyone else does. In the second instance,
the chain stretch issue affecting the early Alloytec engines was known
by Holden by the time the engines had been in service for around 3
years, and claiming that the problem never occurred until around the 170
thousand mark is pure fantasy :)

Holden had a fix out for the problem by 2008, and and most cars were
starting to see the fault appear just after they'd reached the end of
their warranty period, where Holden dealers would quite happily treat
their loyal customers like morons and charge them 3 thousand bucks to
fix a design fault that should never have existed in the first place.

Nissan were no better, and they *both* should have fixed these problems
for free.

At least Nissan sorted the YD25 and it went on to be a good engine. The
Alloytec remained an asthmatic oil burning cunt of a thing for the rest
of it's life.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/01/2022 6:07 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 21:11:40 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>>> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
>>> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
>> I wasn't thinking that far back. The only thing I can recall doing on
>> one of those early model Subarus was driveshafts. That must have been
>> back in the 80s. Anyway, wet liners are a pain in the arse to work with.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Here he is showing his lack of experience *again*. (Still?) From a mechanics POV wet liners are *much* easier to remove and replace than dry`s...

Yep. Piece of piss. He has absolutely no idea......

> However, I can see that someone with *book learning* being the only string to his bow might think? otherwise. (Could well apply to windscreen novices as well.)

That seems to be the FLC's biggest problem: Over qualified and under
experienced :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/1/22 10:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 6:07 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 21:11:40 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
>>>> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went
>>>> away.
>>> I wasn't thinking that far back. The only thing I can recall doing on
>>> one of those early model Subarus was driveshafts. That must have been
>>> back in the 80s. Anyway, wet liners are a pain in the arse to work with.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>   Here he is showing his lack of experience *again*. (Still?) From a
>> mechanics POV wet liners are *much* easier to remove and replace than
>> dry`s...
>
> Yep. Piece of piss. He has absolutely no idea......
>
>> However, I can see that someone with *book learning* being the only
>> string to his bow might think? otherwise. (Could well apply to
>> windscreen novices as well.)
>
> That seems to be the FLC's biggest problem: Over qualified and under
> experienced :)
>
Ah Darren, we didn't have to fake our qualifications and experience.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/01/2022 7:18 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>> <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
>>>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
>>>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
>>>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
>>>>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
>>>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before
>>>>>>>>>>> 1st service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K
>>>>>>>>>> from new.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when
>>>>>>>>> they were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed
>>>>>>>>> replacing at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an
>>>>>>>>> appalling track record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing
>>>>>>>>> chain and see for yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have
>>>>>>>> heard of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel
>>>>>>>> pump drive chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to
>>>>>>>> early life failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
>>>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of
>>>>> the engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>>>> service life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another
>>>>> that had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>>>
>>>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
>>>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all,
>>>> Toyota chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of
>>>> the reasons Toyotas are popular - reliability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
>>> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
>>> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
>>> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
>>
>>
>> a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a
>> beat up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
>>
> Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)
>
>

LOL

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On 10/01/2022 9:16 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 19:18:38 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>> On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen. Far to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
>>>>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
>>>>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
>>>>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
>>>>>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
>>>>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
>>>>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>>>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>>>>> service life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>>>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>>>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
>>>>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
>>>>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
>>>>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons
>>>>> Toyotas are popular - reliability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
>>>> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
>>>> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
>>>> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
>>>
>>> a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
>>> up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
>>>
>> Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Now, *that* statement is worthy of a *D`OH*. <FBG>

99.99% of your statements aren't worth anything. ie. they're worthless

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:44:08 +1100, Noddy wrote:

>
> Yeah, ask Keith. But before you do, why don't you ask this goalpost
> shifting fuckatrd to post the cites of what he's talking about so we can
> see *exactly* what was said at the time and not have to rely on his
> sketchy fairytale telling :)

You read it, but you just don't believe it.
Fraudster demanding proof. Amazing.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 10/01/2022 12:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>
>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>
>>
>>
>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>> life.
>
> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little
>

Not at all, 70,000km from your one link already proves what I stated is
correct. 70,000km falls between 40,000 to 100,000 km's which is what I
said. That's early failure by any standard.

Your strawman never had any legs.

>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that
>> needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had
>> far worse failures and earlier.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On Tuesday, 11 January 2022 at 00:55:00 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 9:16 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 19:18:38 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 10/01/2022 1:18 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>> On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen. Far to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
> >>>>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reliable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
> >>>>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
> >>>>>>>>>>> new.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
> >>>>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
> >>>>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
> >>>>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
> >>>>>>>>>> track record.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
> >>>>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
> >>>>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
> >>>>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
> >>>>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
> >>>>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
> >>>>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
> >>>>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> >>>>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> >>>>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
> >>>>>> service life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
> >>>>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
> >>>>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
> >>>>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
> >>>>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
> >>>>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons
> >>>>> Toyotas are popular - reliability.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
> >>>> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
> >>>> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
> >>>> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.
> >>>
> >>> a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
> >>> up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..
> >>>
> >> Probably why he is a multi-millionaire :-)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Now, *that* statement is worthy of a *D`OH*. <FBG>

> 99.99% of your statements aren't worth anything. ie. they're worthless
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, *you* keep right on acknowledging/replying.
Why would that be you old pussy?. ;)

> --
> "his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
> the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudste

On 13/01/2022 11:03 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 January 2022 at 00:55:00 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>
>> 99.99% of your statements aren't worth anything. ie. they're worthless
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> However, *you* keep right on acknowledging/replying.
> Why would that be you old pussy?. ;)

More irony from Felix. The bloke who makes definitive statements and
adds the caviat of "however that may not be true, as sometimes I can't
remember".

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:37:09 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 13/01/2022 11:03 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 January 2022 at 00:55:00 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>
>>> 99.99% of your statements aren't worth anything. ie. they're worthless
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> However, *you* keep right on acknowledging/replying.
>> Why would that be you old pussy?. ;)
>
> More irony from Felix. The bloke who makes definitive statements and
> adds the caviat of "however that may not be true, as sometimes I can't
> remember".

Educate me Fraudster. What's a "caviat"?

alvey
“My command of the language is quite good even if I do say so myself.”
Fraudster, 06Aug20

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus