On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 12:26:47 UTC+11, alvey wrote:
> 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"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perpro. In this case its part of a missive from a well known, generally sneered upon, friendless (not counting his? room mate *felix the flog*) piece of shit.
This particular cretin spends all day, every day, waiting to pounce upon typo`s, spelling mistakes etc. then reposts them in order to try and big note itself, and show it`s enemys that she`s da boss.
A *definite* impossibility of course, can`t even control itself. Pffffttt.
Ciao for now. :) Lofy!.

>
>
>
> 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

On 13/01/2022 12:26 pm, alvey wrote:
> 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"?
>

you ignoramus! it's gooey fishy stuff you eat on crackers. :)

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

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

On 11/01/2022 2:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
> 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.

What a pathetic argument.

> 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.

My mate? I don't have any of those around here.

On 13/01/2022 11:51 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 13/01/2022 12:26 pm, alvey wrote:
>> 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"?
>>
>
> you ignoramus! it's gooey fishy stuff you eat on crackers. :)
>

Fish eggs that have a less fishy smell that one of Derro's stories!

Then again so does Surströmming...

On 13/01/2022 4:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/01/2022 2:09 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, 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.
>
> What a pathetic argument.

Totally pissweak actually, and it proved absolutely *nothing*.

The article didn't offer any documented evidence of short life failures.
Instead if offered up editorial from the author who claimed that he'd
"heard of" failures as low as 40k km's.

Head of them. Not actually seen them. Just like we've all head that
story about a GTHO sitting in a country barn that we could buy
reasonably cheap, if only we could find out exactly where it was :)

The reality is that early YD25 engines had pump chain issues, but it was
rectified in subsequent updates and claiming that they failed in as
little as 40k km's is as nonsensical as claiming that VE Commodore
chains never started to fail until the engines had 170k km's on them.

Oh, wait. He did that too. Seemingly there is no end to his bullshit :)
>
>> 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.
>
> My mate? I don't have any of those around here.

Good plan. Ride that lone wolf wave.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/1/22 9:33 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/01/2022 4:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 2:09 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, 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.
>>
>> What a pathetic argument.
>
> Totally pissweak actually, and it proved absolutely *nothing*.
>
> The article didn't offer any documented evidence of short life failures.
> Instead if offered up editorial from the author who claimed that he'd
> "heard of" failures as low as 40k km's.
>
> Head of them. Not actually seen them. Just like we've all head that
> story about a GTHO sitting in a country barn that we could buy
> reasonably cheap, if only we could find out exactly where it was :)
>
> The reality is that early YD25 engines had pump chain issues, but it was
> rectified in subsequent updates and claiming that they failed in as
> little as 40k km's is as nonsensical as claiming that VE Commodore
> chains never started to fail until the engines had 170k km's on them.

I seem to recall the Thai ones remained the same (undersized chain) all
the way through. Yours was a Thai build, was it not? You made a big deal
out of it not being a Spanish build, IIRC.

The original design was for a 300k service life. Sadly, the bean
counters screwed that up and cut the design costs. That brought it down
to where the *actual* life was more like 150k.

Now this is why Navara owners shed them *before* 150k. That is actually
a smart move. Another smart move is not replacing a Navara with
*another* Navara. It seems most Navara owners have sufficient smarts not
to make this mistake.

It gets worse, some engines don't last for 100k before they self
destruct. A few don't even get to 40k. Hey, isn't that shitty?

Now, when manufacturers build crap like the Navara, they really should
do customers a favour and put in the service schedule a timing chain,
sprockets, tensioner and guide *replacement* at an interval - the same
as a timing belt. Somewhere between 60-100k would be good. It really
should come under the *free service* banner since it is a factory cockup
that caused the requirement, it's only fair. Hey, the factory should tip
in the cost of a timing chain *upgrade* as well. They may even start to
get *return* buyers coming back and buying the next model Navara. You
know, the same way *Toyota* buyers come back and buy *another Toyota*.

That said, it probably would have been much more cost effective if
Nissan had produced the Navara engine as it was *designed*. Then it may
have had a chance of being *reliable*, just like a Toyota. Or reliable
and long lived like the *4.2 naturally aspirated Nissan Patrol diesel of
old. After all, reliability sells, just ask any Toyota dealer. Seen the
Ute sales figures? Toyota Hilux gets the gold, Ford Ranger the silver.
Tradies will pay the price premium Darren because they get the money
back, no lost time, you see. What's more, they get the price premium
back when they trade in their Hilux. Did you notice, the Hilux holds its
value.
>
> Oh, wait. He did that too. Seemingly there is no end to his bullshit :)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> My mate? I don't have any of those around here.
>
> Good plan. Ride that lone wolf wave.
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 13/01/2022 1:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/01/2022 2:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What a pathetic argument.

There is no argument, it's a statement of fact.

>
>> 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.
>
> My mate? I don't have any of those around here.

Or anywhere else if you are this banal in everyday life. Sheez.

On 14/01/2022 12:32 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 13/01/2022 1:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 2:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> What a pathetic argument.
>
> There is no argument, it's a statement of fact.

If that is what you consider constitutes a fact it explains a lot about
what you post around here.

>>> 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.
>>
>> My mate? I don't have any of those around here.
>
> Or anywhere else if you are this banal in everyday life. Sheez.

I'm just choosey about who I consider a mate.

On 14/01/2022 9:16 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 12:32 am, Clocky wrote:

>>> What a pathetic argument.
>>
>> There is no argument, it's a statement of fact.
>
> If that is what you consider constitutes a fact it explains a lot about
> what you post around here.

Yep. Their idea of a "fact" is anything they claim to be so, regardless
of it ever having been demonstrated to be true or not. Look at the
recent Nissan pump chains failing at 40k km's claim for example.

According to these unicorn riding dickheads it's not only a "fact" but
it was common. They sold a hell of a lot of Navaras in this country, and
you'd think if it really *was* common they'd be able to cite a couple of
real examples of it to support their claim.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/1/22 9:33 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/01/2022 4:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 2:09 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, 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.
>>
>> What a pathetic argument.
>
> Totally pissweak actually, and it proved absolutely *nothing*.
>
> The article didn't offer any documented evidence of short life failures.
> Instead if offered up editorial from the author who claimed that he'd
> "heard of" failures as low as 40k km's.
>
> Head of them. Not actually seen them. Just like we've all head that
> story about a GTHO sitting in a country barn that we could buy
> reasonably cheap, if only we could find out exactly where it was :)
>
> The reality is that early YD25 engines had pump chain issues, but it was
> rectified in subsequent updates and claiming that they failed in as
> little as 40k km's is as nonsensical as claiming that VE Commodore
> chains never started to fail until the engines had 170k km's on them.

The Thai builds of that model never had the upgraded chains. They used
to shitty substandard chain right through. Yours is a Thai build? is it
not? That would explain why you, and others, are getting shed of your
time bombs as the kilometres rack up. Getting a bit too close for
comfort, eh?
>
> Oh, wait. He did that too. Seemingly there is no end to his bullshit :)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> My mate? I don't have any of those around here.
>
> Good plan. Ride that lone wolf wave.
>
>

--
Xeno

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