porno türk porno rokettube
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 168

Thread: Anyone able to contribute ?

  1. #41
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 05/10/13 1:19 PM, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:

    > Mmmmm.....So you didn't have any contact with other mechanics working
    > on the P76 (there were plenty of them)


    There wasn't actually. They didn't sell many of them at all.

    > Just for your information,
    > this was my brothers P76 Exec V8...


    Stop right there. I'm not interested in your imaginary bullshit.


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  2. #42
    Ext User(PhilD) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:29:33 +1000, Jason James <h6tgf22l@outlook.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >To being mucked around by an obscure fault in their car,..then after
    >some time [or any length of time]finally found out what was jerking them
    >around ?
    >

    Replaced spark plugs to fix a erratic idle and it didn't go away.
    Replaced leads, distributor cap, rotor, capacitor, points and still no
    better. Pull out plugs and a brand new one had been faulty.

    Another, not obscure but one fault covering up another. Engine dies so
    pull up and smell fuel, lots of it. Leak from bottom of tank. Was
    100km from nearest "town", 45 degC, dirt road and an hour between
    passers by. Set to and plug tank. Engine starts and travel 50km and
    engine dies, again. Electric fuel pump was failing in heat and
    previous rest had allowed it to cool. Fuel leak incidental to real
    fault. Spare pump faulty and towed 100km to next town. Replace pump
    and all OK.

  3. #43
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:09:08 +1000, Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au>
    wrote:

    >On 05/10/13 6:25 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >
    >> Older vehicles are generally preferred where I live, for reasons
    >> you've outlined above, also because of distances to real mechanics
    >> with suitable equipment to work on modern cars. There's also the
    >> tightwad factor too... It's amazing to see the ingenuity some of the
    >> blokes come up with around here to keep cars going.

    >
    >Modern cars aren't all they're cracked up to be.
    >
    >Ford Falcon/Territorys have become known for flaky ignition swithes
    >(amongst other things), and Ford, in their infinite wisdom, decided to
    >make the switch an integral part of the column.
    >
    >So, if you have one and the switch starts to pack up you have to replace
    >the entire column at a new cost of about 1600 bucks, or a few hundred
    >for a second hand one if you can find one.


    Nice.

  4. #44
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2p6an$d5v$1@dont-email.me...
    > On 05/10/13 9:21 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting that you should pick on this problem, one you have over
    >> exaggerated greatly to suit your end btw.

    >
    > How many times do you need to be told that I just quoted a passage of text
    > pretty much verbatim? What is it about that that simply doesn't register
    > with you?
    >
    > I didn't "exaggerate" a single thing, but relayed the story exactly as it
    > appeared in the paper you silly ****,


    You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never claim
    that. It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    never deem as normal.

    and as I told you at the time
    > if you had an issue with it you needed to take it up with the columnist
    > who printed the thing.
    >
    > I even gave you his ****ing email address :)
    >


    Did you?

    The "paper" is a motoring column and you normally depise motoring writers
    but you made an exception in this case and took his word as gospel.
    What is your motivation for that?



    >> Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    >> put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    >> modern technology?

    >
    > Because high oil consumption in modern engines isn't common. It's a
    > *fault*, and one that seems to get fobbed off pretty regularly if the
    > reports are anything to go by.
    >


    How about you answer the question?
    People used to check the oil regularly and top it up too, but now they
    expect to have the car serviced and 15,000km later again, without so much as
    lifting the bonnet in between whereas the regular service interval 30 years
    ago was 5000km.
    You're not going to notice 5 litres of oil being burnt in 15000km if you
    have it changed every 5000km *and* top it up regularly as per handbook as
    used to be the norm.

    There were some horrible oil burners in the 80's (and probably earlier) and
    IMO engines on the whole have vastly improved.


    >> A cheap shot I would suggest, but into your own foot.

    >
    > You know, your attitude here is one I find completely baffling. I don't
    > have shares in Holden, I'm not responsible for the engines in question and
    > I'm not likely to ever own a Commodore so I really don't care if they have
    > an oil consumption issue or not. I feel sorry for the people who have
    > bought one of the things and get no satisfaction from their dealer, but
    > the issue is no skin off my helmet.
    >


    So what are you acting like every V6 has oil consumption issues? Most don't,
    nor do you know if the ones that do are "extreme service" examples which
    should have an oil change every 7,500km as per handbook.
    So how many does that leave with an *real* fault? Probably not that many,
    but that's not the picture you are painting.


    > I don't expect it is off yours either, but for some reason you have to go
    > out of your way to make yourself look ridiculous in defending Holden and
    > the engines in question by dismissing the claims of owners as "lies" when
    > you have absolutely no idea if they are or not.
    >


    Nonsense. I was very critical of the way Holden handled the whole oil
    consumption issue on the Gen III's which was a complete farce and an obvious
    fault (even if limited to very few engines considering the number
    manufactured)

    > It's *Bizarre*. It's like you take criticism of a product that you have
    > nothing whatsoever to do with *personally*, and I have no idea why you do
    > that.
    >


    I don't, my problem is the way you escalate some issues into wholesale
    faults when you don't know all the facts (and don't care to consider them)
    and have had nothing to do with the industry for decades.

    But back to the question at hand...

    Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    modern technology?









  5. #45
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    <OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
    news:nb1v4916nopt4ur33rj44m9qfeomid6fgg@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:53:39 +1000, Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On 04/10/13 9:31 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> Such as?

    >>
    >>Oil consumption problems on V6 Commodores is a big issue, but then you
    >>don't believe it's a problem or that dealers are telling owners that
    >>excessive consumption is "normal". Just like they told the original
    >>GenIII buyers it was "normal".
    >>

    >
    > Just put a different dipstick in so it could carry enough oil to last
    > between services...If you didn't service it on time it was your
    > problem
    >


    That's the attitude they took, for a while, until they realised that wasn't
    going to fly.







  6. #46
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/13 10:30 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    > normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never claim
    > that.


    Absolute bullshit. I quoted the article word for word and explained a
    *couple* of times that the 5-7 litre usage claim was that of the car's
    owner, not mine. Daryl read the same article and confirmed that, but you
    still maintain that it was all a figment of my imagination.

    > It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    > never deem as normal.


    Why do you feel it necessary to be their unofficial apologist?

    > Did you?


    I did indeed. Do you not remember? I guess that just goes to show how
    much attention to detail you pay when you're off on one of your
    vitriolic rants.

    > The "paper" is a motoring column and you normally depise motoring writers
    > but you made an exception in this case and took his word as gospel.
    > What is your motivation for that?


    A couple of points.

    Firstly, I simply echoed the article without supporting it one way *or*
    the other. Secondly, the columnist, one Graham Smith, isn't a motoring
    journalist but rather a mechanic who answers questions of a technical
    nature for for people with problems who write in looking for help.

    His "copy" is subject to the same limitations of any other journalist in
    that it has to be cleared by the paper's legal department before it goes
    to print, and you can be sure that if the comments were bullshit they
    wouldn't make it past legal :)

    > How about you answer the question?


    What part of the answer I gave you didn't you understand?

    High oil consumption may have been the accepted norm decades ago but it
    *certainly* isn't considered "normal" today, and any engine that
    consumes the amounts being quoted between services has got a *severe*
    problem that needs to be addressed ASAP.

    You seem to be suggesting that there is no problem with the current
    Holden V6 as far as oil consumption is concerned, which is odd because
    it's fairly widely known even by guys like me who "aren't in the trade"
    any more. Of course, if you want to listen to Holden's denial then be my
    guest, but then they said exactly the same thing about the first
    GenIII's, and were continuing to say t even after the *Pope* ****ing
    knew about it.

    > People used to check the oil regularly and top it up too, but now they
    > expect to have the car serviced and 15,000km later again, without so much as
    > lifting the bonnet in between whereas the regular service interval 30 years
    > ago was 5000km.


    Jesus you can waffle on with some bullshit :)

    Firstly, it was *never* 5000km's as you claim, but 6000 *miles* which is
    roughly 10 thousand km's. Still, what relevance that has to the current
    Holden engine's problems remains a mystery to everyone but you.

    Secondly, it's the *manufacturers*, not the owners, who set the service
    intervals, and if they can't build an engine that can make the distance
    between scheduled service intervals without running out of oil then I
    would suggest they've not only failed in their objective to build a
    reliable engine, but also in their testing to see if it was.

    Once upon a time the manufacturers used to *thoroughly* test their
    products in a real world environment before releasing them for public
    consumption. Now it seems like the do little more than a couple of hours
    of *simulated* testing before throwing their junk onto the market for
    the public to become unofficial beta testers, and just fob them off with
    bullshit once the problems become apparent.

    Clearly that's the cheaper way to do business these days :)

    > You're not going to notice 5 litres of oil being burnt in 15000km if you
    > have it changed every 5000km *and* top it up regularly as per handbook as
    > used to be the norm.


    So how is that the owner's fault? As I said, it's the manufacturer who
    not only builds the machine, but decides how often it should be serviced.

    > There were some horrible oil burners in the 80's (and probably earlier) and
    > IMO engines on the whole have vastly improved.


    None of which has anything to do with the Holden V6, or does it let it
    off the hook for being an engine with issues.

    > So what are you acting like every V6 has oil consumption issues?


    I'm not "acting" like anything. As I said I'm not responsible for the
    things and it makes no difference to me. They're an engine with a known
    problem and have been for some time.

    > Most don't,


    How do you know?

    > nor do you know if the ones that do are "extreme service" examples which
    > should have an oil change every 7,500km as per handbook.


    Again I ask, how would you know?

    > So how many does that leave with an *real* fault? Probably not that many,
    > but that's not the picture you are painting.


    Your obvious willingness to make excuses is quite disturbing :)

    > Nonsense. I was very critical of the way Holden handled the whole oil
    > consumption issue on the Gen III's which was a complete farce and an obvious
    > fault (even if limited to very few engines considering the number
    > manufactured)


    Were you? I don't recall that, but then that was clearly before you
    pulled on a pair of overalls with a Lion's head on the breast and became
    a member of the "family" :)

    > I don't,


    Yeah, right. Just like you don't defend Labor at every opportunity
    possible :)

    > my problem is the way you escalate some issues into wholesale
    > faults when you don't know all the facts (and don't care to consider them)
    > and have had nothing to do with the industry for decades.


    Oh, I see.

    Okay, so you're obviously in a different league here so you can take the
    opportunity right here and now to not only explain all the "facts"
    relating to this particular case, but spell out in some detail your
    experience in the matter and how it is you come to know so much about it.

    No?

    > But back to the question at hand...


    You mean you your nonsensical ramblings?

    > Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    > put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    > modern technology?


    What part of "high oil consumption in a modern engine is unacceptable"
    don't you ****ing get?

    **** me dead. The Windsor in my GT is 44 years old and it uses less oil
    than a V6 Commodore :)


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  7. #47
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/13 10:32 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > That's the attitude they took, for a while, until they realised that wasn't
    > going to fly.


    Is that why the current V6 has a 27 litre sump capacity? :)





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  8. #48
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2qdv9$g3l$2@dont-email.me...
    > On 06/10/13 10:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> That's the attitude they took, for a while, until they realised that
    >> wasn't
    >> going to fly.

    >
    > Is that why the current V6 has a 27 litre sump capacity? :)
    >


    So 7L in 15,000km still leaves 20L. Plenty :-)



  9. #49
    Ext User(F Murtz) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    Clocky wrote:
    > "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:l2qdv9$g3l$2@dont-email.me...
    >> On 06/10/13 10:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> That's the attitude they took, for a while, until they realised that
    >>> wasn't
    >>> going to fly.

    >>
    >> Is that why the current V6 has a 27 litre sump capacity? :)


    27 ??
    >>

    >
    > So 7L in 15,000km still leaves 20L. Plenty :-)
    >
    >



  10. #50
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    "F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:l2qi1f$vuo$1@dont-email.me...
    > Clocky wrote:
    >> "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:l2qdv9$g3l$2@dont-email.me...
    >>> On 06/10/13 10:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> That's the attitude they took, for a while, until they realised that
    >>>> wasn't
    >>>> going to fly.
    >>>
    >>> Is that why the current V6 has a 27 litre sump capacity? :)

    >
    > 27 ??



    He was exaggerating as per usual, it's about 6.5L.




  11. #51
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/2013 10:30 AM, Clocky wrote:
    > "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:l2p6an$d5v$1@dont-email.me...
    >> On 05/10/13 9:21 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> Interesting that you should pick on this problem, one you have over
    >>> exaggerated greatly to suit your end btw.

    >>
    >> How many times do you need to be told that I just quoted a passage of text
    >> pretty much verbatim? What is it about that that simply doesn't register
    >> with you?
    >>
    >> I didn't "exaggerate" a single thing, but relayed the story exactly as it
    >> appeared in the paper you silly ****,

    >
    > You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    > normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never claim
    > that. It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    > never deem as normal.


    It was what was claimed in the article, I also don't believe that Holden
    would say that it was normal but the person writing the letter stated
    that they said it was.

    > and as I told you at the time
    >> if you had an issue with it you needed to take it up with the columnist
    >> who printed the thing.
    >>
    >> I even gave you his ****ing email address :)
    >>

    >
    > Did you?


    I posted a link to the article as well.

    --
    Daryl

  12. #52
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    news:5250e34b$0$29900$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
    > On 06/10/2013 10:30 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >> "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:l2p6an$d5v$1@dont-email.me...
    >>> On 05/10/13 9:21 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Interesting that you should pick on this problem, one you have over
    >>>> exaggerated greatly to suit your end btw.
    >>>
    >>> How many times do you need to be told that I just quoted a passage of
    >>> text
    >>> pretty much verbatim? What is it about that that simply doesn't register
    >>> with you?
    >>>
    >>> I didn't "exaggerate" a single thing, but relayed the story exactly as
    >>> it
    >>> appeared in the paper you silly ****,

    >>
    >> You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    >> normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never
    >> claim
    >> that. It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    >> never deem as normal.

    >
    > It was what was claimed in the article, I also don't believe that Holden
    > would say that it was normal but the person writing the letter stated that
    > they said it was.
    >


    Yep, that's what they said. The claim is BS, you know it, I know it. But not
    Noddy who is happy to write off an entire engine based on some anecdotal
    reports of oil usage.


    >> and as I told you at the time
    >>> if you had an issue with it you needed to take it up with the columnist
    >>> who printed the thing.
    >>>
    >>> I even gave you his ****ing email address :)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Did you?

    >
    > I posted a link to the article as well.
    >


    Yes I remember reading it. What was in the article doesn't back up assertion
    put forward that Holden deem 5-7L of oil usage as normal.

    *One* anecdotal report claims that, and there have certainly been reports of
    oil consumption with the number of V6 Commodores on the road, but to present
    them as an example of an oil burning engine when most of them clearly aren't
    is quite disengenious IMO.



  13. #53
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/13 3:12 PM, D Walford wrote:

    > It was what was claimed in the article, I also don't believe that Holden
    > would say that it was normal but the person writing the letter stated
    > that they said it was.


    I got the impression from reading the article that when the complainant
    was referring to "Holden" they were in fact referring to their servicing
    dealer which would make what they were being told perfectly believable :)


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  14. #54
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/13 2:59 PM, Clocky wrote:

    > He was exaggerating as per usual, it's about 6.5L.


    It was a joke Joyce, but that seems to be Holden's solution. Don't fix
    the oil consumption. Just make it carry enough oil to get to the next
    service.

    Hopefully :)



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  15. #55
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2qdsu$g3l$1@dont-email.me...
    > On 06/10/13 10:30 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    >> normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never
    >> claim
    >> that.

    >
    > Absolute bullshit. I quoted the article word for word and explained a
    > *couple* of times that the 5-7 litre usage claim was that of the car's
    > owner, not mine. Daryl read the same article and confirmed that, but you
    > still maintain that it was all a figment of my imagination.
    >


    Bullshit.

    >> It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    >> never deem as normal.

    >
    > Why do you feel it necessary to be their unofficial apologist?
    >


    I'm not, just enlightenig you to the facts.

    >> Did you?

    >
    > I did indeed. Do you not remember? I guess that just goes to show how much
    > attention to detail you pay when you're off on one of your vitriolic
    > rants.
    >


    What does it prove even if you did post an email address?

    >> The "paper" is a motoring column and you normally depise motoring writers
    >> but you made an exception in this case and took his word as gospel.
    >> What is your motivation for that?

    >
    > A couple of points.
    >


    How abou you answer the question?

    > Firstly, I simply echoed the article without supporting it one way *or*
    > the other.


    You certainly did not. The article doesn't back *your* claims..

    Secondly, the columnist, one Graham Smith, isn't a motoring
    > journalist but rather a mechanic who answers questions of a technical
    > nature for for people with problems who write in looking for help.
    >


    Uhuh. And?

    > His "copy" is subject to the same limitations of any other journalist in
    > that it has to be cleared by the paper's legal department before it goes
    > to print, and you can be sure that if the comments were bullshit they
    > wouldn't make it past legal :)
    >


    Bullshit. You claimed 5-7L oil usage was deemed normal by Holden then
    presentedthe article which suggests no such thing. Somebody writing in made
    that claim, which was unverified and isn't supported by Holden.


    >> How about you answer the question?

    >
    > What part of the answer I gave you didn't you understand?
    >
    > High oil consumption may have been the accepted norm decades ago but it
    > *certainly* isn't considered "normal" today, and any engine that consumes
    > the amounts being quoted between services has got a *severe* problem that
    > needs to be addressed ASAP.
    >
    > You seem to be suggesting that there is no problem with the current Holden
    > V6 as far as oil consumption is concerned,


    Show proof there is!

    which is odd because
    > it's fairly widely known even by guys like me who "aren't in the trade"
    > any more.


    It was resolved year ago. It's not the wholesale problem you make it out to
    be.

    Of course, if you want to listen to Holden's denial then be my
    > guest, but then they said exactly the same thing about the first GenIII's,
    > and were continuing to say t even after the *Pope* ****ing knew about it.
    >


    Bullshit you wanker, I pointed to the ineffective "fix" and inappropriate
    fobbing off by Holden when it was occurring you twat.

    >> People used to check the oil regularly and top it up too, but now they
    >> expect to have the car serviced and 15,000km later again, without so much
    >> as
    >> lifting the bonnet in between whereas the regular service interval 30
    >> years
    >> ago was 5000km.

    >
    > Jesus you can waffle on with some bullshit :)
    >


    It's hard fact, none of it is in dispute.

    > Firstly, it was *never* 5000km's as you claim, but 6000 *miles* which is
    > roughly 10 thousand km's. Still, what relevance that has to the current
    > Holden engine's problems remains a mystery to everyone but you.
    >


    10,000km for the oil and filter, 5000km for the oil change - remember that
    you dickhead?

    > Secondly, it's the *manufacturers*, not the owners, who set the service
    > intervals, and if they can't build an engine that can make the distance
    > between scheduled service intervals without running out of oil then I
    > would suggest they've not only failed in their objective to build a
    > reliable engine, but also in their testing to see if it was.
    >
    > Once upon a time the manufacturers used to *thoroughly* test their
    > products in a real world environment before releasing them for public
    > consumption. Now it seems like the do little more than a couple of hours
    > of *simulated* testing before throwing their junk onto the market for the
    > public to become unofficial beta testers, and just fob them off with
    > bullshit once the problems become apparent.
    >
    > Clearly that's the cheaper way to do business these days :)
    >


    Blah blah bluster.

    >> You're not going to notice 5 litres of oil being burnt in 15000km if you
    >> have it changed every 5000km *and* top it up regularly as per handbook as
    >> used to be the norm.

    >
    > So how is that the owner's fault? As I said, it's the manufacturer who not
    > only builds the machine, but decides how often it should be serviced.
    >


    You don't know if the vehicles with oil consumption were extreme service
    vehicles that weren't serviced according to manufacturers recommendations in
    the handbook.

    >> There were some horrible oil burners in the 80's (and probably earlier)
    >> and
    >> IMO engines on the whole have vastly improved.

    >
    > None of which has anything to do with the Holden V6, or does it let it off
    > the hook for being an engine with issues.
    >


    Yeah it does because you are using a problem that has dogged engines for an
    eternity as an example as to why modern engines with all the technology are
    *less* reliable.
    It's nonsense.


    >> So what are you acting like every V6 has oil consumption issues?

    >
    > I'm not "acting" like anything. As I said I'm not responsible for the
    > things and it makes no difference to me. They're an engine with a known
    > problem and have been for some time.
    >
    >> Most don't,

    >
    > How do you know?
    >


    From the trade you are no longer involved in.
    How do you know they all supposedly do?

    Nobody has claimed that, not even your guru motoring writer.

    >> nor do you know if the ones that do are "extreme service" examples which
    >> should have an oil change every 7,500km as per handbook.

    >
    > Again I ask, how would you know?
    >


    How would you or your motoring writer know? It's not like he investigated
    the details.

    >> So how many does that leave with an *real* fault? Probably not that many,
    >> but that's not the picture you are painting.

    >
    > Your obvious willingness to make excuses is quite disturbing :)
    >


    Your willingness to deem an engine as an oil burner without qualification
    speaks volumes about you.


    >> Nonsense. I was very critical of the way Holden handled the whole oil
    >> consumption issue on the Gen III's which was a complete farce and an
    >> obvious
    >> fault (even if limited to very few engines considering the number
    >> manufactured)

    >
    > Were you? I don't recall that,


    Ofcourse you don't. I guess you had your head so far up your own arse that
    you missed it, as per usual.

    but then that was clearly before you
    > pulled on a pair of overalls with a Lion's head on the breast and became a
    > member of the "family" :)
    >


    Certainly wasn't.

    >> I don't,

    >
    > Yeah, right. Just like you don't defend Labor at every opportunity
    > possible :)
    >
    >> my problem is the way you escalate some issues into wholesale
    >> faults when you don't know all the facts (and don't care to consider
    >> them)
    >> and have had nothing to do with the industry for decades.

    >
    > Oh, I see.
    >
    > Okay, so you're obviously in a different league here so you can take the
    > opportunity right here and now to not only explain all the "facts"
    > relating to this particular case, but spell out in some detail your
    > experience in the matter and how it is you come to know so much about it.
    >
    > No?
    >
    >> But back to the question at hand...

    >
    > You mean you your nonsensical ramblings?
    >


    No the real questions at hand.

    > > Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    >> put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    >> modern technology?

    >
    > What part of "high oil consumption in a modern engine is unacceptable"
    > don't you ****ing get?
    >


    Irrelevant, high oil consumption in an engine has never been acceptable.

    Again:

    Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    modern technology?

    Answer the ****ing question.

    > **** me dead. The Windsor in my GT is 44 years old and it uses less oil
    > than a V6 Commodore :)
    >


    Once again, completely irrelevant.




  16. #56
    Ext User(jonz) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 10/6/2013 4:51 PM, Clocky wrote:
    > "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    > news:5250e34b$0$29900$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
    >> On 06/10/2013 10:30 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>> "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:l2p6an$d5v$1@dont-email.me...
    >>>> On 05/10/13 9:21 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Interesting that you should pick on this problem, one you have over
    >>>>> exaggerated greatly to suit your end btw.
    >>>>
    >>>> How many times do you need to be told that I just quoted a passage of
    >>>> text
    >>>> pretty much verbatim? What is it about that that simply doesn't register
    >>>> with you?
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't "exaggerate" a single thing, but relayed the story exactly as
    >>>> it
    >>>> appeared in the paper you silly ****,
    >>>
    >>> You did not, you made exaggerated claim about 5-7L oil usage being deemed
    >>> normal by Holden before revealing that the article did in fact never
    >>> claim
    >>> that. It was one extreme "customer complaint" example, which Holden would
    >>> never deem as normal.

    >>
    >> It was what was claimed in the article, I also don't believe that Holden
    >> would say that it was normal but the person writing the letter stated that
    >> they said it was.
    >>

    >
    > Yep, that's what they said. The claim is BS, you know it, I know it. But not
    > Noddy who is happy to write off an entire engine based on some anecdotal
    > reports of oil usage.
    >
    >
    >>> and as I told you at the time
    >>>> if you had an issue with it you needed to take it up with the columnist
    >>>> who printed the thing.
    >>>>
    >>>> I even gave you his ****ing email address :)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Did you?

    >>
    >> I posted a link to the article as well.
    >>

    >
    > Yes I remember reading it. What was in the article doesn't back up assertion
    > put forward that Holden deem 5-7L of oil usage as normal.
    >
    > *One* anecdotal report claims that, and there have certainly been reports of
    > oil consumption with the number of V6 Commodores on the road, but to present
    > them as an example of an oil burning engine when most of them clearly aren't
    > is quite disengenious IMO.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Shoulda bought a Magna.....Zero problems 8-)
    >
    >



    --
    “Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

  17. #57
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/13 4:41 PM, Clocky wrote:

    > Bullshit.


    So it *wasn't* a figment of my imagination and you finally accept that
    what I quoted was actually printed in the paper.

    Thanks.

    > I'm not, just enlightenig you to the facts.


    What facts? Are you familiar with this particular owner's complaint or
    are you just talking shit because you can?

    > What does it prove even if you did post an email address?


    Well, it doesn't prove anything other than you not being able to
    remember relevant details which would explain a lot of your behaviour of
    late, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if you were so
    worked up over the 'story" then my invitation was to not take my word
    for it and ask the columnist *directly*.

    Clearly you chose *not* to bother doing that, and there can really only
    be one reason why you decided not to.

    > How abou you answer the question?


    How about you keep your Y-fronts on and read the ****ing answer as it
    appears below, you silly ****?

    > You certainly did not. The article doesn't back *your* claims..


    I'm sorry but you do know the article in question? It appeared in print
    in the Cars liftout of the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper.

    > Uhuh. And?


    ...And, to answer your question you ****ing thick as two short planks
    ****, he's *not* a motoring journalist.

    *Jesus*...

    > Bullshit. You claimed 5-7L oil usage was deemed normal by Holden then
    > presentedthe article which suggests no such thing. Somebody writing in made
    > that claim, which was unverified and isn't supported by Holden.


    Man you are *so* lost here it's not funny.

    I quoted the test of the article and mentioned when it appeared in print
    but that was it. I never said *anything* about Holden's policy and made
    it abundantly clear that the claim of 5-7 litres of oil consumption
    between services was the *owner's* claim and that he'd been told by
    "Holden" that this was acceptable.

    Not one word of that came from me.

    > Show proof there is!


    ROTFL :)

    When this topic first came up it was you *yourself* who said they were
    known to use oil but "not that much". Apparently now you're denying that
    and are saying that they don't have an oil use issue at all?

    Are you sure you want to go there?

    > It was resolved year ago. It's not the wholesale problem you make it out to
    > be.


    Really? So it was "resolved", but it wasn't a problem. Is that how it works?

    Do you understand that you make absolutely not the slightest bit of sense?

    > Bullshit you wanker, I pointed to the ineffective "fix" and inappropriate
    > fobbing off by Holden when it was occurring you twat.


    Maybe you could refresh my memory, as I don't recall it.

    > 10,000km for the oil and filter, 5000km for the oil change - remember that
    > you dickhead?


    I don't remember that as being part of any manufacturer's recommended
    service schedule 30 years ago. In fact I don't recall *any* manufacturer
    ever recommending oil changes between *filter* changes.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us as to which ones were doing that back then?

    > Blah blah bluster.


    What is this supposed to mean? "Yeah, you're right, but I'd rather eat
    my own shit than agree with you"?

    > You don't know if the vehicles with oil consumption were extreme service
    > vehicles that weren't serviced according to manufacturers recommendations in
    > the handbook.


    I don't know if any of them were dragged across the Pacific Ocean
    strapped to the bonnet of a submarine either you ****ing idiot, and that
    would be about as relevant. Interesting though that you have to resort
    to trying to blame the owners for doing something wrong without having
    the slightest idea of their particular circumstances.

    You're a pathetically world class apologist. There is not the slightest
    doubt about that. You didn't work in the warranty claim department by
    any chance, did you?

    > Yeah it does because you are using a problem that has dogged engines for an
    > eternity as an example as to why modern engines with all the technology are
    > *less* reliable.
    > It's nonsense.


    Okay. So you reckon the problem was rectified a year ago. What was the
    cause?

    Was it anything like the GenIII, where low tension rings, a "modern"
    idea which were intended to reduce drag on the reciprocating assembly
    and make the engine more efficient, were responsible for a total lack of
    oil control and the blowing of millions of gallons out the tailpipes?

    > From the trade you are no longer involved in.


    Really? What do you do for a job these days Tic-toc?

    > Nobody has claimed that, not even your guru motoring writer.


    No one has said that they do. GenIII's were a "known" problem engine but
    not every single one of them suffered from it.

    > How would you or your motoring writer know? It's not like he investigated
    > the details.


    But you have apparently, and know all there is to know about it. Right?

    If you want to be believed on this then you have a distinct lack of
    credibility to overcome.

    > Your willingness to deem an engine as an oil burner without qualification
    > speaks volumes about you.


    If you say so, but I'm inclined to think that people *don't* write in
    looking for help *just* because they think it'd be a fun thing to do.
    The columnist doesn't seem to think the many similar complainants would
    either.

    > Ofcourse you don't. I guess you had your head so far up your own arse that
    > you missed it, as per usual.


    So quote some of your original messages to remind us all then. It was a
    long time ago after all.

    > No the real questions at hand.


    The only real question here is why you become so defensive of a product
    that you have nothing personally to do with.

    > Irrelevant, high oil consumption in an engine has never been acceptable.


    Clearly you've never head of total loss oil systems :)

    > Again:
    >
    > Engines with oil consumption issues are as old as the ages, why do you
    > put this forward as having to do anything a "fragility trade-off" due to
    > modern technology?
    >
    > Answer the ****ing question.


    I have, and a number of times now, but I can't help it if you have your
    head up your apologist arse and can't hear anything.

    > Once again, completely irrelevant.


    It's a 40 odd year old engine that does a better job of controlling it's
    oil than the only built last Thursday.

    Do the maths :)





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  18. #58
    Ext User(lindsay) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 6/10/2013 5:17 PM, Clocky wrote:
    > "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:l2qt34$7q6$2@dont-email.me...
    >> On 06/10/13 2:59 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> He was exaggerating as per usual, it's about 6.5L.

    >>
    >> It was a joke Joyce,

    >
    > Oh really?


    Jesus, *of course* it was, clocky.. ease up!! It's fairly obvious to
    anyone that a standard sump in a standard car isnt going to be 27 litres...


  19. #59
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/2013 4:51 PM, Clocky wrote:

    > Yes I remember reading it. What was in the article doesn't back up assertion
    > put forward that Holden deem 5-7L of oil usage as normal.
    >
    > *One* anecdotal report claims that, and there have certainly been reports of
    > oil consumption with the number of V6 Commodores on the road, but to present
    > them as an example of an oil burning engine when most of them clearly aren't
    > is quite disengenious IMO.
    >
    >

    There were a lot more than one letter about excessive oil consumption
    over a period of a couple of weeks, I can't remember exactly how many
    but it was around 4 and they all said much the same thing which would
    indicate that there are quite a number of cars with the problem, the
    newspaper isn't going to print every letter they get on the same subject
    so the only people who would know the extent of the problem would be
    Holden and they aren't likely to make that info public.
    Its supposedly a problem with a breather and last time I read anything
    about it dealers were waiting for Holden to release a fix.
    Any manufacturer can have can have problems with their products but IMO
    its how they go about dealing with the problem and the way they treat
    the customer is what matters, some car dealers stuff people around for
    the hell of it whilst others do the right thing.

    --
    Daryl

  20. #60
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Anyone able to contribute ?

    On 06/10/2013 4:41 PM, Clocky wrote:

    > It was resolved year ago. It's not the wholesale problem you make it out to
    > be.


    What was the fix?
    Last thing I read on the subject a couple of weeks ago said that dealers
    were still waiting for a new breather set up that would fix the V6 oil
    use problem.

    --
    Daryl

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •