treks

Probably the most eloquent response to a forum comment that I have seen for a long, long time...

Also be sure to take proper measurements of the oil pump's internal clearances.

...and you even get the fitment for free

Crankshafts generally do not cause cars not to start. Going by the price of the part you mention, I'd say that they replaced the crankshaft sensor, which is the thingamajig that creates the ignition spark. If so, the problem was clearly not related to the crankshaft sensor, and you should find a proper mechanic next time.

Well, he should be able to save the day when t comes to Pajeros. At one time, he even bred them- he posted about it at the time.☺️

True, but with the exception of the 2.4L engines whose timing chains chewed through a water conduit in the timing cover when the chain started to lose just a tiny bit of tension.

It was never about which is better- it was always about whether it's possible to produce millions of electric vehicles. It's possible, but not feasible.

There is no way of telling for sure unless you have the car scanned for trouble codes. I have a lot of experience with alternative fuel control modules, but that means nothing if I don't have one or more trouble codes to confirm, or eliminate the possibility of a fuel control problem being the root cause. HAVE THE CAR SCANNED- PLEASE. ETA- Sorry about yelling, but have the car scanned- please. Otherwise we can't help you.

I would not put too much store by these so-called "predictions". Given the fact that the electricity generating capacity of most western countries is already under severe pressure, and that it takes about seven years (on average) and about a billion dollars to build a single power station, it seems extremely unlikely that any of these predictions will become reality.

Don't get me started on CVT transmissions. I can't understand why Nissan does not just follow Ford's example and abandon CVT "technology" altogether, which incidentally, is the crappiest idea in the history of the motor car. CVT transmissions that is, not Fords' idea to abandon their use.

I was working in the BMW factory in SA at that time. It was actually a fire fighting appliance based on the very last M3 that was built in that factory before the release of the E36, which I had the privilege to build jigs and some major assembly tools for. Anyway, the joke at that time had it that this particular fire truck was probably the quickest fire truck in the whole world.

There is nothing advanced about electric cars. The idea and practice is as old as the hills, but until someone figures out a way to turn the practical issues into, well, practicable solutions, electric cars will remain a non-starter on any meaningful level.

The problem with going electric is that the hundreds, if not thousands of power stations the world needs to charge several hundred million electric cars (and to keep them charged up) will likely produce more pollution than all the cars that have ever been on the roads in the history of the world. Then there is the problem of the heavy metals in in the hundreds of millions of batteries in all of these electric vehicles. What will happen to those heavy metals when all of these batteries are replaced? The combined effects of the pollution created by hundreds of power stations and thousands of tons of toxic heavy metals will be far, far, worse than even the worst pollution we see today, so for the moment, electric is NOT the way to go. Don't get me wrong though; I am as concerned about the current levels of pollution as the next guy, but making it worse by building and operating hundreds of power stations, and attempting to keep thousands of tons of heavy metals out of the environment is clearly NOT the solution. As matters stand now, there is no viable alternative to the internal combustion engine, and you should not let yourself be deceived by all the talk by car makers about their efforts to introduce electric vehicles. At the moment, the few cars they do produce can be accommodated by the current generating capacity in some countries, and their batteries won't be due for replacement for at least the next few years. Just wait until the power grids in the USA and Europe can no longer cope with the increased demand, or when the problem of recovering/recycling/storing heavy metals from millions of EV batteries becomes as real as the problem of storing toxic nuclear waste is now. The truth of the matter is that car makers in the western world can all claim various forms of tax credits relative to the costs of developing electric cars, but as we know, talk is cheap, and especially if governments are paying for the talking. It's all about winning the next election...

"Going electric" is nothing but a buzz phrase, and governments claiming that they will be ready to ban the sale of cars with IC engines in 20 years are deluding not only themselves, but their voters as well. Several recent innovations in IC technology will keep these engines going for at least the next several decades until somebody works out how to make the manufacturing of electric cars a viable proposition, from both an economic and environmental perspective.

Even though I have never been a Range Rover fan, and will likely never be, the words "Range" and "electric" don't belong in the same sentence.

The thing is that I never listen to background music, even if it is Pink Floyd. I only listen to music when I need to hear it, and so the music has to do something for me, such as reminding me that the world is not always a bad or dangerous place to live in. Or to lift me out of a murderous rage when a client thinks he needs to teach me my job. Or, sometimes, to remind me that the world is indeed an extremely dangerous place to live in, and Pink Floyd and Jim Steinman (among a few others) are very good at reminding me of this. New music, (whatever it's called) can generally not do that for me- and especially stuff that is made specifically to be forgotten two minutes after its release, because the "composer" has nothing relevant to say about anything. Today's commercial music is all about obsolescence and being the "next big thing", as opposed to being made to still be relevant thirty of forty years down the line. Nonetheless, I agree that some good music still occasionally makes it through the general dross of synthesized crap that passes for musicianship these days, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule, (for me at least), which is why none of my cars have ever had a working sound system over the past thirty five years or so.

New music? How about Pink Floyd, circa 1982? In my opinion, the late 70's -early 80's was when the last good music was made (not only by Pink Floyd), so to me, there is no "new" music worth listening to or spending money on.

I could tell you what the "F" stands for, but I would hate to get kicked off the forum for using obscene language...

Never was a truer word spoken on this forum...

I agree that it is really, really stupid to replace critical instruments with just warning light that may or may not work. What are these designers and accountants thinking of- are simple heat gauges really that expensive on the scale that say, Toyota is producing cars?

In this case, It really makes no difference what percentage of the engine's power reaches the wheels. Even if just 1000 hp reaches the wheels this car will be as difficult to control as any other car with similar power without the extensive use of electronics. Anything above 1000 hp on the wheels is simply ridiculous.

You and I know that Fiat makes Ferraris (unless the marque now belongs to someone else), which begs this question- how reliable and/or accurate is the infographic Gaurav posted really?

Building a 5000 hp engine is easy. Getting a life involves making that engine work in a driveable car, which is less easy...

And where does Ferrari fit into this scheme?