Triton recalled
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Feels like a soap opera.... Wagon again....
Next: Another epic yank lawsuit Woman hit by car sues Google over directions
From: D Walford on 3 Jun 2010 21:29 On 4/06/2010 10:18 AM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:12:20 +1000, D Walford > <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > >> On 4/06/2010 9:30 AM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:29:05 +1000, "Noddy"<me(a)home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message >>>> news:5u5f061s26iom77e82pc15b53fi3f09jco(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> Indeed that's why I made my original comment. >>>> >>>> No it's not. >>>> >>>> You made your original comment in some pissweak apologist attempt to hose >>>> the problem down because it's a "Mitsubishi issue". If it was a Holden fault >>>> you'd be falling all over yourself to tell everyone how bad it is. >>>> >>>> Your original comment *also* showed everyone how little you know about what >>>> goes on when it comes to servicing cars. Be it by the book or otherwise. >>> >>> >>> No I made my comment to show that IF the first services were carried >>> out as directed then in this case Mitsu would not have a recall. >> >> I very much doubt they would have found the fault unless a bolt had >> become loose enough to be very obvious. >> It doesn't take many vehicles to show the fault for a recall to be >> issued especially after recent events with Toyota in the USA so the >> fault won't be evident on most vehicles. >> If a bolt was only torqued to half its spec it would not be seen with a >> visual inspection, a mechanic would have to check each bolt with a >> torque wrench to find the problem and we all know that that won't happen >> unless they are specifically told to. >> >> >> Daryl > > > But the bolts were coming loose and falling out. > That would have been picked up if a proper check was carried out, and > would have been corrected in service rather than a recall. Agree if they were that loose, the customer would have noticed something wrong and reported it or it would have been picked up on a road test. I doubt that it would be as obvious as that on most vehicles so even the most fastidious mechanic would have no reason to look for such a fault and in most case it couldn't be spotted with a visual inspection. Daryl
From: Noddy on 3 Jun 2010 22:41 <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message news:9bfg06poltl3k9ejvcicro2alal79ns58c(a)4ax.com... > So you're claiming deliberate misleading publications and fraud! No, *you're* claiming that. What *I'm* saying is that the brief general outline in the car's service handbook is *not* the maintenance schedule instructions that the dealersghip staff work to. > An uncle of mine, a pedant through and through, How unusual :) > used to mark every nut > bolt and washer on his cars that would need to be moved to carry out > the service to his vehicles as per the book....He woul then lift the > bonnet after the dealer service and in the presence of the dealers > mechanic, point out each bolt that had not been moved and ask how the > required work (that he was supposed to be paying for) had been done > without moving said bolts(s). He'd be about the 11 millionth person in the country to do that. > They learned very quickly that he would pay only for work done. I'm sure they did, but how this is relevant to my comments remains a mystery. > I had a similar experience when I asked the mechanic at my Ford dealer > to show me the new points that he'd fitted to my pointless aftermarket > distributor. They probably picked you as a complete knob the moment you walked in the door. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 3 Jun 2010 22:46 <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message news:vpfg06t6nfsakp6bfdtcuvlbepjv37cnp1(a)4ax.com... > I'd respectfully suggest that a check sufficient to see that all > suspension components will remain attached would be the intent of the > check. Then you'd respectfully be wrong as usual. Suspension and ball joint checks are principally for operation and wear. Sure, they'll repair an obvious retention fault *if* they see it, but unless they're specifically looking for it they won't and you can rest assured that checking for loose ball joint bolts isn't part of the normal checking procedure. And if carried out as instructed every 15000 km then said check would > find a LOOSE bolt before it fell out! Perhaps you could outline, in detail, what the 15000km service procedure actually is Ozliar? Oh, and by "detail", I don't mean just rattle off what's listed in your car's service manual. I mean the *procedure* that explains exactly what is *supposed* to be done according to the factory maintenance program. I mean, you must know, as you're certain about such a loose bolt being found, right? -- Regards, Noddy.
From: OzOne on 3 Jun 2010 22:57 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:41:24 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote: > ><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message >news:9bfg06poltl3k9ejvcicro2alal79ns58c(a)4ax.com... > >> So you're claiming deliberate misleading publications and fraud! > >No, *you're* claiming that. > >What *I'm* saying is that the brief general outline in the car's service >handbook is *not* the maintenance schedule instructions that the dealersghip >staff work to. Unfortunately the items that require service are very clearly listed in the owners manuals. If the owner is NOT informed when he books in his car that the procedures are different...and is still charged for ALL the procedures listed in his owners manual, Then he is being defrauded. > >> An uncle of mine, a pedant through and through, > >How unusual :) > >> used to mark every nut >> bolt and washer on his cars that would need to be moved to carry out >> the service to his vehicles as per the book....He woul then lift the >> bonnet after the dealer service and in the presence of the dealers >> mechanic, point out each bolt that had not been moved and ask how the >> required work (that he was supposed to be paying for) had been done >> without moving said bolts(s). > >He'd be about the 11 millionth person in the country to do that. Indeed, I've been tempted myself, particularly after incidents when cars were kept for another day to rectify problems that were not repaired nor seemed at all changed. > >> They learned very quickly that he would pay only for work done. > >I'm sure they did, but how this is relevant to my comments remains a >mystery. Of course it does....You are thicker than molasses! > >> I had a similar experience when I asked the mechanic at my Ford dealer >> to show me the new points that he'd fitted to my pointless aftermarket >> distributor. > >They probably picked you as a complete knob the moment you walked in the >door. Mmmmm, and quickly realised they were wrong when the cost of the service was reduced to a oil/filter change and the free tyre rotation that they had listed as a cost in the invoice. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: Noddy on 3 Jun 2010 22:52
<OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message news:q9hg069s7fn96rfl127b22e9qlrql8tipr(a)4ax.com... > Damn, I have a couple of factory manuals her....and BOTH state that > the suspension should be checked, as previously stated. Feel free to quote the part that states that ball joint fasteners need to be checked as part of the regular servicing schedule :) > Some might call it fraud to state what you will do, not do it and > charge for it. Some might, but then some people are idiots and just because they believe something doesn't make it right. The service schedule as outlined in your car's manual is no different to the description of procedures you get from anyone else in that it's *not* a blow by blow account of everything that gets done, nor does it tell you the level of detail of the work that is mentioned is to be carried out. You're supposed to be a plumber, right? You give someone a quote for a job and list a brief summary of the work involved, do you tell them *everything* you do and don't do as part of that? -- Regards, Noddy. |