From: D Walford on
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
From: OzOne on
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:53:34 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:leeg06dadsifqmi4etpvueq5lut41u34ic(a)4ax.com...
>
>> So you as a mechanic are also guilty of not doing the work that the
>> client pays for as described in the book.
>
>Mechanics don't follow the vehicle's service book Ozliar. That's propaganda
>"scenery" for the plebs. They follow the service procedure as outlined in
>the factory manual.


Damn, I have a couple of factory manuals her....and BOTH state that
the suspension should be checked, as previously stated.

Some might call it fraud to state what you will do, not do it and
charge for it.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
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.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:01:03 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:gqeg069hihe7vp6go8sg16ua6pk9qsf90q(a)4ax.com...
>
>> Of course, your job was to make money for the dealer.
>> It was essential that you ignore ite,s listed for inspection and
>> charge for washer fluid top ups.
>>
>> I do understand.
>
>Um, no Ozliar, you clearly *don't* understand.

Oh I misunderstood when you wrote this?

" The principal focus was to relieve the
customer of as much money as was humanly possible, and I'd imagine
that to be exactly the same"




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: Dan--- on
"Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:4c0843c6$0$34204$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net...
>

>
> Oooh, touchy.
>
> You're not liking having your own bullshit fed back to you these days I
> see... :)

Would like being next to Bindi Irwin but twice as annoying and going on
about the mythical 8 port mini head. ;-)

---
Regards
Dan.