Units affected: 65

Recall Number: 78V009000

Summary: THE INVOLVED VEHICLES DO NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NOS. 122, "MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS" AND 123, "MOTORCYCLE CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS". THE PROPER LABELS IDENTIFYING THE IGNITION, TURN SIGNAL (LEFT AND RIGHT), TACHOMETER, HORN, AND LIGHTS HAVE BEEN OMITTED. THE FUEL TANK IS NOT PROPERLY LABELED AND THE ENGINE STOP SWITCH MUST BE INSTALLED AND IDENTIFIED.

Consequence:

Remedy: DEALER WILL INSTALL THE REQUIRED LABELS AND PLACARDS TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS.

Notes: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MOTORCYCLES.SYSTEM: EQUIPMENT; LABELS AND PLACARDS.CONSEQUENCES OF DEFECT: OPERATION OF THE MOTORCYCLE BY ANYONE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF THESE INSTRUMENT CONTROLS WOULD CREATE AN UNSAFE SITUATION THAT COULD LEAD TO A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Modern Health and Safety hysteria?

Build Years/Makes/Models: 1977 MOTO MORINI 350

Not really Read more

About a year ago I bought a Subaru Forester 2.0 XT auto at three years old as a second car/dog truck. I chose it over a 3.0 Outback (which I loved!) because at the time the Forester was in band F and the VED was much less than the Outback which is band G.

Since our wonderful Chancellor has introduced retrospective VED changes there is now only £25 difference between the Forester XT and Outback. So, perversely I am thinking 'sod you' I might as well get an Outback as only a Subaru dealer will give me anything for my Forester. There seem to be some great deals out there for Ouback 3.0 models.

This is probably one for Espada who has experience of both models - what difference can I expect in mpg in the real world? I live in a rural area. Any other diferences I should be aware of, bearing in mind I have not Driven an Outback on other than a test drive.

I have also considered a 2.5 XT auto. I know they are all thirsty, but I hate diesels.
BTW, the Forester is a great car, but I thought I might take advantage of the current 'economic downturn'.

Any advice much appreciated.

Regards, HectorG Read more

On 25th May this year, my Rover 75 1.8 engine suffered from water ingestion during flooding, breaking the con rods. I replaced the engine during the first week in June as it already had 114000 miles on it and a repair may not have been cost effective. A remanufactured engine sounded excellent but cost £1337.33 plus fitting by a local garage. After it was fitted, the car was losing very small amounts of coolant; an eggcup full per week initially. I couldn't believe the new engine was leaking so I replaced hoses and radiator - they were old, but no obvious leakage. Coolant loss started again. It got to half a cup to a cup a day by the end of September and I saw coolant running down the side of the block from the head. I contacted the suppliers and, at their request, arranged return of the head to their warranty people. The suppliers appear to act as agents and have no workshop facilities, so work was carried was out by a local engineer. The head was undamaged, the gasket was intact, no sign of overheating other than a temperature sensitive label reading 110 degrees. In his opinion, the suppliers are liable, as no obvious cause of leaking other than poor workmanship could be found. But the suppliers say the label shows overheating and voids the warranty. They won't replace it and effectively wash their hands of the problem. What is the point of the warranty? I am stuck with a bill for dismantling the engine, finding the problem and getting it fixed ? in excess of £700.00. I'm sure you can see why I'm so angry.

Read more

Just wondering if anyone else saw this last night. Was on More 4 at 10, and was a road trip in a 1970 Ford Torino estate to see if it was possible to drive across America spending money only in independant "Mom and Pop" outlets.

Only watched it by chance as was a film by Dave Gorman, whose work I have always liked as seems to act out ideas thought out in the pub after quite a few drinks, but does go through with.

The attitude to the customer was astounding to see. As they were not buying fuel from the chains, inevitably it meant running out of petrol (especially as the fuel tank was not as big as they had been told by the seller). In one case the owner of a fuel station drove out 5 miles with a can of fuel to get them into town to fill up, and expected no money whatsoever for this. The car also broke down a lot, and in one case the owner of a diner called the garage owner on thanksgiving weekend, who came and opened up the garage just to fix the car, with no hint of additional charges for the inconvenience. As this breakdown also meant staying in the town, the motel owner invited them to his family thanksgiving meal. On a later breakdown they were even towed 10 miles by a passing pick up driver who took pity on them, and continued to do so even after it appeared the Torino accidentally hit the back of his pick up as the Ford brakes were not that efficient.

Personally is a film would recommend to other backroomers, just to witness the complete change of attitude between the UK and USA in customer service, and treating complete strangers as old long lost friends. The look of shock when they realised there were no call out charges was quite funny to watch. There was also some stunning scenery as they took to the backroads as the service stations on the highways were mostly chain outlets. Be warned though, there was quite a bit of strong language when things went wrong! Read more

Main Ford dealer tells me that all 4 injectors on 2003 2.0 Tcdi need to be replaced. Car has covered only 99K miles - surely all 4 injectors shouldn't need replacing ? Ford main dealer has already replaced one injector at cost of £400 + after diagnostic check - now one week later - with original poor running and smoking not fixed - is claiming remaining 3 need to be replaced at additional cost of £850.

Does this sound plausible ? I would have thought injectors were good for many more miles - should I expect Ford to replace - even though I reaslie warrnaty has expired...but there is an element of reasonable parts/component life expectancy and fitness for purpose here ? Read more