Talbot

58/50 it should be offered. You are right on the threshold for action in the first place (+10%+2mph) and absolutly nowhere near the point where it needs to be points and no offer of a course (+10%+9mph) Just to make you feel better, if you'd been clocked at 57mph, you would probably have been ignored.

I really really need to do this to mine. It has quite the noticeable power on/off movement at the back, making driving it (especially loaded) quite "interesting" I'm fairly sure the subframe bushes are shot, and I know for sure several of the arm bushes are quite tired too. Having a spare subframe seems like the best plan..

This 'un?

Weather might be an improvement*

This one gets me every time. If the vehicle could have come with optional wheels at the point of sale, and those wheels are later tracked down and fitted.... Is that a modification or simply changing it to the specification that it could have had from factory? What I find frustrating is that there's no clear guidance or information out there, so you could easily fall foul of your own insurer's expectations without realising. Apologies for slight thread de-railment!

Do cosmetic modifications count the same as performace enhancing ones then? Also, where is the cut-off for a cosmetic modification. If they'd only painted the roof green, would that count as a modification? Genuine questions. I always feel like insurers are doing everything they can to wriggle out of liability, and seem to use any excuse. "Oh no, you've fitted a factory dog guard. That's a modification. Your insurance is invalid"

Do the insurers ask what colour it is in the first place? If not, how on earth would they know it has changed?

You're voicing your opinion, I'm voicing mine. Or am I not allowed to take up an opinion that doesn't agree with yours?

If "minding my own fucking business" is being "woke", then bring it on. And yes, I'm a little peeved. Peeved that you should think it reasonable to tell someone else what they can and can't spend their money on. Because it's bullshit.

Surely it's got nothing to do with whether someone is disabled or not. It's all to do with whether it's acceptable for a taxpayer to dictate to a benefits recipient (of any flavour) what they can and cannot do with that money. Are we going to have someone following them around tesco, dictating what they can and cannot buy? "Nope, you're not allowed the posh cheese. I have to buy the cheap stuff, so should you!" Absolutely absurd.

How someone spends their own money, state benefit or otherwise is absolutely none of yours, or indeed anyone else's business. The fact that you have financial responsibilities is your own affair. As above. The source of money spent is absolutely none of your (or indeed anyone else's) business whatsoever. Both of you are falling into the "RAAAAAAHMYTAXDOLLARS" type rant, which is absolutely absurd. The notion that you're bitching and wining about "I work so fucking hard, why should someone on state benefits have disposable income" is quite frankly Orwellian. If I pay more tax than you, does that mean I should have a larger say in how state handouts should be spent? Of course not. Or indeed, if someone works, but is right on the threshold for tax, does that diminish the validity of their contribution to government coffers? Not even slightly. A while back, I was in receipt of state benefits. If someone had told me that because they pay tax, they can dictate to me what I can and can't spend said benefit on, they'd have been told in no uncertain terms which direction they can fuck off in.

We really REALLY do not.

With or without the C2H5OH

Too much / Insufficient. Delete as applicable

Appropriate trailer?

I detect a link here...

When the rubber of the engine mounting breaks down like that, do not jump a humpback bridge and land rather heavily. The weight of the engine will punch the top part of the mount straight through the rubber and end up with metal-to-metal contact. The fix for which is of course to jack up the engine and shove 4 layers of rubber matting in the gap. I would say "ask me how I know", but I've a feeling that's fairly obvious.

Yes, home-made. That does it a bit of a dis-service really, as there are (were) some actual engineering calcs done for this to size the steelwork and to work out the forces needed for the brakes. Because of that, it does generate actual braking.. I've had to do an emergency stop before now while towing a 309 on the back of a 405 TD estate. The ABS fired on the 405 and the 309 locked all 4 wheels. The whole lot stopped amazingly quickly. If anything, it braked a bit too hard, but I'd rather it be that way round. You can feel the brakes coming on quite noticeably on the towed car.. There's a big damper on the over-run, so initially (for about 0.5 seconds) you get no braking as the over-run is moving into position. Then the brakes on the towed car come on and you really notice it. The modification this really needs is a return spring on the braking mechanism, as at the moment you can come to a full stop with the brakes on the towed car still on quite hard. To get them to come off again, you have to move the towcar forwards.

Likewise.

Like any other A-frame, it grabs hold of the lower track control arms. On this C-class it's not ideal as they are multi-link arms rather than solid lower arms, but it worked ok. The different bit is the over-run slider on the hitch, the 5m long bowden cable and the brake pedal pusher.

Wise words.

"Knock Knock!" "Who's there?" "Cylinder three!"

That is a massive discrepancy in heights of pistons. Are you sure you've not snapped the crank?

I had one. I bought it from Nick in Tow Law as a kit. A mk3 version which used the Granada windscreen and so looked a lot better than the overgrown MK1 Fiat Panda shape that the MK2 NCF was with its flat windscreen. Never did finish it. I put a pair of subframes under it, thought it was going to be utter shit off-road, briefly considered modifying it to use Range-Rover running gear, realised it wasn't worth the effort and just sold it off for a fairly hefty loss. Complete waste of time/money/effort But if anyone finds an NCF diamond MK3, which has the longer MK2 back body, without the nose-hung bonnet (using a pair of vauxhaul bonnet hinges cut into the bulkhead), then it was mine. I don't want it back.

All gearbox bearings in working order I trust.. (IE unlike last time...)