Ask a Shiter

[Pillock]

Siestaboy is also a techy background person rather than a daily visitor.

[castros_bro]

kein Kommentar

 

 

 

 

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/20973-new-wheels/

[BorniteIdentity]

kein Kommentar

 

I believe he was at FotU 2016, but you forget who is who plus disparity between names and handles etc.

 

 

 

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/20973-new-wheels/

[worldofceri]

E Leyland & H Sceptre are/were aficionados of rubbish old cars who set up the original Autoshite website (now defunct) and the associated forum.  Siestaboy is/was their techy chum who helped build it for them but, since he's not a car-guy, he's never contributed to the forum.

 

It's a shame EL and HS have drifted away over the years but, as I understand it, they still own the domain and it's thanks to them the forum continues as it does.

[warren t claim]

It probably cones as no surprise to learn that whichever moderator concerned hasn't been bothered to reply via pm or on here. Obviously lacks conviction in his own judgement and is unwilling to justify his actions either.

 

Awaits warning points or banhammer for daring to question authority.

[Slartibartfast]

It probably cones as no surprise to learn that whichever moderator concerned hasn't been bothered to reply via pm or on here. Obviously lacks conviction in his own judgement and is unwilling to justify his actions either.

 

Awaits warning points or banhammer for daring to question authority.

All this because your thread was renamed? Honestly?

[warren t claim]

All this because your thread was renamed? Honestly?

Why rename a long standing thread without the common courtesy to consult the OP?

[xtriple]

What are the later SAAB 9 3 convertibles like? Are they still like a jelly on a stormy sea? They seem to be cheap(ish) and 4 seats wiv floppy roof so ideal for aging me/dog/and young Chester.

[Bobthebeard]

What are the later SAAB 9 3 convertibles like? Are they still like a jelly on a stormy sea? They seem to be cheap(ish) and 4 seats wiv floppy roof so ideal for aging me/dog/and young Chester.

Later as in when/what year?

[xtriple]

Ah, that would help I guess, 2004 - 2007 ish. There also seems to be a variety of engines/power outputs, which one is desirable bearing in mind it will be coupled to a slushbox?

[Cavcraft]

Ah, that would help I guess, 2004 - 2007 ish. There also seems to be a variety of engines/power outputs, which one is desirable bearing in mind it will be coupled to a slushbox?

 

I think these suffered with a bit of scuttle shake (as they all seemed to do) and the 2.0 petrol ones need the strainer in the sump cleaning out or they grenade themselves. Mine was manual, but they should be an automatic iirc.

[Anthony]

So, has anyone else here had to deal with leaky 205s before? Does that window seal look especially knackered? If so, what's the cheapest way that I'd be able to fix it? Only paid 250 quid for the car. Mechanically it's perfect but the rest of it is tatty as hell, should have the first MOT that it's had in a few years by the end of the week.

 

Yes they do leak for fun I'm afraid.

 

The rubber seal on the rear glass is only a trim - the seal is from the glass bonding.  Either way, unless the boot is soaking well with pools of water, you can probably rule the tailgate and rear light clusters out.

 

The usual issue causing the rear footwells to be wet is the rear quarter window seals if it's a 3dr model, particularly the seals for the opening type windows on higher spec models as they shrink with age and eventually no longer seal.  If it's these, you'll likely see tale-tale water tracking marks on the rear quarter plastics and under the rear seats will be damp.

 

Check that the sills aren't full of water as well, as the drain points under the car are tiny and can block.  If the water level in the sill gets high enough, it'll enter the car through the lower seat belt point.

 

I'm assuming that the front footwells are dry - there's all manner of places to leak up front, and water can run backwards and pool in the rear footwell.

[Microwave]

Check that the sills aren't full of water as well, as the drain points under the car are tiny and can block.  If the water level in the sill gets high enough, it'll enter the car through the lower seat belt point.

 

I'm assuming that the front footwells are dry - there's all manner of places to leak up front, and water can run backwards and pool in the rear footwell.

 

I haven't had a look at the sills, but I'll do so tomorrow. It's currently parked inside a warehouse so it's not had chance to get full of water recently (been trying to clean it up a bit). There's no noticeable rust or bubbling on the sills at all, but I'm not sure you'd even notice before it's too late.

The front footwells do indeed appear to be dry, I've not noticed any moisture in them at all so far, only the rear ones. The XLD trim has fixed rear quarter windows, but it does have a sunroof. I've not noticed any moisture around the sunroof or its seals after it's been raining, but I'm not going to completely rule that out. However, I think I'd notice the headliner going too if the sunroof was leaking bad enough to create the pool of water I showed in my original post. I lifted the bottom of one of the rear seats up yesterday, and there didn't appear to be any obvious signs of damp, but the fabric on the surface of the seat is full of mold. Beyond that though, I'm honestly really not sure where this water could be coming from. Highly irritating, but I knew it'd have issues like this when I bought it.

[anonymous user]

So, I fairly recently acquired a 1990 Peugeot 205 XLD with an extremely mouldy interior. It had been stood in a builders yard for a couple of years before I bought it, and I was told when I bought it that the reason it was mouldy/full of water was because somebody had left the driver's window down. However, this has turned out to be false, as every time it rains hard the rear footwells turn into small lakes, as shown here:

 

Did a bit of digging on various Peugeot 205 related forums, and it is my understanding that absolutely every single fucking seam on a 205 will end up leaking at some point in the car's life. At first, I thought the rear light clusters might have been the culprit, but I cleaned off a bit of the moss on the tailgate today to reveal this (on an otherwise very rust free car):

 

 

Dammit.

 

This is the top on that side:

 

 

And the other side for comparison:

 

 

I rang Autoglass, out of pure curiosity, and I got a quote of over 300 quid to replace the glass and seal and stuff. Apparently the glass is bonded and can break whilst being removed? I don't know. Needless to say, I don't think I'll be going down that route.

 

So, has anyone else here had to deal with leaky 205s before? Does that window seal look especially knackered? If so, what's the cheapest way that I'd be able to fix it? Only paid 250 quid for the car. Mechanically it's perfect but the rest of it is tatty as hell, should have the first MOT that it's had in a few years by the end of the week.

Captain Tolley's Creeping Crack Cure has had good results on leaky seals in the past.

[M'coli]

All this because your thread was renamed? Honestly?

Yup. What, really, was wrong with the original thread title?

[warren t claim]

Yup. What, really, was wrong with the original thread title?

I have noticed that our gentleman's golf club moderators have all looked at this thread but whoever fucked about with the title us roo much or a coward to admit to it.

[artdjones]

I thought the title was quite funny.

[Slartibartfast]

Why was it changed? The suggestion was made by a member that calling it the stupid question amnesty implied it was only for stupid questions, and renaming it would make it clearer what the thread was for. This seemed pretty reasonable.

 

Now I ask, why do you (whoever you may be) care that it has been renamed?

[warren t claim]

Why was it changed? The suggestion was made by a member that calling it the stupid question amnesty implied it was only for stupid questions, and renaming it would make it clearer what the thread was for. This seemed pretty reasonable.

 

Now I ask, why do you (whoever you may be) care that it has been renamed?

Simply because it worked well for a very long time and as OP I would of liked to of been asked? Was it you (whoever the fuck you may be) who changed it?

[BeEP]

Why was it changed? The suggestion was made by a member that calling it the stupid question amnesty implied it was only for stupid questions, and renaming it would make it clearer what the thread was for. This seemed pretty reasonable.

 

The problem with that as iI see it is that the raison d'etre of the original thread has now been lost completely.  Namely that when someone has a question they think might be deemed stupid or simplistic by others they may now shy away from posting it.  And I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing stuff many others will see as obvious.

[The Moog]

The reason for change is some of this below and also it had become a general question thread - so titled updated.

Noticed a few posts moved here lately....

 

Time for a thread title change to reflect a much more general range of questions?

+1 for THE QUESTION THREAD reboot.

Sometimes I have a question

 

If I have a sensible question I don't want to put it in the stupid question thread.

I am not pissed off with the change.

Might be obvious to you because you started it.

When I came on I thought it was for stupid questions, and thus avoided it because I'm not stupid.

No one owns threads on here. Once posted they become public content and in turn will be moderated.

 

If that really upsets you then feel free to pm me or another mod.

 

Or alternatively don't post here and post on your own website/blog.

 

Honestly whether you believe it or not, we don't try and be arses and upset people. With this many people some will agree, some willl disagree and some don't give a shit.

[cort16]

Am I right In thinking autoshite used to sponsor a spotted competition in practical classics right back in the early days ?

[cort16]

Ah, that would help I guess, 2004 - 2007 ish. There also seems to be a variety of engines/power outputs, which one is desirable bearing in mind it will be coupled to a slushbox?

I had a 2001 one and thought it was flippin rubbish. I think the later model based on the newer 93 are better and a good looking car to my eyes.

[Cavcraft]

Am I right In thinking autoshite used to sponsor a spotted competition in practical classics right back in the early days ?

 

Lord knows, but it sounds like the sort of thing we should probably do.

[meggersdog]

Am I right In thinking autoshite used to sponsor a spotted competition in practical classics right back in the early days ?

yes, sort of, one of the two founders was editing an as found page in pc with the web address of autoshite on the page and that's how I found this place.

[The Moog]

yes one of the two founders was editing an as found page in pc with the web address of autoshite on the page and that's how I found this place.

Same here. I came through PC.

[meggersdog]

took bloody ages to be accepted though. 

[chaseracer]

Yeah.  Funny how that doesn't happen any more.  Still: FUCK DA MODS, eh? 

[Lacquer Peel]

RIP in peace sweet prince SQA. I think I prefer SQA as a title but that's only because I got used to it.

There were people creating new threads that could have been a post in this thread, the name change might make it easier for people who don't want to post in a thread with the word stupid in the title.

[artdjones]

I come to Autoshite because it's unusual and different.It may seem logical to mess about with stuff you personally can't see the point of but then you are just turning the site into Pistonheads for tatty cars.Also, everyone is grateful to the moderators for what they do,but they are not entitled to a presumption of infallibility.