EnterName

I want to say valve-stem oil seals, but I'm not a mechanic. I think you should listen to Warrior.

@wyx087, you don't get to keep lifting hoops up for me to jump through. 😄 Here is what I want to say: DO NOT OBJECT TO ME NOT WANTING AN EV. If I can try and paraphrase (and expand upon it) what you've said in reply, your response to that is "I haven't, and I promise to never object to you or anyone else not wanting an EV.". If that is the case, then we're good. 👍

Disagreement with me is welcome. It provokes me into testing my opinions. If I can't back up an opinion I hold to my own satisfaction (never mind the rest of the people on here), I have to revisit it and may have to adjust it accordingly. However, people trying to gang up and bully me off a forum will be responded to in the spirit they attack me.

🤔

Where did you go, I mean which garage did you use?

Just noticing patterns of behaviour, George.

That knocking sound is regular, and about 120-130BPM. Off the top of my head, I'd be looking at the cambelt catching on something as it rotates. Other than that, it might be some trim vibrating oddly with engine vibration, it doesn't sound metallic in the video. But it's hard to tell from the video.

I see you have the attention of the Clique, so I'm sorry to have to point out that I NEVER SAID YOU OBJECTED TO ME NOT WANTING AN EV.😄 Oof! And with the leader of the Clique cheering you on, too. 😄 Here's the relevant portion of my post. That is a request that you not object to me wanting one. I didn't claim that you had, that's all in your head, pal. I even had ChatGPT parse the sentence to see if it is an accusation of some sort. Computer says "No!". <cough> The problem is that you're responding to what you want people to think I said, rather than what I actually said. I get that a lot on here. Either it's poor comprehension skills or dishonesty, both are plausible explanations IMO, so take your pick. 🤷‍♂️ Nice try, but no cigar.

What I said. Your stealth-edited version of what I said. Not your finest moment, @wyx087.

Emotional insinuation without detail, the hallmark of woke nonsense.

Perfect example of the sort of scientific corruption I'm on about.

Regular use and a good concentration of screen wash will help keep it clear, but it's ridiculous to have components that rust in a screen wash system.

Possibly, but on my car, the clutch does not completely disengage and is held at a slight bite. I can feel the car relax back when I put the gearbox into neutral, which I now do instinctively when I am coming to a stop. Sometimes before I actually come to a complete stop. This has the added bonus of allowing a perfectly smooth halt.

It very much has to do with what I said. You said the market can't always be right and implied it needs intervention. You keep repeating it. In fact you've done it again in the post I'm quoting here. The reason I haven't presented any additional evidence is because there's no point. When I did, you started blathering on about colonialism and imperialism and how not ruining our economies to the benefit of the developing countries is unfair. It's not about the "science", it's about "Social Justice", and I have no interest in that. You want an electric car, fine. Don't object to me not wanting one. That is a silly thing to say, and reiterates your adherence to consensus. I don't need scientific consensus to see the effect of gravity. I can see it's effect, and the scientific explanation for it is plausible. The "science" behind man-made climate change is flaky at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact that a load of scientists have been persuaded to go along with it is to their shame. Every time they predict something and then get it completely wrong, they say "Ah! Our model was incorrect. We forgot to account for X. Please give us more money for additional resources & research to improve our model." They can't predict anything with a reasonable degree of accuracy and have now given up even trying. Thanks for the link to "Union of Concerned Scientists" by the way. That gave me a good laugh when this popped up immediately. 😂 Money. Lots and lots of someone else's money. Pfft! I screen-capped the graph from the link I provided. The curves, X & Y axes are all clearly labelled. Just because my choice of graph highlights a truth you'd rather wasn't highlighted does NOT make it dishonest. 🎵 Calling me "untrustworthy" is weak, you're playing to the clique, don't cry at my critique, it's the truth I seek. 🎵 Word! You're missing my point, or perhaps my point is missing you because you're avoiding it. My point (which I'll dumb-down for you) is "Do you think you are in agreement with every top expert on every issue you hold an opinion on?". You can dodge that question too, if you like. But it's there for people to see it's been asked and dodged. Again. I know this was to @PetrolDave but I'll address it anyway. For the love of God step away from the word "consensus" when talking about science. Consensus is anti-science.

Yep. Pretty much the same thing, IMO. Ah ha! This is the money-shot. The whole idea of "consensus" is (IMO quite a feminine) perversion of science. Scientists don't care about consensus. Consensus is for women, soy-boys and deciding where the lads are going for a drink tonight. Any "science" that leans on consensus is not science. Unfortunately, your whole case rests on an artificial consensus, which is pushed by people with vested interests in pushing the "green" agenda. (It was the same with the COVID-19 vaccines, IMO. The "consensus" on the benefits of the vaccine did not represent the reality of the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. Some of most ardent vaccine enthusiasts stopped at three shots and said "Now hang on a minute...".) All scientists have incentives and disincentives to push the Climate Change agenda. You want a load of funding from "green" groups and/or Governments? Tell them you're studying the effects of "climate change" on <whatever you like> and the money will flow. Hat-tip to @Graham Butcher at this point. Wyx, now you're being disingenuous. The data is as presented on the website. Framing it as "EnterName's Data" vs "Truth" is getting into Clique territory of dishonesty, and I notice they have shown their approval of some of your posts. I literally cut and paste the graph from the website. It's not MY data, it's THE data as provided by that source. Haven't watched the video but I agree, there are way too many ideologues who think they can control everything better than just letting people trade freely. Whoa! Now this is quite a pivot from Captain Consensus, isn't it? 🤨 Suddenly you don't GAF about consensus, who cares about people's opinions!? INB4 "You're putting words in my mouth!" No. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm re-framing what you said to highlight the logical inconsistencies in your argument. LOL I missed this off my list of cliches. In return I offer: Let's be clear, Climate Change is more about wealth redistribution from developed countries to developing countries than any immediate threat to the planet. How's that for a fact? Yes, which is why I want the smallest Government possible. The less they can get their hands on to mess up for the rest of us, the better IMO. Your urge to tell people what to do and your desire to change laws to force them to do it if they don't comply drips from almost every post. I can just see you at the exit to Sainsbury's trying to tell people they have bought the "wrong" shopping, with "facts" and "data" to back up why they should have bought X instead of Y, which is killing people in Africa!!!!!! 😄

Thanks Dan. That's good to hear. I've found it either increases premiums, or more usually you get the "Nah, we don't insure modified vehicles.". But it's VERY difficult to get a like for like comparison, hence the inability to draw up a table of modification costs. Obviously there are algorithms to determine risk, but I suppose they are commercially confidential.

Well now, isn't THIS ironic? We've agreed that the tobacco industry promoted misleading data and suppressed truthful data so that the public perception about tobacco use was skewed in their favour. But you're convinced that isn't the case for vast sums of money being spent on climate-change initiatives? 🤪 indeed! Incidentally, it may interest you to know that there are some people who are crazy enough to still be smoking. Can you believe it!? Look, we've had this debate before and when we got into it and I presented my data, you went off on a tangent talking about "imperialism" and "oppression". Come back at me against the data I have already provided, not with political ideology. Agreed, it has to be BETTER. Yes, that is perfectly sensible behaviour. What's your point? 🤷‍♂️ Yeah, you do keep saying that, but the market IS always right, so long as it's left to operate without some smart-alec trying to "improve" things in line with his ideology. Answer me this: Do you honestly believe that all your opinions on issues are perfectly aligned with the smartest people on the planet who are most knowledgeable about those issues and hold the correct opinion on the issue? (They are correct because they have the intelligence and expert knowledge on the issue to be able to reach the correct opinion? For the love of God, don't deflect by trying to assert than I'm claiming to be the smartest guy in the world.) If not, which of the opinions you presently hold are correct, and which are incorrect? You might want to have a think about that one. A level playing field is a sensible goal to aim for. Do I think VAG should have been punished? Absolutely not. VAG did nothing wrong, IMO. They built vehicles to pass the emissions tests and pass they did. VAG shouldn't be blamed for a inadequate test, blame the idiots who created a test that was easy to cheat. I believe ALL the car manufacturers cheated. VAG was just clumsy/daft/honest(?) enough to get caught. You do you.

Sorry, I missed this point, and it's a good one. That's quite a narrow set of terms, but if you'll allow it, let me use seat belts as an good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#:~:text=Volvo introduced the first production,was the 1959 Volvo 122 Volvo introduced seatbelts into their cars as early as 1959. This was innovative and helped cement Volvo's reputation as making cars that looked after their passengers. Even today, Volvo are associated with dull but safe cars. The market responded accordingly. Demand for seat belts grew, and so more manufacturers introduced them Eventually the legislators caught up, and in the UK it became mandatory to wear a seatbelt in the front of a car in 1983, and in the back seats in 1991.

Yes, and they will do this by whatever means works. If you're advocating for scrapping the IMF, I'm with you on that. Fossil fuel subsidies lower fuel prices, punitive taxes on fuel raise the prices again. Swings and roundabouts, (Where does the IMF get that $7,000,000,000 from to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, eh? Not willingly from me, I can tell you!) Indeed, and the market has reacted accordingly. Sales are slowing and prices are dropping rapidly. When used EVs (and new) reach a desirable price for the market, the market will react accordingly. Yes. Other EV companies CEO's Mums are asking "Why can't you be more like that nice boy, Elon? Look how well he's doing!". Venture capitalists are part of the market. Legacy manufacturers are faced with the prospect of huge fines for failing to sell EVs that the market doesn't want. So they're being blackmailed by the EU into spaffing huge amounts of money on EV production lines, to make cars people don't want. It's not hard to see why venture capitalists are saying "I'm out!" to that deal. <BUZZ!> No. Climate change concern is for lefties and centrist virtue-signallers. I (and most people IMO) don't actually GAF about man-made climate change in the West. Pollution yes, but CO2 is not pollution. You can give me the Thunberg "How DARE you!?" all you like, I don't care and I've explained why previously. It's a made-up problem, IMO. You can say "Let's be honest..." or "Let's be clear..." (a tried and trusted favourite) or even "We all agree it's indisputable that...", but the assertion that "there is a change needed" needs to be convincing enough for the market to buy into it, and I mean that literally. Oh come on! The tobacco industry promoted fake "research" in to the benefits of tobacco consumption, and suppressed any information that highlighted the risks of using tobacco. So the market was skewed in favour of the tobacco industry, by political blobs like Ken Clarke. (Fortunately that sort of thing would NEVER happen with something like a coronavirus vaccine. Oh nonononono! The big pharmaceutical companies are there to save lives, not make money. Angels, every one of them. #ClapForPfizer) The financial crash of 2008 was not down to too little regulation, IMO it was down to too much regulation. When you have dopey ideologues coming up with regulation and the best brains money can buy finding ways around it, there's only going to be one winner there. One example was literally obliging banks to lend to people with terrible credit ratings. (Remember sub-prime mortgages?) The banks then started taking whatever legal (and potentially lucrative) measures they could come up with, to mitigate having to lend money to the most unreliable people imaginable. It's worth noting that very few banks were allowed to fail. The market was tampered with. IMO, the poor data privacy of the tech industry was both inadequately punished and under-reported. If people knew their data was not secure, guess what, the market would respond accordingly and the tech companies would up their security game or fail. Data security would become a selling feature, not a dirty little secret. Having been told to jump through ever more hoops to satisfy emission regulations, (example of that sort of bumf here https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/740246/EPRS_BRI(2023)740246_EN.pdf )it's not unreasonable for the car industry to throw their hands up and say "Oh come on now!" when the politicians suddenly demand "You know what? We've decided you have to make EVs. and if you don't make enough, we're going to fine you.". Why SHOULD they make cars according to political diktat, rather than market demand? (I'm going to disregard a "Muh climate change!" answer to that question.) If you make it, promote it and price it right, people will buy it. If you promote it really well, you can charge what you want for it. 🤷‍♂️ As soon as coercion is applied, people like me who do not like being told what to do without a convincing reason, will dig our heels in against the coercion.

As there are a couple of insurance businesses represented on here, I wonder if they might share some information on how vehicle modifications affect insurance premiums? Presumably, so long as the vehicle is still road-legal after modification, people can do what they want to their vehicles. However once modified, there is no obligation of any insurance company to to insure the vehicle. Very often, there seems to be a "Computer says no!" attitude from mainstream insurers when it comes to modifications, which is where specialists like Adrian Flux come in. However it would be useful if there were some sort of index that car owners could refer to when choosing modifications to their car, so that their performance, styling or audible modification doesn't make their car prohibitively expensive to ensure. Yes, I realise that every vehicle & owner combination is unique, and is thus priced accordingly, but surely there is some sort of rule of thumb. For example (and I'm making this up): Adding a sports exhaust adds 10% to the premium. Another made-up example: Remap adds a flat 20% for just doing it, and then an additional 10% (compounded up) for every 5% power increase above the original vehicle power. Are there rules, tables, whatever, or is it "Nah! We sort of make it up as we go along."?

It's clear, but my being a happy chappy isn't because I have accepted the reality that most people don't want to be forced into an EV. It's because I'm naturally good-natured and cheerful. Positively playful, even. You should try it. Turn that froon upside-doon! 😊

What do you mean?

That's what venture capitalists are for. Incidentally, Musk did this with Tesla, and everyone loved him until he lost all his lefty credentials and now he's hated by the woke because he bought Twitter, now X. Nevertheless, he's made a good product and the market have responded accordingly. Teslas are everywhere! (I seem to recall you bought one yourself, did YOU get it wrong? 😋) This is a good point and an important caveat: As soon as someone starts tippling the scales to try and steer the market in a preferred direction, they mess things up and the market reacts. Yes, if you heavily subsidise EVs and punish ICE vehicles, then you can tip the scales sufficiently for the market to buy the subsidised vehicles. (Just look at all the whooping and hat-throwing on here over an hour's free electricity. Some people are cheaply bought.) But of course then you have to keep the subsidies in place until you have killed off the opposition. Incidentally, you can do this with any business, and it's simple enough: 1) Set up shop competitively adjacent to your business rival. 2) Undercut them so strongly that they either go bust trying to match your prices, or go broke through lack of business. (A partner with deep pockets is essential here.) 3) Once they're out of business, buy up what's left of them, stock, property etc. and revise your prices to whatever you want (without shocking your customers away with a sudden increase), seeing as you've demolished your competition. This is called predatory pricing and in the UK can be challenged by reference to the Competition Act 1998, or reported to the Competition and Markets Authority, but it's difficult to prove and I suspect many have gone bust trying, especially against a wealthy opponent with deeper pockets and more expensive lawyers. Reasonably free markets are not hard to achieve, but then a successful free market doesn't need a whole lot of oversight/governance, just facilitation and protection against corruption. An example of facilitation would be finding a way of letting people change their energy supplier quickly and easily, without intrusive disconnection and reconnection. For those who love state control over everything, that is unacceptable. "What if people don't do what I want them to? No no no! We must have regulation over absolutely everything! Besides, whatever would all the bureaucrats do!?!". Luckily, as I'm not a far-left ideologue (I'm not throwing shade at you here, Wyx), I'm capable of giving definitions for words I use. From my perspective, the "market" is the aggregate term for the exchange of scarce resources which have alternative uses. If you let people freely trade, and the only authoritative intervention is to facilitate free trade, then the "market" will allocate those scarce resources correctly, in line with the needs and desires of the people who wish to exchange those scarce resources. Using gold as a currency facilitates the market. Fiat money subverts it. (Now ask me to define what a woman is, I'm one of the few people on Brisky who can honestly and accurately answer that question. 😋) LOL no. 😄 What I'm saying is the exact opposite of that. The market should NOT be manipulated at all. Not even a little bit. Facilitation is fine. Offering protection against predatory pricing is okay, though if someone comes along and does it better and cheaper, well TS. That said, if it's a foreign state-backed company, then I think it's reasonable for predatory pricing protection legislation to be used to protect local businesses against that. Yes they do, and as a result, the market is manipulated by that leverage and influence. I am against that.

I don't think the difference in diameter/circumference between the two tyre sizes is going to make a 10mpg difference. There are so many variables that could impact the MPG, it's beyond me to point to what the problem is, before looking at the possibility of a problem with the car. Tyre pressures, fuel, temperature, tyre rolling resistance, wheel weight etc. But 10mpg down certainly sounds like a problem to me.

I would be getting a definite diagnosis of the problem before shopping around for a new DMF and clutch pack for your DSG.