J.R.

Climate change caused the service ducts to collapse 🥴 Thats as good as my "Brexit ate my homework".

I'm guessing that the rear most car drove up afterwards 💡 It might even be the plod. How about the front car had uncommanded emergency autonomous reversing? Or its because of Brexit....................... Find a photo and select your own narrative!

That made me laugh! I genuinely had not considered that very important consideration, little wonder so few other people do as I do. And yet they are always the ones to either run out or leave the vehicle running on fumes!

OK, that is 2 videos and the full length. One shock absorber is in perfect as new condition, the other good roadworthy and MOT passing condition for a 6 year old vehicle, both would have appeared "perfect" on a bump test, I think your use of the words "destroyed" and disaster is unjustified. The dynamic test on a French CT might, just might have showed some dysimettry (if that is the word in English) but they were both perfectly functional in my opinion. For some reason your comments about the MOT test the day after you bought are now missing from your first posting but it does not show as editted, they show where you are quoted in the second posting, what is the reason for that? If it makes you feel any better from my own experience you did the right thing, my front shocks were misting slightly but damping perfectly, confirmed on a UK MOT test and then a French CT test 2 years later, the misting was no worse, then during some of my removal journeys while towing I felt the car porpoising, a bump test on the front revealed nothing, the suspension was too hard and the wings too flimsy to carry it out properly, then with 2 of us doing it on the front slam panel (still a bit too weak) they were not looking good, the misting was no worse. I replaced them and when testing on the bench without the spring they were completely shot, not an ounce of damping on bump or rebound, I was shocked because the handling was still very good when not towing. So I concluded that misting was total rowlocks (which I have always known) it is leaking but the damping is unaffected for a very long time before failing completely very suddenly when the last of the fluid was vented, I think the gas had vented years before.

It would not return if the gas capsule had failed, however you can see considerable force was needed to overcome the initial force indicating that it was intact and functional, the fact that the video is cut short before showing the rebound movement is suspicious. If the gas has gone but there is still oil in the damper, even 30% of the original volume the damper will still function correctly (unless internal valving has failed) and it would for sure pass a UK MOT as they are very basic, a French CT test with the vibrating plate and graphic print out would probably indicate its efficiency was reduced but it would still pass the test.

My apologies, a few years ago on the forum I would not have made the wrong assumption that you did not do your own repairs, we are definitely in the minority now, it was the "seemingly" that misled me, I read it as indicating doubt or scepticism.

I cannot view the video, it says no video of the format MIME (whatever that is) is managed could be found. What did it show?

Why do you say that it "seems" to have sprung a leak? Have you observed it or are you repeating what a garage has said? Or what were the symptoms? On the assumption that your clutch hydraulic system shares the fluid reservoir with the brakes you should check the fluid level as a matter of urgency.

Are you saying that I have not actually done what I say for every fill up over the last 20 years but am just theorising? Some of the quoted tank volumes do not correspond to all the models, mine showed 55 litres but it is 60 litres. Maybe I misunderstood, it is not a theory that the fuel filler volume cannot be 5-7 litres, it was observation and mathematics. In 2016 your claim of 5 litres expansion volume was at odds with those who had measured it: Whatever those like you or I will run the vehicle as far as we dare and squeeze in as much as we can, brimming is no risk with a diesel but can screw the evaporative cartridge emissions system on a petrol. OTOH running out of fuel on a CR Tdi is major league risky.

You are not locking it correctly, you have to use the key again to lock it, first turn the cap closed until you hear the ratchet clicking (the tic-tac sound) then put in the key and turn clockwise to lock. Once locked it should spin freely in both directions without sound, if unlocked it will make the tic-tac sound when turned clockwise.

The vehicle has a "virtual" reserve capacity of 5-7 litres which is created by the fuel guage and distance remaining readouts being fiddled in the last 1/4 of a tank. The stated capacity is the stated capacity and whilst you might possibly be able to add another litre by overfilling the filler neck no way is that volume 5 or 7 litres, imagine 7 litre bottles of water laying down line astern and compare that to the length and very small diameter of the filler neck. People think they are squeezing in another 5-7 litres because the pump nozzle has stopped delivering due to the back pressure of overfast filling, I always slow down the flow on the last 10 litres, its faster overall if you want to fully fill the tank. To answer the OP's question A minimum of 100kms/60 miles on each and every tank of fuel for the last 20 years and have never run out aside from when the tank sender was faulty and never filled the tanks to their full capacity although I did get 59.8 litres in recently which was pushing it too far trying to get to the next autoroute exit rather than pay the 20% at the services, I think I had gone 80 miles or more but had stopped looking, I had misjudged the distances and knew it was really touch and go. Filling up when the fuel light comes on gives peace of mind but you refill 5 times when it could have been 4, maybe even 4 times when it could have been 3, thats a lot of time over 20 years! If you look at the range showing when you fill the tank that is precisely the range you will get if you disregard the untruths of the zero miles remaining, I fill up after 600 miles, it would be 520-550 if I believed what the fuel guage and distance remaining displays were telling me.

What alleged problems of mine have been proved?

I dont know, please tell us.

No **** Sherlock!

Your imagination is running riot once again.

Bald reply again, - rubbish! Only preconised on start stop systems and the battery will charge and the world will not end if the connection is made to the battery terminal.

Yes.

OK I understand, some of the front fixings are weak. I had an OE variofloor on my MK1 Octavia, that was very strong, the MK2 and Yeti did not have them so I bought MK1 Octavia ones from scrapyards and modified them to fit, I made my own side and front supports so they were as strong as the floor. I learned a few things doing the mods: Tthe boot width between rear arch protectors seems to be common on all the vehicles at 1m. Tthe radius of the rear edge against the bumper varies slightly between models otherwise the 3 piece variofloors are identical in shape but with different front fixings. Removing one section making a 3 piece variofloor into a 2 piece one it fits the Yeti perfectly, with a little reshaping of the rear radius, most people would not bother but I am OCD with my work.

I am really struggling to understand the above, what was the purpose of fitting the ballast weights?

Do you know that from personal experience or are you going by the instructions in the handbook? Is the Superb variofloor a plywood one as used on previous generations of vehicles? If so it can take massively more than the supposed maximum load in the handbook and will deflect but spring back to flat, its approx 95cm unsupported width on all these vehicles. The maximum load given would be the same without a variofloor, its a function of the vehicles payload and the effect on the vehicles stability just like the roof rails, in both cases they can take much much more but is not advisable, your belief that it would break if taken beyond the handbook loading is incorrect, I once carried a load of paving slabs and was surprised at how strong it was, better plywood than any that I can buy, it may even have been blockboard, I am a chancer but even I stopped loading before the variofloor was showing signs of distress.

Cables with thinner insulation can carry a larger current, the manufacturers got wise to that a very long time ago. Length of cable is directly related to current carrying capacity but has no relationship with insulation thickness. @Erreesse why did you feel the need to compensate for the removal of the 25kg of iron they added for some daft reason to do with WTLP or whatever? Its not as if the vehicle was designed with that in place.

Dependant on the combustion chamber design, scavenging and valve durations it is often the case that only one set of valves makes contact, there is also the variable of the camshaft positions at the point of belt breakage or slippage on only one pulley. I have a feeling that on my Sierra it may only have been the exhaust valves I replaced, it was over 3 decades ago. As you rightly point out, even if people disagree with my comments regarding bent valves not causing stem seal damage, damaged exhaust valves cannot have any bearing on oil consumption as there is always a positive pressure between the combustion chamber and the exhaust port.

The exhaust valves were cheap!

"No smoke from exhaust that I've noticed but it's burning through oil (at least 5 litres in the last few months)" Burning that much oil through the valve guides would have been very visible unless a huge mileage has been done. Several months of use also diminishes any responsibility that the garage might have, having the valve timing checked would have been a very good idea when the vehicle was returned running rough, low on power and stalling, having it done now would indicate if they had made a mistake but that would have no bearing on oil consumption, also to further muddy the waters it sounds like another garage may have replaced the MAP sensor.

I understand section 75 and have used it myself in the past, nothing that has been written here, after filtering out the misinformation suggests any breach of contract or misrepresentation and I really do not believe the credit card company will involve themselves, I hope I am wrong, but just think about how many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people are unhappy with repairs carried out by garages and what proportion of them are paid for by credit card. It proves that they did not replace them but they did not claim to have, your assertion that they should have done carries no weight legally I am afraid and has no foundation mechanically I have had to replace all 8 valves on a Sierra DOHC, the stem seals were unworn, it had never used oil, they were undamaged as the stem bent where the radius of the tulip intersects with the straight stem well below the area swept by the stem seals which sit on top of the valve guides not underneath them, its pretty much impossible for a bent valve to damage a stem seal unless the guide was fractured, the valve sticks in the lower position when the bent part of the head touches the valve seat, the engine will only have turned a few revolutions before stopping. If the guides were replaced you would be 100% correct to expect the seals to have also been replaced. The OP is repeating claims made by a garage who in even the best of circumstances I would not believe without question, unless she can confirm that the vehicle smokes heavily on the over-run then I respectfully suggest that we have no reason to suspect the valve stem seals other than the claims of the garage, to me if it was not burning oil through the guides before it wont be now, far more likely is a deformed piston crown and pinched or fractured compression rings and bore damage.