Nissan dealership saying installing bullbar will void my new warranty - Page 3 - Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum
Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum, Photos, Directory

 


Go Back   Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum > Nissan Patrol and Safari Models > Nissan Y62 Patrol, Armada & Infiniti QX80

Patrol4x4.com is the premier Nissan Patrol Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-01-2017, 04:02 PM
fwdpatrol's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Mount Cotton
Posts: 92
Thanks: 32
Thanked 21 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kinigo270 View Post
Hi everyone, i asked my local castle hill dealership to see if they can arrange a bull bar to be fitted and was told outright no they don't do this and I need to contact supplier direct. Then to my surprise I was told if I fit the bar it will void my warranty.

I then went on and told him so many folks out there with aftermarket bars seeing Nissan don't offer factory bar.

Can anyone confirm what the go is with warranty and also if you had your dealer arrange for bar to be fitted.

So then I can go back to dealer and let them have it.

Thanks
Load of crap

So many dealers actually organise the fitment
__________________
Fwdpatrol
GU patrol 2015 ST- N-Trek
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #42  
Old 09-01-2017, 05:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Comparing a Ranger to a Y62 is pretty pointless as Rangers are compliance under category MA, so they're not technically meant for off-road use (MC).

<snip>
You're a fair way off-base with that explanation dude. Compliance categories exist for one purpose and one purpose only - ADR compliance. There is NOTHING in the ADR's which even vaguely infers that there is any reference to "not technically meant for off-road use". It's simply an administrative categorisation. Nothing more. Don't read more into it than what it actually represents.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing a manufacturer from complying a vehicle in any category which it meets ADR's for.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-01-2017, 06:11 PM
RALPHMCPHERSON's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,516
Thanks: 153
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ants_oz View Post
You're a fair way off-base with that explanation dude. Compliance categories exist for one purpose and one purpose only - ADR compliance. There is NOTHING in the ADR's which even vaguely infers that there is any reference to "not technically meant for off-road use". It's simply an administrative categorisation. Nothing more. Don't read more into it than what it actually represents.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing a manufacturer from complying a vehicle in any category which it meets ADR's for.
Exactly. Suggesting a Ranger is "technically not meant for off road use" is just ridiculous and misleading.
__________________
platinum 2011 GU 3.0 crd
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
 
  #44  
Old 09-01-2017, 06:33 PM
Madds's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 316
Thanks: 22
Thanked 89 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Damage your car off-road when's it's not considered off-road capable and good luck with your insurance. The ADR compliance is an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristics. Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:02 PM
RALPHMCPHERSON's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,516
Thanks: 153
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Damage your car off-road when's it's not considered off-road capable and good luck with your insurance. The ADR compliance is an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristics. Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category.
I don't make the rules but that's just ridiculous. A car that is a 4wd but not intended to go off road? Thats like building an aeroplane thats not intended to fly, or a pair of running shoes not intended to be put on your feet. When do they actually intend for it to be engaged into 4wd?? The world's gone mad. They make rules like this but it's perfectly fine to tow a 3.5 tonne caravan with a car that weighs 1.5t, but dont take it off road.
__________________
platinum 2011 GU 3.0 crd
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Damage your car off-road when's it's not considered off-road capable and good luck with your insurance. The ADR compliance is an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristics. Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category.
No no no and no again. You are either TRYING to be misleading, or simply don't know what you are talking about re: ADR's and the compliance category.

The ADR "compliance" (as you call it) is NOT "an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristic" (as you put it). Sorry mate, but it is painfully obvious you do not know what you are talking about in this regard.

I'll make it easy for you and post the two category specifications (direct from the ADR's) for MA and MC:

4.3.1. PASSENGER CAR (MA)

A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle or a forward-control passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.

4.3.3. OFF-ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLE (MC)

A passenger vehicle having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver and being designed with special features for off-road operation. A vehicle with special features for off-road operation is a vehicle that:
(a) Unless otherwise ‘Approved‘ has 4 wheel drive; and
(b) has at least 4 of the following 5 characteristics calculated when the vehicle is at its ‘Unladen Mass‘ on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal centreline, and the tyres inflated to the ‘Manufacturer‘s’ recommended pressure:
(i) ‘Approach Angle‘ of not less than 28 degrees;
(ii) ‘Breakover Angle‘ of not less than 14 degrees;
(iii) ‘Departure Angle‘ of not less than 20 degrees;
(iv) ‘Running Clearance‘ of not less than 200 mm;
(v) ‘Front Axle Clearance‘, ‘Rear Axle Clearance‘ or ‘Suspension Clearance‘ of not less than 175 mm each.



The vehicle classification for ADR purposes is PURELY a descriptor of the physical characteristics of a vehicle. Nothing more. There is no "assessment of suitability" (as you put it) included in the ADR's at all. NOWHERE in the ADR's does it describe or refer to the "vehicles suitability" or the purpose for which its used, or is intended to be used.

Within the greater body of the ADR's, these (in fact ALL) classifications have mandatory physical features described in detail. It would be mirror placement, it could be headlight configuration, it could be side-intrusion mitigation. But that is all that is described - never do the ADR's discuss how the category of vehicle will or may be used.

Now, lets talk about your statement "Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category". Wrong again. You are trying to mix registration classification (state responsibility) with ADR type compliance.

This category CAN be used as a "bus" as you call it:

4.3.2. FORWARD-CONTROL PASSENGER VEHICLE (MB)

A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver, and in which the centre of the steering wheel is in the forward quarter of the vehicle’s ‘Total Length.‘


This category can ALSO simply be used as mums taxi. The REGISTRATION category determines whether it can be a fee-paying passenger carrying vehicle, or is private registration, and cannot be for fare-paying passengers. A common example in this category - the Kia Carnival. It is widely used as mums taxi. It is also widely used a taxi vehicle (when registered appropriately). It is also registered and used as a fare-paying passenger vehicle on some small routes. But its legal use as a fare paying passenger conveyance is a function of its REGISTRATION approval category (a state responsibility), and has nothing (zero) to do with it's ADR category. In all instances, this vehicle is - for ADR purposes - category MB.

So now we'll talk about what are more commonly considered "buses":

4.4. Omnibuses

4.4.1. A passenger vehicle having more than 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.

4.4.2. An omnibus comprising 2 or more non-separable but articulated units shall be considered as a single vehicle.

4.4.3. LIGHT OMNIBUS (MD)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass‘ not exceeding 5.0 tonnes.
4.4.4. HEAVY OMNIBUS (ME)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass‘ exceeding 5.0 tonnes.


Any "omnibus" described above does not cease to be an omnibus just because someone does a partial motorhome conversion for example, if they retain the seating capacity stated above. Nor do the ADR's make any statement about what you can and can't use your omnibus for. You can drive one around for pleasure if you want. The state motor vehicle rego office won't care. But if you use your private REGISTERED omnibus to carry fare paying passengers, you are in for a world of hurt. And it has nothing to do with ADR's - just the rego category.

NOWHERE do the ADR's does it state what you can use a vehicle for - what purpose you can use it for. The ADR's are there for everyone to read, including you. While I have little doubt you won't like being taken to task in this way, I believe it important to post the RIGHT legal information when discussing rules, regulations, legislation etc. This is a classic example of what you think, in no way matches the intent NOR the fact of the legal framework.

Please do not post misinformation - it does not help the members of the forum.

(I'm not even going to bother responding to your comment about insurance - that is a contract between two parties....ah forget it...sorry mate, but you really need to educate yourself on this stuff if you are going to make statements that you claim are correct)

(You could say that I know a little bit about this stuff.)

Last edited by ants_oz; 09-01-2017 at 07:31 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:34 PM
RALPHMCPHERSON's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,516
Thanks: 153
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ants_oz View Post
No no no and no again. You are either TRYING to be misleading, or simply don't know what you are talking about re: ADR's and the compliance category.

The ADR "compliance" (as you call it) is NOT "an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristic" (as you put it). Sorry mate, but it is painfully obvious you do not know what you are talking about in this regard.

I'll make it easy for you and post the two category specifications (direct from the ADR's) for MA and MC:

4.3.1. PASSENGER CAR (MA)

A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle or a forward-control passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.

4.3.3. OFF-ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLE (MC)

A passenger vehicle having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver and being designed with special features for off-road operation. A vehicle with special features for off-road operation is a vehicle that:
(a) Unless otherwise ‘Approved‘ has 4 wheel drive; and
(b) has at least 4 of the following 5 characteristics calculated when the vehicle is at its ‘Unladen Mass‘ on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal centreline, and the tyres inflated to the ‘Manufacturer‘s’ recommended pressure:
(i) ‘Approach Angle‘ of not less than 28 degrees;
(ii) ‘Breakover Angle‘ of not less than 14 degrees;
(iii) ‘Departure Angle‘ of not less than 20 degrees;
(iv) ‘Running Clearance‘ of not less than 200 mm;
(v) ‘Front Axle Clearance‘, ‘Rear Axle Clearance‘ or ‘Suspension Clearance‘ of not less than 175 mm each.



The vehicle classification for ADR purposes is PURELY a descriptor of the physical characteristics of a vehicle. Nothing more. There is no "assessment of suitability" (as you put it) included in the ADR's at all. NOWHERE in the ADR's does it describe or refer to the "vehicles suitability" or the purpose for which its used, or is intended to be used.

Within the greater body of the ADR's, these (in fact ALL) classifications have mandatory physical features described in detail. It would be mirror placement, it could be headlight configuration, it could be side-intrusion mitigation. But that is all that is described - never do the ADR's discuss how the category of vehicle will or may be used.

Now, lets talk about your statement "Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category". Wrong again. You are trying to mix registration classification (state responsibility) with ADR type compliance.

This category CAN be used as a "bus" as you call it:

4.3.2. FORWARD-CONTROL PASSENGER VEHICLE (MB)

A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver, and in which the centre of the steering wheel is in the forward quarter of the vehicle’s ‘Total Length.‘


This category can ALSO simply be used as mums taxi. The REGISTRATION category determines whether it can be a fee-paying passenger carrying vehicle, or is private registration, and cannot be for fare-paying passengers. A common example in this category - the Kia Carnival. It is widely used as mums taxi. It is also widely used a taxi vehicle (when registered appropriately). It is also registered and used as a fare-paying passenger vehicle on some small routes. But its legal use as a fare paying passenger conveyance is a function of its REGISTRATION approval category (a state responsibility), and has nothing (zero) to do with it's ADR category. In all instances, this vehicle is - for ADR purposes - category MB.

So now we'll talk about what are more commonly considered "buses":

4.4. Omnibuses

4.4.1. A passenger vehicle having more than 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.

4.4.2. An omnibus comprising 2 or more non-separable but articulated units shall be considered as a single vehicle.

4.4.3. LIGHT OMNIBUS (MD)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass‘ not exceeding 5.0 tonnes.
4.4.4. HEAVY OMNIBUS (ME)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass‘ exceeding 5.0 tonnes.


Any "omnibus" described above does not cease to be an omnibus just because someone does a partial motorhome conversion for example, if they retain the seating capacity stated above. Nor do the ADR's make any statement about what you can and can't use your omnibus for. You can drive one around for pleasure if you want. The state motor vehicle rego office won't care. But if you use your private REGISTERED omnibus to carry fare paying passengers, you are in for a world of hurt. And it has nothing to do with ADR's - just the rego category.

NOWHERE do the ADR's does it state what you can use a vehicle for - what purpose you can use it for. The ADR's are there for everyone to read, including you. While I have little doubt you won't like being taken to task in this way, I believe it important to post the RIGHT legal information when discussing rules, regulations, legislation etc. This is a classic example of what you think, in no way matches the intent NOR the fact of the legal framework.

Please do not post misinformation - it does not help the members of the forum.

(I'm not even going to bother responding to your comment about insurance - that is a contract between two parties....ah forget it...sorry mate, but you really need to educate yourself on this stuff if you are going to make statements that you claim are correct)

(You could say that I know a little bit about this stuff.)
Cheers mate, I was just about to post that info up. You saved me the hassle.
__________________
platinum 2011 GU 3.0 crd
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RALPHMCPHERSON For This Useful Post:
ants_oz (09-01-2017)
  #48  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:52 PM
Madds's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 316
Thanks: 22
Thanked 89 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Your own post clearly states that vehicles classified as MA are not intended for off-road use. I'll leave it at that.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-01-2017, 08:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Your own post clearly states that vehicles classified as MA are not intended for off-road use. I'll leave it at that.
No, my post does not say that (which incidentally is why you can't quote me - because you can't quote what I didn't write). The truth betrays you.

The adr excerpt I posted says that (in effect) a vehicle can be complied in one category if it is not complied in another category, AND if has certain physical characteristics. Nowhere in there is there any mention of "intended for off road use" (as you claim).

The adr for MA quite clearly says "...A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle or a forward control...". Read it. Actually read the words that make up that statement. Try your best to understand their meaning in-context. It is saying that, out of the three classes of passenger vehicles, a passenger vehicle is an MA class if it doesn't fit into one of the other classes (Mc and MB).

It explicitly does NOT refer to "intended for off road use".

One of two things is happening here - either you are **** stirring by deliberately misrepresenting what I've posted - which is just plain immature. Or you really have your head buried so deep in the sand that you really do genuinely believe what you say, despite the factual information provided (direct quotes from adr's), and despite repeated attempts to help you understand.

If it's the first - okay, you got me and I took the bait. But if it's the latter, I suggest that you are not sufficiently equipped to continue talking part in this discussion.

Last edited by ants_oz; 09-01-2017 at 08:59 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-01-2017, 07:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 487
Thanks: 178
Thanked 113 Times in 84 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Comparing a Ranger to a Y62 is pretty pointless as Rangers are compliance under category MA, so they're not technically meant for off-road use (MC).
I read this as absolutely hilarious.

I think some of you took it way too seriously?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-01-2017, 08:58 AM
Madds's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 316
Thanks: 22
Thanked 89 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topdeck View Post
I read this as absolutely hilarious.

I think some of you took it way too seriously?
Yeah, seems some people are a little touchy about their choice of vehicle. Was merely meant as a not so serious don't compare apples v oranges.

Just for the record, disecting people's war and peace posts on a phone is a pain in the butt, hence why I didn't use the quote button.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-01-2017, 09:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
<snip>
Just for the record, disecting people's war and peace posts on a phone is a pain in the butt, hence why I didn't use the quote button.
And yet I managed to respond to your post - in full and with accurate information - last night ON MY PHONE Technology is not your strong point either - that's okay, you don't need to make excuses.

In the end, you can be as childish as you want - the facts are the facts, and you are obviously short of any evidence to support your claims which is why NOT ONCE - despite every opportunity to do so you have not provided an ounce of verifiable reference to support your claims.

YOU said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Your own post clearly states that vehicles classified as MA are not intended for off-road use. I'll leave it at that.
The truth is that I did not say anything of the sort. yet you refuse to acknowledge that you made a false claim.

You also said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Damage your car off-road when's it's not considered off-road capable and good luck with your insurance. The ADR compliance is an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on its physical characteristics. Its a legal requirement, same as you can't use a people mover as a bus as it's not in the correct category.
(highlighted by me)

Through the information I have posted - direct extracts from the ADR's - it is patently obvious that what you claimed is INCORRECT.

So since you have been proven to be incorrect in your claims, you change your story:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Yeah, seems some people are a little touchy about their choice of vehicle. Was merely meant as a not so serious don't compare apples v oranges.

<snip>
Um....no. YOU claimed that ADR's are an assessment of a vehicles suitability based on physical characteristics - and it is patently not that.

You have been proven wrong on a matter which is unambiguous, so change your story to try to deflect attention away from your own lack of knowledge by suggesting that other people are 'touchy', and that you really meant something else all along. Just learn from it - it's okay to be wrong. No one thinks any less of you for being wrong - I suggest that people WILL think less of you for being purposely misleading however...

I make no apologies for sticking to the facts, and for repeatedly making sure the RIGHT information is included in discussions like this. I do it because it is vitally important that misinformation such as you have provided is called out as wrong. Someone may read all this, and unless your statements were corrected - might assume you were factually correct and get themselves into a whole world of hurt because they thought the advice you provided was right.

Lastly - you say you didn't quote me because (essentially it was too hard) on a phone. Here is the challenge - find something to quote me on that supports what you claimed. Go back and find ANYTHING of mine that you can quote in this thread that supports your claims. Stop seeing just what you want to see, and actually look at and understand the words. These posts aren't going anywhere - you can look through everything I wrote/quoted and NOWHERE does it support your claim that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madds View Post
Your own post clearly states that vehicles classified as MA are not intended for off-road use<snip>
If the facts were at all supporting your claims, you would have been able to come up with SOMETHING. But as yet, you have NOTHING.

With compliance type information I believe it is vitally important to not post false information - that is my personal belief and I don't ask for agreement by anyone else. But by you claiming that I said something I did not? That is insulting.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:08 AM
Madds's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 316
Thanks: 22
Thanked 89 Times in 59 Posts
Default

At least I haven't resorted to personal insults to get my point across...

Don't worry, I won't take your insults about being technologically illiterate personally. I get paid far to much as an IT Professional to care lol
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Hi Madds,

That's awesome that you are an IT Professional. So am I. Only been in the field since 1999 though, so relatively new to it and obviously don't get paid "far too much".

For saying you were being "childish" - I publicly and sincerely apologize. That was an unnecessary statement to make on my behalf, and I should not have done so. So I offer my apology for saying that. That I was frustrated with your continued false claims regarding what I posted is not an excuse.

As for your claim that I said you were "technologically illiterate" - I have raised your false claim with an admin and will leave it up to them.

I have said it previously in this thread and will say it once more because of your continued actions - I do not appreciate, nor do I believe it is appropriate, that you should misrepresent what I have posted, or falsely claim that I said something I did not.

Are there any other alleged "personal insults" that you claim have been made by me, which you would like addressed?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-01-2017, 11:16 AM
geeyoutoo's Avatar
--- The Rodfather ---

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast/US
Posts: 29,383
Thanks: 3,033
Thanked 5,436 Times in 3,845 Posts
Garage
Default

Settle down boys and girls, getting personal can have some serious repercussions for the contributors and the thread .
__________________
A Mighty (and Unique) Bronze Manual 2000 ZD30DI
COB 1

My Album
My Build
My Channel
ZD30DI Tech Archives
NADS, So You Bought a ZD30DI
http://powercurve.com.au/
My Dawes valve works fine! Where did I go wrong? .

Domestic Violence Has No Excuse, Rugby League Players Are Not Above The Law.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-01-2017, 12:31 PM
skegbudley's Avatar
Part Of The Furniture Round Here
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Alexandra Hills QLD
Posts: 18,237
Thanks: 5,546
Thanked 4,690 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

What is written and what happens in real life are usually two different things. There is offroad and there is dirt road. Some people confuse the 2.
100 series V8 petrol vs ZD30 GU vs BT50 diesel. Gu wins. I recon a y62 would get even further
__________________
If It's flooded drive it
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-01-2017, 01:13 PM
Bulbous's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 531
Thanks: 45
Thanked 52 Times in 38 Posts
Garage
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RALPHMCPHERSON View Post
I don't make the rules but that's just ridiculous. A car that is a 4wd but not intended to go off road? Thats like building an aeroplane thats not intended to fly
Obviously you've never heard of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter
__________________
2011 4.8 Safari - The Fitek
2015 LC 71 - The Rub3
4.8 litre Patrol Club member #114
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bulbous For This Useful Post:
GUTim (10-01-2017)
  #58  
Old 10-01-2017, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Thanks: 21
Thanked 187 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulbous View Post
Obviously you've never heard of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Just putting my motorcycle boots on while reading this, getting ready to head home. And almost literally fell off my chair laughing.

All I can say is "Well played sir, well played"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-01-2017, 01:41 PM
Part Of The Furniture Round Here
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Newy
Posts: 3,611
Thanks: 455
Thanked 703 Times in 565 Posts
Default

Rangers are chit
Gu's are a pig, it's a shame they didn't put in the 4.0 petrol and turbo that.
The 62 is better off road mod for mod


As for needing a laptop for the 62,... ffs natal your not real clever are you! Lol obviously still on ya p's and full of hormones and read to much 4x4 monthly.
Any modern diesel is the same.
Breaking crap under a 62, well the supercharged one has been holding up fine.300 odd wkw and 650 odd nm from idle ish to redline. The 62 was actually build for he power it makes, the poor old gu does pretty well but it's far from unbreakable.

They both have there place, truth be told ow many people really use like properly use there gu. Farkin hardly anyone, fluff up the beach doin 40kph in there crd or a bit of gravel and have the hide to say the 62 doesn't suit them cos it's a petrol and ind suspension... lol

Pretty sad old world out there.
__________________
GU 42T spool king is getting a freshen up and sold off.
62 ti-l frucking sweet family bus
gu 42t dual cab is home baby!!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to simcoe For This Useful Post:
topdeck (10-01-2017)
  #60  
Old 10-01-2017, 03:01 PM
Converted's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 308
Thanks: 163
Thanked 96 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simcoe View Post
Rangers are chit

Breaking crap under a 62, well the supercharged one has been holding up fine.300 odd wkw and 650 odd nm from idle ish to redline. The 62 was actually build for he power it makes,
.
Andrew fitted one of the Harrop blowers just before Christmas to a guy I know in Kangaroo Flats Vic, doesn't have a uni chip but something was pre done to the ECU (can't remember what he called it sorry).
369kw at the wheels
726 nm at the wheels

also has custom extractors ceramic coated inside and out needless to say
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FOT71E ceramic coated in and out.jpg (22.0 KB, 62 views)
__________________
2013 Y62 Ti-L
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Converted For This Useful Post:
Polmjcl (10-01-2017)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On







Subscribe in NewsGator Online


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.