One of the most constructive posts in this thread... Nice work Neshy :thumbsup: Good info to keep in mind.
PETE .. CRIKEY .. MAYBE .. !! but go back to 22 posts ago when .. neshy provided the sensible, reasoned advice that naming the particular belt would not result in a basis for a serious legal challenge ... it has taken us 22 bloody posts to state the obviuos .. as, tektrader i think it was, said earlier .. surely we have the right to know, given that we may well have that belt already installed .. and this has taken 22 posts ...WTF ..!!!:thumbsdown:
It was actually Kalus who made the obvious deduction in the 13th post from the top (17th post chronologically) Thinks: Must get a life... sitting here comparing post times in order to respond to your post cannot be a good thing!
yes .. red .. anyone with half a brain could have deduced the brand way, way back ... with or without the kalus clarification for the retarded ..!!! my point was meant to clarify the equally obvious ... there was no reason at all not to name the brand ,,, AND THAT DID NOT NEED A POST COUNT for anyone who could manage basic logic ...!!!!
red ... no offence ..all in good fun / spirit ... !!!! :LOL::LOL::thumbsup: black baz-school report: everyone has a photographic memory .. some just don't have any film..!!!
Not install by AMEC The belt was actually installed by Chapman and Chapman as part of 100K sevice. AMEC just diagnosed the problem and replaced it with an OEM.
