mender

Regular Members
  • Content count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About mender

Profile Information

  • Location
    Alberta Canada
  1. P.S I installed a blocking plate under my EGR and left it plugged in, no emulator and no issues that I know of.
  2. Sounds identical to mine that had a hard time starting and staying running and hardly was able to rev up. It too would stall after about 10 seconds - when the alternator cut in. The engine didn't have enough power to stay running with the extra load and stalled, just like in your video. As soon as the dash lights brightened a bit (alternator cutting in), the engine would slow and quit. A new set of injector nozzles fixed mine and it's been running great ever since. My injector nozzles were rusty and only three of the five orifices on each were passing fuel. You may have pushed some carbon into those orifices when you soaked (softened) then scrubbed them. Removing the nozzles is easy and you can check the spray pattern once they're off using a can of WD-40 and straw to pressure the nozzle up from the inside. Just be careful as you're unscrewing the nozzle retaining nut so that you don't lose any parts, and that you see how those parts are arranged inside the end of the injector. It took me less than an hour from start to finish to install the new injector nozzles and fire rings. Checking the spray pattern would be my next step. PM me if you need new nozzles, they're much cheaper than new or even rebuilt injectors.
  3. Zum Glück kann ich google translate verwenden und weiß, was Sie geschrieben haben.
  4. Mine shudders lightly until the clutch fully engages. As I've been driving it it's been getting better, so most likely I have a bit of oil on the clutch disc. If the engine is staying at a constant rpm during the shuddering, the actuator is probably good but servicing it certainly doesn't hurt.
  5. As always, context is important when making claims: " When the entire life cycle of the fuels is considered—including production, transportation and burning the final product— the greenhouse gas differential between conventional oil and tar sands oil is about 20 percent, according to a 2011 study from Stanford University. "
  6. We just visited Banff this last weekend, and of course the area is rife with nature seekers and sympathizers (myself included). We stopped in a photo gallery and was admiring the wildlife pictures, including ones of polar bears - with the usual hue and cry about their looming fate. They've become a bit of a poster child for recruiting more people for the war on CO2, but the status of these animals is yet another arena for political manipulation and attempts at fear mongering: https://polarbearscience.com/2019/01/18/images-from-2017-and-2018-show-polar-bears-thriving-in-a-warming-world/
  7. I added the paragraph and last line; as such that should have been exempt but was also the victim of the strike-out. I couldn't edit it either. As for climate change itself, yes CO2 contributes and we add CO2, but the level of contribution of CO2 in the computer models is allotted 6X more than what appears to be its actual effect. That plus incorrectly ascribing a positive feedback loop when recent research instead is indicating a negative feedback should be a very loud wake-up call to those who depended on those models and the graphs produced by them to realistically predict climatic trends. The level of political pressure and enhancement to forward the alarmist agenda seems to be exemplified in the present trend to downplay the obviously positive effect of CO2 on plant life by attempting to throw a wet blanket on Greening. That was what struck me enough to raise the debate back to the conscious level again, with hopes that people would consider that the new data doesn't support the predictions of ten years ago. Maybe it's time to open some books other than the ones that tout the flawed propaganda that has tugged at the heartstrings and inflamed unwarranted outrage.
  8. Okay, finally took the 2006 Smart out for an extended highway drive. Drove out to Banff from Calgary for Mother's Day, then home to Didsbury. Didn't spare the horses, ran at about 115-120 kph for most of the main highway drive into about a 20 kmh headwind and of course up and down a few hills! It didn't take long to find out that 5th was needed for the steeper parts. We kept up with traffic quite well but pretty sure we're going to get it remapped before the next trip. Did some touring around Banff for shopping and stuff, then home and of course the wind had shifted so we had mostly crosswind but partial headwind. Took the old highway on the way back so ran closer to 100 kph. The tally: 376.7 kms on 15.21 litres or 69.98 mpg and 4.04 l/100 kms. We've put 5,000 kms on it since I rebuilt the engine this winter. Both power and fuel economy seem to be right there so I guess the new nozzles are working well. I have a few things to attend to (rear wheel alignment especially; too much toe in and right side camber) but am encouraged by our first real road trip!
  9. Well done! Worth the wait I'd say! I had quite a run of Mercedes deals a couple of years ago: an '88 300CE with a weak transmission for $400, an '87 560 SEL with 151,000 kms and two bad fuel pumps again for $400, and a '92 300CE-24 with 120,000 kms and weak reverse for $800. Drove the '88 for two years then rebuilt the transmission and sold it back to the people I bought it from (they missed it) for a nice profit, got the 560 SEL running and brought the servicing up to date and ready for resale, and the '92 300CE-24 is waiting for its turn in my shop to become my rendition of an AMG Hammer. Going to be a 600CE-48 when done! Hopefully this next winter I'll have time to go through the '92 6.0 V12 to go with the transmission I rebuilt last winter and start the conversion. Still deciding what ECU(s) to use with it, might copy what the factory did and run each bank with its own system.
  10. To expand on my answer to your question (which I will take at face value): my son just completed his B.Ed degree and will start teaching in the public system soon. His age group grew up with the GW propaganda being taught as gospel in school. I've been appealing to the training in his first degree (B.Sc) to help him see the difference between actual science and what is being presented as science these days. A major point that I'm trying to make to him and others is that if the predictions about how the climate should be behaving are shown to be inaccurate and unsupported by current climatic trends, it's the people adhering to their errant beliefs despite what is actually happening that are the climate deniers.
  11. Another "prediction" from about ten years ago that was embarrassingly wrong: https://grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/ " That’s right — this grim prediction is optimistic, a best-case scenario. In the next post, I’ll examine why polar bears are likely to go extinct by 2030 if not 2020." That's right, polar bears; you've only got one year left before you're extinct!
  12. A few other things have changed; more predictions that didn't come true to add to the list. I was taught that predictions were a reliable way to determine if the science was understood. If the predictions were wrong, the theory behind them was wrong.
  13. Because, as I started my post with: " Here we are ten years later and the debate continues." Is it against the rules?
  14. Not sure why the last part of my post keeps getting the strike-through, tried several times to clean it up with no success.