Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Armstrongs\s+$was\:\s+Rear\s+Shock\s+Kit$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Armstrongs\s+$was\:\s+Rear\s+Shock\s+Kit$\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: Aaron Whiteman <aaronw@wsu.edu>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:30:03 -0800; Is this really the case? My owner's manual doesn't mention it, and the Bentley book for 75-80 just barely glosses over (check for leaks). From the appearance of the documentation, the Armstrongs were; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00279.html (7,972 bytes)
2. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:13:15 -0500; When I read your message I immediately wondered how anyone could not know to check fluid levels in the Armstrongs. "Everyone knows that" "It's in the book" You're right--it's not in the book, at lea; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00284.html (9,193 bytes)
3. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:50:13 -0800; This omission is the sort of thing I was talking about in the oil discussion. As time went on, the BL management increasingly dealt with engineering issues by sweeping them under the rug. If the mark; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00290.html (8,901 bytes)
4. RE: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: "Dean T. Lake" <dtlake@erols.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:26:47 -0500; That seems like a valid characterization. Consider that the B was engineered with access to the rear shocks - presumably for routine maintenance. They didn't put that hole and cap there for a "non-ma; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00291.html (8,047 bytes)
5. RE: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: "Lew Palmer" <lpalmer@roundaboutmanor.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:33:03 -0600; True, but it is likely that the factory considered this a dealer-serviced item, not an owner-serviced item. Cheers, Lew Palmer That seems like a valid characterization. Consider that the B was engine; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00295.html (8,464 bytes)
6. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:51:26 -0800; !!?? I am not aware of any such distinction being made in the service manuals, on any topic. They were written as if one had the factory tools available, and could perform any procedure necessary. Yo; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00297.html (7,829 bytes)
7. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: Barrie Robinson <barrier@bconnex.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:47:24 -0800; No! When did anyone read the manual after getting a new car never mind BEFORE? It was just bad manual writing consistant with reduced expenditure on such items. You don't honestly think that BL actu; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00298.html (9,627 bytes)
8. RE: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: "Gordie's Garage" <mg_garage@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:48:46 -0500; Or possibly they discovered that they didn't need maintenance in the expected lifetime of the car. Don't think they wrote the manual for those of us resurecting 30 and 40 yr old cars. Just a thought.; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00299.html (9,368 bytes)
9. Re: Armstrongs (was: Rear Shock Kit) (score: 1): Author: "Telewest $PH$" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:23:21 -0000; Yes, whoever said fluid level checking wasn't a maintenance item was correct, but Haynes does say to inspect them for leaks at 3k. However this doesn't make them a 'maintenance' item in my book (so t; /html/mgs/2003-11/msg00312.html (8,365 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]