My 3rd service was this month but I’ve only done 19k miles so it didn’t affect me. I had service B0.
I agree. We get the same with tyres. But the right tyre choice is much more visible.
@Theo,
@Theo,
No I got that it's about physically fitting our engines, I just didn't expect that there isn't an aftermarket option that can physically fit, even if it was a 9, which I would give a try. I expected there was at least one plug maker that made a more suitable plug for a tuned M139, in which case, I think we would all try, given that our OEM plugs currently require an intelligence agency to track down.@Theo,
Always!!
Of course, your general outline is correct.
Higher Brake Specific, colder plug, as a rule.
However, in NGK's heat range system, an 8 is pretty cold plug.
Most production engines use a 4, 5 or 6.
The Golf R uses a 7.
The 8 used in our cars would be the coldest plug, using NGK's system, that I have ever heard of in a production engine.
That said, I think you are rather missing the point.
Currently, there is no other plug, of any heat range or design style, from NGK, Bosch or Denso, which physically suits our engine.
So, currently, literally no choice, whatever you might like to try.
LOL!!
This is very sad and I feel for you, as I am sure do many others here.My car has been stuck at the dealer for 6 nights now, not sure how long this is going to go on for
MERCEDES-BENZ CARS UK LIMITED Defendant
1) The Defendant is the importer and distributor of Mercedes-Benz and Smart vehicles in the United
Kingdom (Company Number: 02448457). The Defendant does not own or operate Mercedes-Benz
retail and repair sites. All Mercedes-Benz approved sites within the UK are franchised businesses
owned and operated by separate legal entities to the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant is not
the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.
2) It is not clear to the Defendant on the legal basis which the Claimant is bringing the claim. The
Claimant has not disclosed any contractual agreement, has not specified what contractual
loss. The Claimant has failed to identify any statutory obligation that the Defendant has allegedly
breached.
5) In response to the limited contents provided in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.9 of the PoC the Defendant
responds as best it can below. In so far as it understands, the
that the braking system of the Vehicle is defective. The Defendant infers the Claimant is attempting
CRA alleging the Vehicle
was not of satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose pursuant to section 9 of CRA. The Defendant
submits that no contract exists or has ever existed between the Claimant and Defendant pursuant
to section 1 of CRA. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding its cause of action against the
Defendant.
7) The Defendant asserts that MB D**** found no evidence of an inherent or manufacturing defect
with the brakes or at all with the Vehicle. Furthermore, as the issues with the brakes fell outside
and due to the third party software presence in the Vehicle,
the Claimant as the registered owner/keeper was required to bear the costs for any
repairs to remedy the brake issue.
9) Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant avers it is the incorrect legal entity to respond to the
Claim. The Defendant maintains that any claim under CRA for the Vehicle allegedly being of not of
satisfactory quality and/or not fit for purpose should be directed to the selling dealer, with whom
the Claimant holds the contract of sale.
10) The Defendant denies breach of statutory duty, contractual or tortious liability as alleged or at all.
The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide a legal basis for its claim and the
Defendant has no contractual relationship with the Claimant.
www.aclassclub.co.uk
