wnewton wrote:I still see no science behind the comments proving the failure cause, just a lot of speculation. FYI the amount of petrol is 20 litres per 400 litres of diesel so its very low (less than 5%) There is however a lot of good comments so far and a lot to think about. Hey FODFA I didnt see any pre requisite when I signed up saying I cant have an opinion until I have posted 100 times. Your an internet chat site troll and you make other genuine people on this site angry. Thanks everyone else keep the ideas coming.
Bloke , given none of us including you really have any idea what has actually happened , aren't we all , you included, speculating?
Sorry but there's no need to play the man , and I think you've done that. Nekelec probably shouldn't tell you to suck it up, but other than that what he said makes perfect sense in my mind. I'm not playing any sides here, but there's no need to denigrate ... The mark of this forum is that threads very rarely ever get "nasty" unlike many other forums.
As I Said above , any major modification to engines puts you in the field "on your own". I afraid notions that this isn't justified , is just wishful but non realistic.
Sure thing , d4d does go bang too easily. For sure. Hell, modern high pressure td is guilty of this across the board. But heavily modifying the engine , even with didfferent fuels , and then arguing for warranty under the notion of "it should theoretically work" is just not going to fly. (As much as that sucks!!!)
I feel for ya mate but it is buyer beware. Pushing engines past their conservative factory specs Increases dangers. This is common knowledge. Should chip makers be more ominous in warning consumers ? Maybe they should, or maybe it's just an accepted status quo.