M3AN

Totally agree with all of this Ron. But proliferation is the main problem. If we only had to deal with trucks, buses, tractors and farm utes then it would be tolerable. But that's not the reality any more. We're having to deal with an explosion of unnecessarily large road trucks. Not cool. Europe has learned, hopefully we will too and sooner rather than later. All 2 ton vehicles are taxed out of practicality in Europe and they no longer hog the road (or the carparks). People still seem to get by just fine. They're an entirely unnecessary obsession in an urban environment.

You obviously can't see. I'll "spell it out" it for you: X - 4 - ///M - 4 - 0 -i Now, if it started with an "M", it would actually start with an "M". See my logic there? And if "40" means "3 litre" then how the f are people meant to work that out? It's seriously stupid as are arguments trying to defend it. It's far more sensible to say - "it's marketing rubbish with no real world meaning because, unless you have inside knowledge, it's impossible to decode". Which could be cool, if you're a BMW groupie. And let's be honest, none of us wants a proliferation of BMW groupies. Least of all on this forum.

Fair call! I genuinely hope you enjoyed your break and I'm pretty sure it was well deserved. Don't take my criticism too personally - I'm sure you don't, my guess is you have thick skin! I'll stand by my criticism all day, every day though. Sometimes your 'contributions' seem to be intended to deliberately obfuscate practical, meaningful information. And that's not cool for an enthusiasts' forum. Glad you're back, I enjoy the banter.

/rant

/rant

Their Motorsport division should revoke authority to use the ///M - it's undermining brand value. If it doesn't start with ///M then ///M can't be used. Period. X4 40i is fine (I assume it's a 4.0 litre?). Anybody that cares knows that sticking on some plastic or suspension bits doesn't deserve an ///M badge.

Well, you need to listen to Glenn before me! But if there's mayo on the cap and mayo in the radiator, if I hadn't seen Glenn's comment, my guess would be head gasket gone in a big, big way to cause that.

Whoa, sorry to see that dude. Can transmission fluid actually leak into the coolant Glenn? Of course I don't know how these systems work but didn't think these systems were in any way linked. My first guess was emulsified oil, it could be that colour but I wouldn't think that consistency. What does it look like under the oil cap and on dipstick? Hopefully not that colour!

Safer cars, safer roads and better driver education will all make more of a difference than a 4km/h tolerance. There is absolutely no (as in zero: pun intended) data to prove a lower threshold makes any difference whatsoever. They're even talking about increasing the speed limit beyond the 4km/h threshold on some roads. Some of these are roads where the threshold is enforced the most. That makes a mockery of the threshold. The 4km/h threshold is a revenue collection joke.

Ha! Perhaps he should have proofed his own work?

It was a standard Holden Commodore, one of these: EEW804

No, was driving. Remembered the number though for future reference. Not sure how much help it will be. It was actually molded to the contours of the bumper too, looked like a pro job.

So, today I saw a marked patrol car with a sticker/decal/adhesive front plate... legit? Normal NZ font and size but 100% an adhesive decal, absolutely no aluminium. Can't attest to its reflective qualities as it was the middle of the day. But WTF?

Ferrari is the DD remember folks? It's a shitty one though, only a 599 not the 599XX so heck, dime a dozen.

$550

Or, txt her husband and ask if they swing?

That's cool - perhaps you're unaware that "as is, where is" has specific legal implications that transfers all risk to the buyer. This would typically mean the price was substantially reduced. The way it's written it sounds like you've thrashed it, know it has problems and want to dump those problems on somebody else. Based on your post above this was not your intention and on that basis I'd just choose different words.

I think we both read a different description of the incident. Overtaking somebody doing a u-turn? As they pull out of a carpark into your path? I'm not sure my "stationary theory" has any merit but I'm far from convinced by your logic. Mate of mine almost lost both legs when a fool u-turned in front of his motorbike on the harbor bridge years ago (prior to the barrier being in place) and that certainly wasn't classified as him attempting to overtake them! Maybe the rules have changed.

Oh, you were in a Mercedes? Totally your fault! Douchbag.

Pictures are compulsory! Welcome.

Oh I hate the risers on these things so much. But I love the low version. You can get fibreglass ones from Hamilton although I'm not sure it would be less than $340 shipped??? That seems a crazy low price.

Oh, is it? Well how about that, I've learned something new, thanks. I have been ill informed and now schooled!

Carjam says 1,770 kg's dry, that was my reference. Could well be incorrect.

Wow those 6'ers were nearly 1,800 kgs! That's a heavy, heavy car back then.

It may not matter but it makes for a much simpler explanation (in my simple mind) and may make any witness statements about speed irrelevant. That's the way I was thinking anyway. Really she has to prove that she checked and the roadway was clear and the only reason the collision occurred was because Graham approached (from around the corner, previously unseen) too fast. That he was stationary makes that a little more difficult I would think. Again, not expert advice!