[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Phil Payne wrote:
> In message <3630312B.2E512EAA@uidaho.edu> Todd Phenneger writes:
> > Uhh, "Because they get better with Age" would be the reasonable
> > answer for the wine. Wasn't aware this held true with Audi Shocks
> > though. !? Not disputing but can you explain your quiz. Whats your
> > point.
> No - it's because they need to be turned periodically in storage.
Ahhh. Yes, that makes much more sense. Didn't even think of that
> The issue arose during a discussion of the defective brake servo
> pressure switch (made in 1991) that Audi shipped me a month of so back -
> I'm progressing this with Audi because I believe this is a safety issue.
Bad brakes usually are a safety issue!
> How many people have fitted replacement servos with defective switches?
> I don't know. Remember that the failure mode is _NOT_ to warn about
> an absence of brake assist - i.e., the very opposite of fail-safe.
> Anyway, we got into the old "Verfallsdatum" issue on parts, and it
> turns out that instead of using tight shelf lives, they're issuing
> more detailed instructions on parts storage.
I never knew they had to be rotated. I guess it makes sense
though with anything that has rubber seals in it. Gotta keep them
HAppy driving. I'm off to put in a new Proportioning Valve and
Replace a clutch.