|
|
John Slade wrote:
You have to compare your theory to the facts.
What facts?
Hear! hear! So far, Al has provided no facts other than the CAS example which sadly, is out of sync with the history that we know so far. As far as I know, the Mazda CAS has so far proven more reliable than the Soob timing belt(s). Correct me if I'm wrong.
We've heard a lot of anecdotes from Al about watches and CAS and one thing and another, but we haven't heard a lot of specifics. Like:
What has he done, or plans to do to reduce the risk (if any) of timing belt failure in his Soob?
Does he have redundancy (true or partial) in his own CAS?
How much redundancy in his ECU? Critical inputs to his ECU?
What about redundant (like dedicated to a single plug) secondary ignition (coils, etc.)?
How is his fuel system different from ours that makes it more reliable?
In general, how many single points of failure did he start out with, how many remain and how did he remediate the ones he has fixed? What, if anything, is he doing to address the rest, or why do they "not count"?
This is the type of anecdote we need - not watches ... Jim S.
|
|