sparky Paul

Don't apologise, it could be the alternator after all... :blink: I'd check them pulleys first though... :P Part number for the idler pulley is 1139951, cost

Usually, it is the alternator that makes these noises - but on the 2.3, the two pulleys I mentioned are favourite. Incidentally, the replacement idler pulley is now an improved metal one, rather than the existing plastic one. The alternator on the 2.3 doesn't often give trouble, though worn bearings will be evident when the belt is off. I suspect what Halfpint said about the two pulleys being basically the same is correct - I had both parts to fit, and although the new idler pulley was metal, rather than the plastic one fitted to the old idler, and both new & old tensioners, it does look very similar indeed. Although I didn't take each one apart to check, it does look like you could strip the shaft out of the idler pulley and replace it with the bolt from the tensioner, and then fit it to the tensioner. Although the new tensioner is smoother inoperation than the old one, I would have probably done the same as HP had I known the parts were interchangeable.

Drop the belt off and have a play with the pulleys - chances are it will be the tensioner or idler pulley - both known weaknesses. I suspected the tensioner on mine, which seems to be the favourite, and it definitely felt dry when the belt was off. However, the idler pulley was a lot worse and I suspect it was this that was making the noise. I already had the tensioner, so I changed it anyway, but the idler was only around

My 1999 model certainly has, are you sure your lock isn't just siezed? ...according to TIS, all models seem to have the same mechanical linkage... well, it's actually a cam that physically shoves the solenoid in. :angry2:

I think THIS is the thread mo4 was thinking of. :wub:

Are you certain the tailgate will not open with the key? Insert the key and turn anticlockwise, firmly past the normal opening position, to the 9 o'clock position - it should manually override and open the tailgate lock. There is a procedure in the FAQ to cut the trim panel to access the release, but that's only as a last resort if the lock barrel is completely siezed - turning the key to 9 o'clock should do the same thing, even if there is no power to the locking system.

There are two specific offences here, driving without insurance, and taken without owner's consent. Generally, Police are pretty keen on TWOC if the offender is caught in possession, but I would have thought they would still like to prosecute if there are reliable independent witnesses. If damage was caused to the vehicle during the time it was taken, then this could technically be classed as 'aggravated taking' which would carry a more severe penalty.

If you do find that the wire/s are broken in the tailgate anaconda (highly likely), it is a good idea to check the loom which goes to the rest of the tailgate. There's a fair chance that you will find more damaged wires in there, and it would be wise to repair them before something goes pop.

I would have thought the easiest way out would be to pull up on the other side of the road, if there was absolutely no other way out. If car A was acting maliciously, and there were witnesses to prove, I would think that it could be classed as 'dangerous driving'? It makes me think about a situation I experience quite a lot in the Galaxy. After driving at 30mph through a rural village (30mph limit), I enter open countryside and a 60mph limit. The chap who's been tailgating me through the village decides he's had enough of going at 30mph, and immediately pulls out to overtake - sometimes even before reaching the 60mph limit. Surely he doesn't expect me to continue at 30mph, does he? ...or do I have to stop to allow every car to pass me when I leave a 30mph limit? If there's nothing coming the other way, I will continue to accelerate... this is not a problem for most drivers, as I do not push the pedal to the floor in order to stop them getting past, but I do continue to accelerate steadily. The real problem comes when it's some idiot in a 1 litre supermini which barely has the power to keep up, nevermind overtake - I have left quite a few of these behind, and it really hacks them off. As I say, it seems to happen to me quite a lot round here. What would you do?

The coupling under the indicator which looks a bit like a schrader valve is the high-pressure filling connection, the one under the bonnet is the low pressure port. A recharging rig will be connected to both of these when recharging the system. Models with rear aircon still only have the same two couplings, the front end of the system is the same. Another way to tell for certain if you have rear aircon, if you aren't convinced by the roof vents - look in the engine bay and find the silver coloured pipes to the evaporator on the passenger side of the bulkhead. You will see a pair of pipes heading off towards the opposite side of the car, one approx 12mm diameter, and one approx. 6mm. If you have a second pair of pipes teeing of these (within a few inches of the bulkhead) and heading straight down and under the floorpan, then you have a rear evaporator and rear aircon.

mo4 is right, 'extra load' and 'reinforced' are exactly the same. You'll see the term 'reinforced' less in future. Manufacturers are moving away from using 'reinforced' and instead calling the tyres XL as it more accurately reflects the only difference from standard tyres - and to save confusion with RF run-flat tyres which do have reinforced side walls, but do not carry the higher load index rating necessary for heavy vehicles. XL tyres simply have an increased load index compared to the standard tyre. As Sher says, the important thing is the load index, which should be an absolute minimum of 94 for the Galaxy. Any 95+ rated tyre in 215/55x16 will be reinforced or XL, the standard load index in this size is 93. C-rated 6/8 ply tyres for vans are of a different construction again, and load indexes are higher than XL tyres.

It's an interesting point, I think your quote comes from the MOT Inspection manual, and it does seem a little odd when all other VOSA references specify passenger cars being of up to 8 seats (e.g. class 4 MOT). However, AFAIK even the earliest Galaxy models have a exact match on the VOSA emissions database, which means that it has to be CAT tested to these vehicle specific limits anyway, regardless of whether it is classed as a passenger car or not. The non-CAT test limits only apply where there is no specific entry for the car in the database.

They're the track rod ends. There does seem to quite a bit of confusion between these two parts. JohnR is correct, the track control arms are the bottom suspension arms or 'wishbones'. New track control arms come with the bushes fitted.

If the engine isn't running, it's hard to shift anything as the hydraulic pump for the abs system stops. If the symptom is a soft pedal, and there being much more pedal travel when the engine is running, it sounds like something is being compressed - either something is not fitted in the caliper properly and is springing, or there's air in the system. Also check the flexible hoses carefully whilst someone pushes the brake pedal, especially if they've been clamped when pushing the pistons back in. However, if you are saying that you can pump the pedal until it is hard, then it subsequently sinks absolutely to the to the floor, that indicates fluid is passing a seal which could well be a damaged or contaminated, as the other guys say. If fluid has been pushed back into the abs hydraulic unit when changing the pads, it could be a distinct possibility. Check the obvious bits first, where the flexible pipes have been clamped, and that the calipers are correctly assembled.

Oh yeah... that was a bit of a boob! :o I should have said 'make sure you get the correct side', of course. :o

I suspect the OP will need one of these... TRACK CONTROL ARM LH TRACK CONTROL ARM RH Any decent local motor factor will be able to get you one, make sure you get the right side. HTH :lol:

It's not just you Kev, you are quite correct. The 'Track Control Arm' is the bottom suspension arm with the balljoint on, not the steering arm with the TRE on it. If I had been told that the track control arm was kaput, I too would be looking at changing the inner bushes and/or bottom ball joint, or changing the bottom arm as necessary.

Of course! I never thought of that! :P

I did mine a while ago, and it was a pig of a job. The problem is the later wiper assembly - you cannot change the pollen filter without unbolting the wiper assembly. The earlier wiper setup is fine - the pollen filter comes out without to much difficulty, but as far as I can make out, the later one makes it impossible. :rolleyes: I'm not sure when the wiper assembly changed, but mine is a '99 mk.1 and it has the later assembly.

I'd second that. I've had Mintex discs/pads on the front now for a couple of years without any problems, I would fit them again without hesitation.

That story sounds strangely familiar... was the engine turning over but not firing? Almost the exact same thing happened to my 2.3 about 6 months ago. The car seemed to fire, then cut out immediately. After that, the starter turned but the car would not start. I gave up trying after a while and retired to study the Haynes book and Ford TIS. After an hour or so, and not much wiser, I tried to start the car again. I found that the car started to fire on odd cylinders with full throttle, and eventually the car started, although it took a few minutes for it to run okay. The subsequent struggle to start the car makes me think the engine was seriously flooded (but not with rain!). I believe that during the initial attempt to start the car, for some reason, the immobiliser had not disengaged and turning the engine over had flooded it. Never had the problem since.

Not necessarily. It not quite as simple as that, but then it never is. :16: As I understand, although this is no guarantee... all mk.1s are fitted with the smaller front and rear discs. Early mk.2s (2000-2002) could be fitted with 288mm, 300mm or 313mm discs, depending on engine, transmission and wheel size combination. The later 2003-on mk.2s are all 300/313mm discs. The larger rear discs were introduced on certain 2003-on models, although the 268mm rears were still fitted to some models after 2003. That sounds very confusing... :16:

Depends on the disc size. Front 288mm are 25mm thick new 300mm & 313mm are 26mm new Back 268mm are 10mm new 294mm are 14mm new Normally, 2mm wear is allowed for solid discs, 4mm for vented. I think thats right... HTH :rolleyes:

I've heard some good reports about Kumho tyres. I'll be looking for some more tyres in the near future, unfortunately mytyres don't have the Fortuna F2000 tyres at the moment... will keep an eye on the situation though, as they have been unavailable before, and would certainly buy them again. They do have some other 215/55x16 XL/RFs at the cheaper end though, Sumo Firenza ST-08 (Singapore company, but not sure where the tyres are made) look quite interesting at