sparky Paul

Talking of petrols, a relative of mine had a 2.0 petrol Mondeo which needed both driveshafts replacing at only 15,000 miles. Needless to say, he was most unimpressed and soon parted company with the car - he was also unimpressed with the attitude of Ford who refused to offer any help as the car was just outside of warranty. IIRC, the car was a 2001 model. I hope the 2.3 Galaxy doesn't have driveshafts sourced from the same manufacturer... :lol:

I found the DEFA 435 for the 2.3 petrol Galaxy at www.carandcamp.com. I didn't post the website earlier as it's all in German, it takes a bit of head-scratching to find what you want. Shipping to UK is

:lol: The DEFA one looks good, similar in implementation to the Calix one. To give an idea of the cost, I found a price at a stockist in Germany for the DEFA 435 to fit my 2.3 Galaxy -

Thanks for the link, very enlightening! Good point too about a trickle charger - it would be simple to add a small one under the bonnet. To prevent driving away whilst still hooked up, I was thinking about adding an electrical interlock to the ignition circuit somewhere - when the 240V was applied to the heater, a relay would interrupt the starter soleniod, for example.

I don't blame you, that's very bad CS at the very least. :angry2: Tracking issues would be more obvious at 65 mph. If it is brake disk run-out, you would tend to notice this more under braking from high speed, which can be a bit of a give away. If it's apparent at lower speeds too, then it could be a buckled wheel - try swapping with the back wheels to see if the vibration transfers from the steering wheel to the body. Apart from the most likely suggestions so far, could possibly also be a CV joint? :rolleyes:

Oh yes :P I have had exactly the same vision... only I could see the car hairing off up the road followed by the house wiring and the fusebox... :lol: The wiring kit for the heater is provided with a connector which I suppose would give way, but I think that the answer would be make the connection very obvious, or make some sort of interlock - it wouldn't be difficult to incorporate something to prevent the car being started with the heater still connected. ;)

I've been reading a thread about fuel economy on the petrol models, and it reminded me about something I saw about some time ago. We generally get the 30 mpg from our 2.3 knocking about, and easily achieve 35 mpg on a long run, even with a top box on. However, the OH is now making at least two trips to school daily with a stone cold engine, and mpg is being badly affected - particularly as winter approaches. The journey is about 3 miles and the engine is barely warm when she gets there... it then has chance to cool down a bit again, before she drives home again. In addition, I can't see this being good for the engine. Unfortunately, there is no sensible alternative to using the Gal during the winter - we have no bus services here, or even anyone to share with in our small village - and it's a bit far to walk down country lanes with a 4 year old. ;) Anyway, it 's got me thinking about engine temperature on these short trips. You used to be able to buy a paraffin sump heater which sat under the car and kept the edge off, but the plastic undertray makes that's a non-starter. In any case, I reckon you need something which will get the car a bit closer to working temperature to have the kind of benefit I'm looking for. I remember seeing an electric engine pre-heater, sort of a small immersion heater that plumbs into the cooling system - a bit of Googling reveals that Calix make one (RE282) which will fit the Galaxy... Calix website According to the installation instructions on the site, the heater fits into the bottom hose on the Galaxy. The data on the site says fuel consumption is cut by about 40% in the first 5km at 0 degrees centigrade, with a corresponding cut in emissions. I would imagine the car would also produce hot air from the heater more quickly. I was wondering if anyone had any experience of these, or anything similar? :lol: EDIT: Also check out Kenlowe HotStart This is a bigger affair than the Calix, with a 2.7kW output - gets the engine temperature to 85 degrees centigrade in around 20 minutes. This is interesting too... Hotstart benefits

Welcome to the forum Woodman! I'm not sure what has happened to mytyres, but my experience with them was totally different a few months ago - queries were answered quickly, tyres were shipped from Germany the next day and were delivered here a few days later. The online tracking worked fine too. Overall, I was very impressed with the service. Suppliers are not always responsible for delays, as these can occur anywhere along the supply chain, but I would have thought that mytyres should at least offer alternatives, or to cancel the order, rather than keep you dangling for 2-3 weeks. Perhaps it may well be worth confirming that any tyres you require are actually in stock before parting with any money. :angry2:

...but watch them fingers!!! :lol:

I bought my last tyres from mytyres, to be honest I was very impressed with the service, although my order was shipped and delivered quickly and without any problems... If the tyres are in stock in this country, there should be no probelms whatsoever. The tyres I ordered were shipped from Germany, but still recieved within a couple of days, well before the anticipated delivery date - so hopefully your tyres will be delivered soon. Checking the online tracking link issued by mytyres on despatch will give you an idea of the delivery date.

The absolute minimum for the Galaxy is 94 rated. RF or XL is most definitely advisable, but not technically a MOT fail - though tyres of the correct rating will certainly be RF or XL anyway. The only exception to this is the 215/60x15 tyre size mentioned above, due to the 94 rating on the standard tyre does not have to be reinforced. Oh, and as VR6! says, the MOT tester has to notice!

As you say, I have no doubt that some MOT testers neglect to check that tyres are correctly rated for the vehicle. However, I suspect that it would not escape the the attention of the Police or insurance company should you have a serious accident. The manufacturer's recommendation should always be followed as an absolute minimum standard as you quite rightly say, if the book says RF/XL, then you must fit RF/XL of the specified LI rating... or you could be dicing with your insurance, not to mention your own safety. :P At the end of the day, it's probably academic anyway, any 215/55x16 tyre which is of the correct load index will be reinforced or extra-load anyway, and vice-versa. What I wanted to point out is that the 215/60x15 fitted to Galaxys is an exception - Ford don't specify RF. It would be interesting to see what Ford dealers did actually fit if they were to fit reinforced, I don't think either Michelin or Dunlop make RF or XL tyres in this size/profile, though Conti/Pirelli do.

A primary reason for specifying RF or XL tyres is often for the increased LI, or load capacity - it is definitely not a side effect for tyres manufactured today - XL is eXtra Load, and a direct reference to the increased load capacity. Reinforcing the side walls is the method by which this can be achieved, although many manufacturers are now using the term "Extra-Load" rather than "Reinforced", as the latter does not always accurately reflect the differences in the tyre construction or accurately describe their function. Earlier tyres marked "Sidewall Reinforced" were introduced to primarily offer stiffer (reinforced) sidewalls for improved handling characteristics, always desirable for tall vehicles like the Galaxy. However, these tyres did not always offer an increased load capacity, and tyres with a LI of less than 94 simply do not have the capacity to cope with a fully laden Galaxy. From what I am told, it is a correct LI and speed rating which have legal relevance for MOT purposes. Also, AFAIK, Ford still do not specify RF or XL tyres for the 215/60x15 size, which has a standard LI of 94 (the lowest LI permissible on the Galaxy), although dealers may fit 98 rated RF/XL tyres as a matter of course - though many manufacturers do not produce a RF/XL tyre in this size. However, it is possibly to be recommended with a tall vehicle like the Galaxy. Of course the latter is correct, the increased LI of RF or XL tyres is only relevant for a given size and profile - the standard LIs for the tyre sizes you mention are 86 and 88 respectively. Not correct. For the reinforced 215/55x16 tyres, the maximum tyre pressure (rated for maximum weight of 730Kg) is 49 psi, the standard 93 rated tyre is generally maximum 44 psi (at 650Kg) - about 10% lower. The difference in load capacity between 93 and 97 rated is 80Kg - 730Kg as opposed to 650Kg, which is about 11%. The differences are actually in proportion with the load capacity, but only for a given tyre size/profile.

I think you're probably right - the eBay tyres are

The fact that the Falken is a 97 Load Index tyre means that they are an extra-load tyre - the standard LI for this size is 93. The 97 LI Falken ZE-512 in this size is actually marked RF. If the tyres he is selling are indeed 97 rated, they will be RF or XL tyres. The spec for these tyres can be found here... http://www.fullruntyre.com/en/Exhibit/exhview.asp?pid=58 You can see that the LI rating for the HP199 215/55x16 tyre is 93V, so if these are 97 they are RF/XL. Hope this helps! :D The higher maximum running pressures are as a result of the higher maximum load of these tyres - tyre pressure has to be proportionally higher to support the increased load. All 97 LI rated tyres will have a higher maximum pressure than a 93 LI tyre of the same size - any tyre of a higher LI will automatically have a higher maximum pressure, and will be of sufficiently reinforced construction to cope with this. The LI number is absolute and is a reliable guide to whether the tyres are suitable for the vehicle. Any tyres of the 215/55x16 which have a LI higher than the standard 93 (i.e 95 or 97) are classed as 'extra-load'. The absolute minimum requirement for the Galaxy is a LI of 94 - for example, there is only one size in which standard tyres (i.e. non-reinforced or extra-load) can be fitted to the Galaxy according to Ford, that is 215/60x15 - these have a load index of 94 in the standard tyre.

If they are 97 load index as the seller implies in the listing, they must be extra-load - they are certainly higher than the minimum 94 required for the Galaxy. If they aren't 97 rated, then his listing is very misleading indeed. ;)

Mine has a whistle caused by the driver's side door mirror - put your hand over the gap between the mirror body and the mount and the whistle disappears. :lol: I think I got used to it! :lol:

I can highly recommend the Fortuna F2000s, but make sure you get the 97 rated reinforced/extra-load tyres for this size. I have covered a several thousand miles on mine now, with a good mixture of local, long distance motorway and (very) wet miles with absolutely no problems whatsoever. These 'budget' tyres have turned out to be far better than the Dunlops they replaced... :D Reinforced 215/55x16 97W are currently

Yep, 93 rated is a standard tyre. You need 94 rated or higher all round for the Galaxy - any lower is not acceptable. This means that, for 215/55x16, you have to have reinforced or extra-load tyres - load index is usually 97 for this size, or 95 for Dunlops. There is only one size in which standard tyres can be fitted to the Galaxy, that is 215/60x15 - these have a load index of 94 in the standard tyre. ...can also highly recommend www.mytyres.co.uk :lol:

They don't - broadly speaking, red is the same price as white - only the duty (4.22p per litre) and VAT (5%) paid to HMCE is different, hence the difference in retail price. Because there is a reduction in tax payable (approx 6p/litre) for ultra-low sulphur white diesel, it is usually ULS, but there is no need for red to be ULS as there is no financial incentive. Sulphur in fuel acts as a lubricant and combustion aid, so the reduced-sulphur fuels need to have chemical additives to improve the the lubricity and increase the cetane rating to compensate for the low sulphur content. As I understand, in practise there is little difference in the actual performance of the two fuels.

That's it... I've have tyres, brakes discs and pads, and service parts to stump up for this year, you just know that you are going to have to fork out for the consumables... ...it's the surprises that make you cough... :lol:

I agree. :D I've no doubt that there are some people who will always choose the cheapest tyres they can find regardless, but like tim-spam I did do some research before buying the 'cheap' tyres - the test results for the Fortuna tyres were actually better than the Dunlops I previously had on. Speed, weight and wear ratings are also better. With regard to the Nokians, despite being the butt of jokes earlier, they do return some of the best test results I've seen on tyretest.com . I have just arrived home after spending a week clocking up over 1000 miles on the Fortunas, with a lot of motorway driving - I am still absolutely delighted with them and will be ordering two more soon for the rears. Even if the Dunlops were the same price, I would still choose the Fortunas - they drive very well, noticeably better than the Dunlops in the wet, and they are so much quieter... I'm convinced anyway. :lol:

Yep, mine are assymetrical - tread pattern is exactly like the picture on mytyres.