Mirez

Ohh and yes, insurance companies should be notified of anything that isn't standard equipment however normally, brake upgrades are considered a safety upgrade and thus don't attract a premium.

Since the contact surface area remains the same you wont see a noticeable difference changing the pads only, the real benefit to pads is to reduce brake fade (brake efficiency decreasing with temperature, long downhill sections for example). The cooler the disc and pad then the more responsive the system will feel so grooved, drilled or better vented discs will also assist in this but again don't be surprised if you don't feel the difference. Larger diameter discs and or calliper upgrades which increase the brake area and force distribution are the only way to see appreciable grains. That said, I've never found a problem with the Galaxy brake system - how old is the fluid?

I really struggle to understand this mentalitly. It's a safety aid, why wouldn't you want it working? If the abs light was on would you simple take out the lamp? Fix it you lazy git, it's not rocket science

Thanks mate and indeed I did :) Will have a better one at the weekend though, it was the big 3-0!

Obviously the sooner the better but theoretically you could get anything up to about 5k miles depending on how you drive and how often the brakes are used during that period.

The door LED being solid for 3 seconds would suggest the immobiliser is correctly deactivating - if the LED was flashing then it would be active.

Humm I think you would struggle for space to be honest, the exhaust manifold is directly below the intake with the turbo bolted to that so you would be fighting it to get tools in. You could disconnect the water pipes instead and leave the H/E attached if you really don't want to disturb the EGR pipework but in my opinion draining down the coolant system would have been much more hassle then disconnecting the EGR pipes.

Just a note, the third brake light isn't actively monitored on the MK2 as its LED and designed to outlive the car so even if that had failed you wouldn't get the warning for this lamp.

You don't need to worry gregers, it'll get sorted http://www.fordgalaxy.org.uk/ford/public/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif The cables a specific one unfortunately so a VC one wont work

I've yet to see one that's not fully wired up but yes I could forward the schematic's for that circuit if required

Yes, it should do all Mk2 models with the VDO cluster (which is basically all of them with the exception of a few very early Y plate ones) The cable is currently AWOL and without communication so not available for rent - I may replace it and start this up again or you could try 2828david above and see if his is available.

No, you need one specifically designed for this vehicle. VW use about 5 different clock pulses to drive the speedo/rev counter and you can't always change to the correct one for the Galaxy if you use a non standard VW cluster. Aside from that a Bora one is unlikely to fit the hole which means you'll be swapping the plastics over and again, this is unlikely to a simple fit.

and don't force the fluid back - very slow and easy else you risk flipping the seals.

In a nutshell, No. Its all one PCB not separate components so you'll need one designed for this chassis.

Providing its safe for use on aluminium then I see no reason why not, I only used FC because I had easy access to it and I didn't really explorer household chemicals - I'm told petrol is quite good at dissolving the crud as well.

Its not the preference but if done slowly then shouldn't have caused a problem.. If you did it quickly or with the cap left on then its possible the seals have flipped in the ABS block and it can't pressurise the system - in which case its replacement time. I take it the fluid level is within the limits? The only other thing you could try is to bleed out the ABS system but you'll need VAG-Com to do that properly but it might be worth getting that hooked up anyway to see if any faults have been logged.

Quite possibly, how did you remove the excess fluid? Did you bleed it off using the nipples or force it back up into the chamber?

In addition. Just having the EGR done did improve the MPG quite a lot but the airflow is still restricted by the manifold. I found that high 40's were possible with the EGR done but you still had to be thinking about driving for MPG where as with the whole system done I can drive normally and it averages somewhere in the high 40's Really they should be done as a pair, the airflow will be impeded by whichever one you don't do so the gains won't be as much. From a speculative science point I'd be wary about doing just the manifold, if the EGR's still cacked up you'll create a lower pressure chamber in the manifold which will create vortices in the air coming off the EGR gunk and the potential to suck big lumps of it into the intake. Plus if you've gone to the hassle of removing the manifold the EGR's already off.

That sounds more like the temperature control flap is stuck rather then the A/C not functioning.

WHAT CAR??????????????????? Add it to your signature. Clock/Trip resetting would indicate at a minimum you have a blown fuse

Hummm, I suspect that's probably not the case but disconnect the MAF and drive it - you'll be within tolerance with the MAF disconnected as it'll use a default map so if you still get the charge code then its not the MAF.

A failed MAF won't usually show a fault code but definately won't throw the charge error. Not sure if it's possible to rebuild it incorrectly but that code is normally associated with sticking vanes so check the vacuume pipe, diaphragm, and even the valve.

Ok well total distance covered is now 3,911 miles: The actual fuel consumption has increased by 4mpg with an average over that distance of 47.2Mpg (Although the computer is showing 49.7 so one of us is wrong lol) however even 4mpg is a good sustained increase. Now the two written tests, Having access to a tuners workshop at the weekends is a big help :) There are the recorded figures: As of Saturday 7th May: Max Power: 117Bhp Max Torque: 292nM Smoke Test: 1.77m-1 As of Saturday 23rd July: Max Power: 129Bhp Max Torque: 307nM Smoke Test: 0.94m-1 So I'm still missing a horse but that's an increase (recrease?) of 13 horses, which is why if feels so much keener and presumably the extra torque is the reason for the increase in MPG. The biggest change would be that smoke test though, 1.50m-1 being the MoT test limit so anything under that is an instant "fast pass". I have a feeling there is heat absorption going on from the cheep-o pipework that I used over the crankcase so I've ordered some silicon hose and stainless pipe and I'll see if I can't route it a little better to avoid that and maybe get my horse back lol I'm also toying with chipping it again, 160 is a modest increase I'm told on the 130 and since oil temperature failed to climb above 100 she would appear to be operating well within limits at the moment.

Not really, I would question tyre quality and suitability... are they reinforced? That is a classic characteristic of a non reinforced tyre on a car which requires them, the shoulders aren't able to handle the load and subsequently wear much quicker.

That's because it is! 115, 130 and 150 all have the same torque output, it's only the power that changes