Violently Shaking
My father inlaw got his 1997 holiday rambler endeavor out to get it ready for football season. It drove fine to the gas station but on the way back to my house it would not pickup speed until he was ...
Forum Discussion
You can reiterate anything you want, it doesn't make it right or the normally accepted practice in the industry. If anyone left a vehicle with a brake problem after you told them you were starting at the pedal and inspecting every component in the system I'd be amazed, and say they had a lot more money than sense.
But as long as you insist I just have to ask. When you inspect items such as the master cylinder, calipers, brake cylinders, what do you look at? They need to be disassembled to assess condition. If you didn't find defects then what did you do? Reuse 16 year old rubber seals which left you with even more liability than before you tore it apart, or rebuild? Rubber flex lines same question, would you certify a 16 year old rubber line was good or simply replace it?
That's why what you say makes no sense to me. You can't look at most items from the outside and determine if they have failed or soon will fail. If you tear them apart standard practice says they should be rebuilt. If you do that purchasing rebuilt is a smarter choice because of the knowledge and tools required AND the liability shifts to the rebuilder.
None of what you're saying makes any sense if your concern is liability due to future component failure. But you're going to triple the bill and I really question what will be done to justify the expense.
But as long as you insist I just have to ask. When you inspect items such as the master cylinder, calipers, brake cylinders, what do you look at? They need to be disassembled to assess condition. If you didn't find defects then what did you do? Reuse 16 year old rubber seals which left you with even more liability than before you tore it apart, or rebuild? Rubber flex lines same question, would you certify a 16 year old rubber line was good or simply replace it?
That's why what you say makes no sense to me. You can't look at most items from the outside and determine if they have failed or soon will fail. If you tear them apart standard practice says they should be rebuilt. If you do that purchasing rebuilt is a smarter choice because of the knowledge and tools required AND the liability shifts to the rebuilder.
None of what you're saying makes any sense if your concern is liability due to future component failure. But you're going to triple the bill and I really question what will be done to justify the expense.
