Ekona

I know, but that's the point: They're soldiers first. In all honesty, I would hope that when decisions are made for military reasons they don't actually think too much of the danger that they're putting the troops in. As long as the end result is worth it, then the cost is just the cost.

You wouldn't even notice 100rpm.

Well, that's cleared that up. Phew, and there was me thinking I was at imminent risk of death changing a syphon this morning! You know what I mean, you're not that silly. People have a choice to joined the armed forces, and I'm pretty sure no-one joins up thinking it'll be a lovely experience sat in a nice warm office all day with coffee on tap. At least, I'm hoping none of them do. Would I ever join up? God no, I'd be an awful soldier. But then I guess some soldiers would also rather do their job than be a plumber, so swings and roundabouts. What I'm getting at is that saying people should boot their boots where their mouth is is a daft argument. Your other points are valid and well thought out, but that just doesn't hold up.

Isn't that like saying if you wouldn't clear a blocked toilet yourself, don't expect a plumber to do it?

@Snjur: So we just sit back and let sh*t sort itself out? Is that your solution? Edit due to GMan posting a fraction before me.

I have some magic beans for sale, if you're interested?

How much is a 370Z? £27K? Bang on the money, I reckon But point taken. I only had a vague idea about IMS when I bought mine, I was far more interested in getting a 911 with flappy paddles which meant it had to be a 997.2 car. And the touchscreen PCM, which I still think is a great system. Not having either of those would've put me off far more than worrying about IMS. Would it bother me now, knowing what I know? Probably not, as I know the best ways to avoid that along with the bore scoring. The knowledge is there now, so it's not hard to protect your investment any more as long as you're sensible.

Interior works well, outside much less so. It's still not a car I ever have any desire to own.

Ignoring that the website is horrendously biased in its editorial, the list of facts on this this page demonstrate that there were many attacks on the US prior to 9/11: Clicky The trouble is you're trying to rationalise with the irrational. It's like arguing with a 3 year old as to why they can't eat the shampoo just 'cos it's a pretty colour, completely pointless. There is no sitting around the negotiating table, or sending a peace envoy. At this point, there is simply a them or us, and that's how it is. We cannot live in peace with these people, it's just never going to work so eradication is the only route. Let's not forget that we're talking about this purely for our own selfish needs of not wanting to be a terrorist target: There's thousands of Muslims being killed every day by ISIS, simply because they want to live a normal Islamic life rather than the strict one ISIS want. We have a moral duty to help them as much as anything else. It was just two weeks ago we all stood here and said that we stand with France as an ally, and that these people must never be allowed to win. Are we that terrified of reprisals that we're now going to sit back and assume that we'll be fine because we're not going to bomb them? I hope we're not. Will it keep happening again in the future as a cycle of violence? Perhaps. Until the world matures enough to stop believing in magical sky fairies then there will always be tension, but until then we can only defeat what is in front of us. ISIS are a bigger problem right now than the actual Syrian government, so let's sort one problem out before we get involved in that one. Folks seem to forget the scenes of delight when Allied soldiers cleared towns in Iraq and Afghanistan of Saddam and Taliban forces, the look of joy in the face of the people who were genuinely happy to be free from their rule. There's still many, many people in those areas that feel that way, and are glad that they have a chance to actually live in something other than fear today. All this tinfoil nonsense about war and oil and people doing it for the money has got to stop. Of course someone is going to profit from it at some level, that's how life works! Ultimately it's a politician's choice, and politicians as a rule love power. The only way they can stay in power is by doing things that make people want to vote for them, so they're not going to do anything that makes them less popular unless they absolutely have to. A politician with no power is just a man, after all.

Is it sad that I can recognise that track from the sheds in the first pic alone? Anglesey

Whether or not we can actually defeat ISIS by air strikes alone is a bigger question (I sincerely doubt it), but I cannot see how bombing the shite out of them can do anything other than hurt them and help us. We spent a fortune developing all this tech that lets us kill the bad guys from a distance, so what's the point if we're never going to use it? We're already doing it in Iraq where it makes a little bit of difference, so why on earth would we not do it in Syria? Do the airstrikes, then send the lads in from all the countries engaged in warfare and do the job properly. If it takes ten years, so be it.

I would imagine it would be better than I expect too, but only because I expect it to be utter shite so it can only go up from there

In 1.8D Zetec spec, yup! Think I had a couple of option packs too like aircon and heated front screen, but it was definitely around that mark. Still a great car.

That's cause for celebration, my friend!

Have I written that wrong, then? I mean sixteen thousand pounds. Is that not £16K? I've had a glass of vino, so may be missing the obvious

Kias are great cars these days! Vauxhall, though...

Ford Focus 1.8 TDdi, £16K approx.

2010 Boxster is bulletproof, that's the new engine design. Lotus run Toyota engines these days, have done for years. So much for Jap reliability...

As an aside, I don't get people who say they'll never buy a car from X brand. That makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot, especially if you're only going on stereotypes and have never driven the car in question. I can see why people would choose a 350 over a Boxster, like I did, but those who just hate a brand because it's cool to? Nope, sorry, you're idiots. You're the ones missing out, not us.

Depends on the job though, doesn't it? There's a lot of prejudice with owning a Nissan, at least as much as Porsche. One is owned by grandads and chavs, one is owned by w*ankers and show-offs. Some of us are enough of a show-off chav to have owned both! ;lol:

So so wrong. Your usually right but way out of the park here The 987 is the perfect 15k sports car until you mention IMS and that firmly puts it at the bottom of the list. Sad but true. The 370Z is 8/10 in pretty much every category where as the Porsche is all over the place. 10/10 for driving pleasure but 2/10 for reliability, I view things the same as Microsoft does on its hardware speed test, I choose the worst score overall and that's what the car gets as a whole. So the second we start comparing a DFI Cayman to a 370, your case is completely shot? Good to know. IMS really isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.

What engine mounts are you using? Tempted by solid ones?

Everything. Custom bodywork, custom engine, custom interior, custom suspension... It's a whole new level of personalisation. That car pictured would've been around £400K.

The problem was that the clutch pedal wasn't working properly. They had the car, they diagnosed it, they told you want was needed to fix it. Since that hasn't fixed the problem, you need to be setting a deadline here. 7 days is more than enough time for them to sort the car, so write a letter to that effect stating if the car is not ready in time then you'll take it elsewhere and bill them via SCC. It's no different to asking a plumber to fix a dripping tap, he comes round and replaces the bath but leaves the tap untouched and charges you. The problem hasn't been fixed, and it should be.

The first gen Cayman, 2006 to 2013.