Black Knight

Guarantee will be rear brake pads moving back and forth in the carrier. Does it do it if you just lightly apply the brake too? If so dead certain

You answered your own question Rich with your first 3 words...…...On Social Media

As Bryan says......Celica Cat's are not worth the hassle for a thief as they don't contain particularly high concentrations of precious metal compared to 'New' Cat's. Car is naturally too low also, would need jacking up to get access. These sort of thefts generally target cars with higher ride heights like 4x4's as they can get straight under them and cut it out without any extra work.

With the size of the vernier gauge above it it looks like a miniature version

Yes there are only 12 months and some cars are pictured more than once so space was NOT a problem. This is meant to be a MEMBERS calendar, so to me that means all members who submit photos should be included. I am thankful that there is a calendar at all and said as much in my original message to Dawn. But if people are getting left out every year then clearly the photo requirements need to be clearer.....which they now are. As I said, if no one says anything then nothing changes.

Sigh.... What's not accurate? Did I ask you...yes. Was that your response....yes. The reason I did not reply was because frankly your response as a whole was more customer services than CCUK and got me so annoyed that I may well have said things I would now regret.....its taken me the last few days to calm down enough to revisit this. 3 calendars ago I submitted my pics a few days before the deadline and was told too late to be included...fine. Last time I submitted good and early but was then told (after it was printed) that they had been too small to use at just over a Meg....confusing as minimum requirement was a Meg but fine. This time I make sure they meet maximum stated requirements and submit in very good time but again told after its been printed that they didn't meet requirements!?! PLUS......I sat up till gone midnight sorting photos for you just the other week at short notice that you specifically requested and guess what....they've not been used either!!! So you can surely understand why this got to me. BUT....the above extra guidelines are far more informative and should help everyone to know exactly what you are looking for in future calendars and that's the whole point. No one wants to be left out and I'm sure in a perfect world that Dave does not want to leave anyone out.....you told me yourself that you get this every year...so good clear guidelines are obviously needed and will I'm sure be very much appreciated by everyone Its very hard to bring any of this up without it just sounding like a big rant........but if nothing is said then nothing changes and people continue to get disappointed and none of us want that.

Got mine and the quality is very good indeed. However I must also say that I am pretty annoyed that the Beams has yet again not been included (2nd calendar on the trot now!) And I made triple certain this time that my pics met all stated requirements, over 4meg, good clear images etc. Have asked those concerned and simply told that the photos 'more than likely didn't meet requirements in terms of the photo (not the size but the photo).' Well can I suggest in future that if there are additional requirements to those stated in the opening post that these also be listed to avoid future disappointment for myself and other members.

Ordered mine...and I know Hazel has ordered hers too

Any news Dawn......will it be ready for Christmas/New Year?

300 photos!!!!!!! At an average layout of 8 pics per month I make that enough to fill the next 3 years worth of calendar's and still have a few left over

5 pics sent

Love Scotty's vids. The Celica pops up in quite a few of them

Weren't belts still optional anyway back then? I was born in 83...but have memories of my Nan never wearing a seat belt for some years, which probably brings you forward to about 86ish and Simons rule above

Alright smart-ass point taken....have edited that out. However....'IF' you removed all lights and wiring for such I believe you can have a vehicle classified as 'Not to be used after dusk'. Sure I've herd of such on the custom build scene and some older classics don't have lights. However I would expect it would be a pointlessly complicated exercise on a modern vehicle that came with lights! As to brakes, well no vehicle is usable without them, so go's without saying that they need to be in working order.....though judging from some of the crap I've seen on the roads I think working order is a loose term! If you wanted to remove all traces of power steering and go Heman old school then I guess that would be your choice. Would undoubtedly be some reclassifying involved. But again not very practical! So we were right Dorris? Remove seats as well and seat belts no longer required as ability to carry passengers is removed? Not that the OP has ever said why they want to remove the rear belts anyway???

But you've just contradicted yourself there bud!?! A windscreen would definitely have been factory fitted And if that's the case how do street legal stripped out cars get through MOT??? I'm fairly certain that if the ability to carry a passenger is also removed (i.e. the seats), then you could legitimately remove the belts also. But also guessing its going to be one of those some garages will see it one way and others will see it another type issues.

Agreed, was only having this conversation with a neighbour the other day as he wants to remove rear seats and belts from his car to transport his dogs around. As I understand it if its there but faulty or not in working order then it will fail. But if not there AT ALL then it cant be failed. Now in the case of rear seat belts I think if you still have a rear seat then it can justifiably be argued that you have the capacity to carry passengers in the rear still so need belts. But if rear seat is completely removed as well I cant see it being a problem. In my neighbours case he knows that the dogs will chew the belts if left in place, hence why he wants to remove them as well.

When it comes to the Imports some garages will accept this......others wont! I had been using the same garage for years and when I got my Import SS-II Beams I argued the toss with them that it should not be CAT tested as a non UK engine but they would not have it as the engine code (and that seems to be the clincher in most garages eye's) is still 3S-GE.....and 3S-GE is of course listed in the emissions book. However I know of a fellow member with a SS-II standard 3S-GE engine and his garage have done non CAT tests from day 1 simply because its an Import without any question.....therefor he don't rock the boat. LoL. As to getting a letter out of Toyota...........GOOD LUCK!!!!! Many have tried and I'm yet to hear of anyone succeeding! If your set on going De-Cat then you will need to find a more understanding garage that will accept the car for non CAT test......but also accept the circumstances if it gets challenged legally at a latter date and your found to be in the wrong.

Oh right

FSH?

Ahh, ok. Mum really needs to think about an upgrade soon as her ST is running on borrowed time in terms of underside rust issues. But Silver is probably the one colour shed never go for!

What colour are these cars Si?

Christ id say thats an Insurance write off.....must have major subframe distortion after having a transit parked on its boot!!! Hope the owner can get some sort of compensation out of the van driver/company!!!

Had mine done at local 'Formula 1 Autocentre' couple months ago. Very thorough service, took almost an hour to fully empty and vac out the system before refilling with all new gas etc. Was just £35 booked in store....though I believe that was an offer on at the time. https://www.f1autocentres.co.uk/

Interesting idea But don't you think Si that this must be based on a lab style test where exactly the same amount of throttle is applied during each temperature test...in which case yes, the engine may as a whole actually use less fuel. However, in the real world of driving when you think your engine is slightly down on power, or not making the speed you want, the instant reaction is to press the go-go pedal harder, therefore surely using more fuel!?!