nik52wrx

I run an almost standard uk car (ppp) which is ran with care ie warm up cool down and is only ran on Shell's finest.
Why would i need to fit a Knocklink?
If the car is at risk through normal use Subaru shouldn't be able to sell the bloody things! I was only made aware of knocklinks via this web site and would guess that 80% of owners don't have a clue what one is either.
Am i missing something
Nik.

pslewis

You said the INTERCOOLER cools the engine ..... I see you are now trying to retract that statement - is that correct??

Answer the question - or is that, also, too difficult for you?

pslewis

You are spot-on ..... the ***** buy them!!

The fairy pants buy them ......

Those who want to look cool in front of the Macdonalds crowd have them .....

I have YET TO SEE evidence that a CockLink has saved even ONE engine - simply hearsay and wishy washy words ....

Dracoro

The water circulates all round the engine thus cooling the water will have a direct cooling effect on the engine. The air that comes through the intercooler does not get circulated round the engine so any engine cooling will be neglible. I suppose you could argue that it helps cool the intake

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Whoopdiy fecking doo, I retract the statement. The intercooler is still a COOLER, and it COOLS something that enters the ENGINE. For whatever reason, is irrelevant.

Mr Bat

Group hug?

nice guy

I would'nt retract it Chris, it's perfectly obvious what you were getting at, it could of been worded better... but still obvious!
Pedantic minds dont want to understand.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

pslewis

He's still wrong - he has admitted it and sent me a pm apologising, so we shall let it lie there.

You buy a CockLink if you are of a nervous disposition ........ but to think it does ANYTHING is pure folly!

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

You wish Pete! Is that like one of those pm's that you sent to me saying how sorry you were for being such a plank?

pslewis

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Pete,

as an engineer I am sure you love to build any thesis on empirical evidence, and that null evidence is just as valid as evaluated evidence.

As such I can see that you have YET TO SEE evidence that a knock link has saved even ONE engine.

Just out of curiousity have you YET SEEN evidence that a knock link has not saved even ONE engine?

Rannoch

pslewis

Hasn't saved any engine that we know of ... has it now??

You want to trade semantics with me? ........... If your engine blows up because the rev limiter has failed then you can clearly say that.

If you engine blows up and you have no CockLink then you cannot say that having one would have saved it!

If you have a CockLink and your engine does not blow up then you cannot say that it didn't because it had a cocklink.

Because the CockLink does NOTHING except light a likkle light .... randomly.

The rev limiter, on the other hand, steps in and stops your engine from over-revving and therefore it can be shown that it, in fact, saves your engine from certain destruction!

Why does the CockLink not retard the ignition if its so bloody clever? Surely it could do that? And therefore do something useful?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I would have thought that as an engineer you would know that null proofs are not about semantics but about normal scientific protocol.

If something cannot be proved to create an effect then scientific protocol would move to prove that it could not. It is just as valid an approach.

I only ask the question as you are challenging other posters 'assertions' and yet if you can provide no evidence that it does not save engines then your lack of evidence that it does save engines is also an assertion.

Sweet dreams,

Rannoch

andy97

iTrader: (1)

How do you prove a negative, The knocklink may have saved many a highly tuned engine.

pippyrips

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Ouch!! Me big ends!!!!

Should have used V Power!

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Must have been using BP Ultimate!

pslewis

Or, WORSE, not carried out the ScoobyNet recognised Oil Change!!