ForceIndia
ClioSport Club Member
Gentlemans spec 200
Epic, given the post above. Christ man, spell-check?
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
few problems just had my car itb'd
- Thread starter Nick r26r
- Start date
- Status
Matt, you are the most unprofessional person I have come accross in the car industry. By stooping to the level you have on here you have comepletely dis-credited yourself regardless of the quality of your work, what ever level of quality that may be. If you are seriously considering taking legal action for libel then threatening it on a public internet forum is not really a good idea, it will look negative against you in any court hearing, and again tarnishes your public image further.
Personally, if I was Nick, based purely on what I have read on here, trying very hard to ignore the rantingand simply take in facts, I would also be looking at taking this to the small claims court, as the car as been left in a state, in my opinion, that is not fit for purpose.
Personally, if I was Nick, based purely on what I have read on here, trying very hard to ignore the rantingand simply take in facts, I would also be looking at taking this to the small claims court, as the car as been left in a state, in my opinion, that is not fit for purpose.
How have I come accross dense? I came here trying to help Nick, only to have all of this in return.
The usual 'forum bandwagon' effect has gone from my favour in earlier posts to Nicks way of thinking that, and this is simply put: The 30bhp you gave me, I am not happy with.
Lunacy,
The usual 'forum bandwagon' effect has gone from my favour in earlier posts to Nicks way of thinking that, and this is simply put: The 30bhp you gave me, I am not happy with.
Lunacy,
So you are saying it does not take a technically minded person to redesign the MS system into a more power one, and intregrate it into production. You reliase Omex is a rebaged GEMs system dont you? And out of spite, how did you figure that one out?
I too would be taking myself to court if I had done what Nick has proclaimed. Fact is, the dyno prbvoes the positive results, our posts here show us trying to imroove it further. He has taken the vehcile away, the vehicle is now in a state decided upon by HIM not by US, hence no action can be taken what so ever, though I do not mind my hourly rate of £65 for attending a hearing, albeit a rather pointless one...
Nick paid for the following, I ask EVERYONE, is this a bad result? Simple yes/no will suffice...
Regards
Regards
R46, yes forgive my naivity, I have not needed to attend court before....
CS Dungeon
Nick paid for the following, I ask EVERYONE, is this a bad result? Simple yes/no will suffice...
Regards
Where's the photo/video evidence that that was infact Nick's car making that graph?
Are you serious? Evidence now? This was done before the discpute, its in earlier postings. If wanted to FAKE a graph, why would I not FAKE the 200bhp he wanted. Theres my evidnce, his is 'his mates car is quicker'. If you cannot see the corner I am standing then I really am wasting my time!
RenaultSport 172
+1 ridiculous!!
I can't believe that an owner of a established business can't even string a sentence together in basic English!
TBH Nick has done his job, Everytime M-Tech is mentioned in the future the entire Clio community will know not to go near them.
Fubard??, did you see the graph? An improvement in Torque accross the rev range, and more power? I don't have time for spell check, I am actually sending emails and other stuff in between all this...
And do most rollers take pics showing the actual car producing the actual graph? The whole cio community look at the clio cup cars that we have built ans tuned that win races, not forums....
What does he not need to rpove, Im confused. I have graphs, a customer who took the vehicle away without marking as under dispute. And waiting a couple of months and reverting the car such that an independant inspection is not viable. Please do take me to court, like I said, it will be nothing if not educational for myself, and others.
Every DD prinoujt has a checksum with DD can verify relates to the graph and data produced. Its right there on the printout, ah thats me covered then... next pointless argumentative point..
Heres the facts for one last time:
1. You brought the car to us, it made 155bhp
2. We increased it to 182bhp, and improved torque and driveability as proven by the dyno printout that was presented before dispute, hence UNLIKELY to have been docotored as Nick now puports.
3. You paid, and took the car AFTER testing it
4. You UNTAPED our wiring, thus exposing unsued wires that still have inusltion and are in no danger of shorting etc.
5. Note to above: Our 'workmanship' on our wiring caused no FAults, it was not untaped to remidy a problem, only for inspection. All other joints are to a standard fitting for our line of work.
6. Instead of contacting us you post in distress on a public forum.
7. You made no effort to contact us to remidy, which we have shown before that we would be happy to do, reciving praise from other forum members for doing so, knowing other tuners to just ignore them in similar situations.
Simple step by step here chaps, I would draw a diagram, but I assume you can all read, even if my spellings are somewhat rushed.
Nick if you could be so kind as to point out where I have gone wrong with the above, or where you are not happy I would appreciate it. Of course this has nothing to do with the following points you will undoubtly make:
1. Bonnet left on latch on a car when we are in the premises
2. The older V3 ECU which MS claim to be false or something
3. Our Mazda with the roof ajar.
4. We now fake dyno graphs, yet we dont fake them enough to make customers happy. If I was in the business of bullshitting, to have a company with such a good rep I would have to be good at it...
Regards
1. You brought the car to us, it made 155bhp
2. We increased it to 182bhp, and improved torque and driveability as proven by the dyno printout that was presented before dispute, hence UNLIKELY to have been docotored as Nick now puports.
3. You paid, and took the car AFTER testing it
4. You UNTAPED our wiring, thus exposing unsued wires that still have inusltion and are in no danger of shorting etc.
5. Note to above: Our 'workmanship' on our wiring caused no FAults, it was not untaped to remidy a problem, only for inspection. All other joints are to a standard fitting for our line of work.
6. Instead of contacting us you post in distress on a public forum.
7. You made no effort to contact us to remidy, which we have shown before that we would be happy to do, reciving praise from other forum members for doing so, knowing other tuners to just ignore them in similar situations.
Simple step by step here chaps, I would draw a diagram, but I assume you can all read, even if my spellings are somewhat rushed.
Nick if you could be so kind as to point out where I have gone wrong with the above, or where you are not happy I would appreciate it. Of course this has nothing to do with the following points you will undoubtly make:
1. Bonnet left on latch on a car when we are in the premises
2. The older V3 ECU which MS claim to be false or something
3. Our Mazda with the roof ajar.
4. We now fake dyno graphs, yet we dont fake them enough to make customers happy. If I was in the business of bullshitting, to have a company with such a good rep I would have to be good at it...
Regards
Last edited:
- Status
