Nate Nagel wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> robb wrote:
>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
>>>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original.
>>>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there
>>> regular
>>>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2
>>> sensor
>>>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the
>>> **BIG**
>>>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers
>>> escape
>>>>> my memory)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff.
>>>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post?
>>>>
>>>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was
>>> LOTS wrong
>>>> with the technician's actions durng the test.
>>>> --
>>>> Tegger
>>>>
>>> Hello Tegger,
>>> yes i did read it.
>>> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what
>>> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do
>>> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
>>> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on
>>> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes.
>>>
>>> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and
>>> 1/2 strike on my story.
>>>
>>> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
>>> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.
>>>
>>> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
>>> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
>>> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?
>>>
>>> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have
>>> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
>>> other wise i am out $50.
>>>
>>> thanks for all the helpful advice,
>>> robb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> what is smarter?
>>
>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>> result [retesting]? or
>>
>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>>
>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you
>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>>
>
> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly
> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.

he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to
post, and which does not accord with the facts.


>
> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it
> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its
> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if
> there is actually a problem.

if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes.


>
> nate
>