About
All Feedback (463)
- ledcounter (80)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseHope to deal with you again. Thank you.
- minimine-ltd (168868)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseGreat eBayer, thanks, please visit again
- nuts_about_bolts (83784)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseHope to deal with you again. Thank you.
- owl_outdoor (518)- Feedback left by buyer.Past 6 monthsVerified purchaseQuick response and fast payment. Perfect! THANKS!!
- clearancetools1 (23855)- Feedback left by buyer.Past 6 monthsVerified purchaseThank you for your custom from us all at Clearance tools 1
- tool2udirectsw (309208)- Feedback left by buyer.Past 6 monthsVerified purchaseThanks for shopping with Tools 2 U Direct SW
Reviews (4)
04 Oct, 2019
GREAT - IF you want to start fires!?!!...
With the increasing trend towards lighter and lighter wiring and connectors, etc., in modern vehicles it seemed sensible to have a supply of the CORRECT blade fuses in both formats most commonly encountered to hand - that way NEVER being tempted to go 'a couple of Ampères over' any 'like for like' replacement, especially in the lower ratings, as an interim/temporary 'get out of trouble' measure. When visually compared to the existing 'protective devices' (which, of course, is what fuses are there to be!!!...) these lower capacity variants appear to have all the attributes of 'bent wire nails' when it comes to 'protection' of circuits connected to them!?!... I therefore decided to engage in a degree of 'random testing' - with the anticipated shocking results.... Many of these will pass currents in multiples of their stated capacities without even getting warm - let alone 'blowing' and thereby isolating any fault - so IF you are reckless enough to use them with any fault still present then SMOKE WILL BE ARISING!!!... Fuses are there to melt and protect the circuit they are allocated to from further damage; NOT to remain intact and thereby allow the wiring, etc., to become incandescent!!!... These are not just a 'cheap and cheerful fix' - they are DANGEROUS in my humble opinion and I WON'T be using them!!!
Referring to attached photographs - 'outer' rows are 'original equipment' items, 'inner' rows samples from this replacement kit. The columns are 3A (Purple), 5A (Orange/Brown), 10A (Red), 15A (Blue), and 30A (Green). The two 'original equipment' 10A versions in the 'outer' rows are 'blown' to make it clear which are which. The thickness of the 'fusible links' in these replacements should be evident, and it would appear that across several variants these may be 'standard' parts - with only the colour of the plastic and numbers moulded thereon differing?... The 3A and 5A variants are particularly concerning - with tests under 'short circuit' conditions with a rheostat and ammeter suggesting that they would pass as much (IF NOT MORE!??!!...) than the 10A and 15A versions before 'clearing' under overload and/or fault scenarios!??!... Bye-bye vehicle!!!
28 Aug, 2018
Molyslip: THE Mechanical 'Guardian Angel'
4 of 4 found this helpful I was witness to a test of several additives and two then popular multigrade oils some 45 years ago. Each oil with those respective additives was run in a group of Ford Escorts over a few laps to allow the various lubricant combinations to 'work their way through' the moving engine components. Then all the oils were drained, and several laps later the two cars with Molyslip were the ONLY ones still running! Used it in everything possible ever since - and once had a race engine oil cooler hose connection blow apart, causing total loss of pressure, at 8,500rpm down a long straight. Driver did declutch and switch off almost immediately - but when we stripped that engine everything was fine. No need to replace anything AT ALL other than gaskets! Once bought a 1973 2 Litre Cortina GT with a rattling/worn camshaft/followers - my VERY first experience of the 'Pinto' engine. About to go away for a week, I thought I could quickly change it; as was bound to come out through the front?... Wrong!!!... Head has to come off, but NO time - so in went a can of Molyslip.... Previously rattling like most politicians' teeth, that engine ran without ANY further attention until I gutted the vehicle for a kit car project - despite the fact that any camshaft/follower case hardening must already have been non existent!... Early 'Pintos' were known for their camshaft/lubrication issue, problems should some oil filter canister without the non-return valve be fitted, and their inherent delay in oil pressure reaching the upper moving parts of that engine. A friend of mine ran a company fleet of 'well thrashed' Cortinas/Sierras at the time - which employees would 'rev the nuts off' from cold. NEVER had a camshaft issue with any one of them after he started using Molyslip - which all just speaks for itself!!!...
The experiences quoted are all my own from many years ago - but what about the modern engine technologies I hear you ask? Molyslip works by 'plating' the metal surfaces with a super slippery coating - and this then keeps those surfaces from 'meeting each other' in the event of oil film breakdown; either due to there not being any, or the oil itself having a breakdown in its molecular structure (maybe through overheating, loss of pressure, etc.)....
No actual 'metal to metal' contact owing to the 'plating' effect, then NO WEAR!!! Simple, and the theory makes sense old or new!!!
Some advise against using ANY additive with a catalytic convertor? ALL oils contain some additives 'off the shelf' - and IF your engine is burning it the residue WILL foul the catalyst!?!... I have used Molyslip with catalytic convertors and had NO issues whatsoever - my 'friendly MoT Man' invariably remarking how cleanly and smoothly my engines are running! Those engines do not use any oil between changes to speak of. The only things you need to be VERY careful introducing Molyslip to are wet clutches (motorcycles...) and overdrives!... It is such an excellent lubricant it will almost certainly cause them to slip - though I have heard rumour of aftermarket linings which are claimed to be 'Molyslip compatible' but never tried them myself?... Somehow the theory just doesn't add up - and this is borne out by the one and ONLY 'unfavourable experience' I am aware of involving Molyslip....
I use Molyslip when assembling items like camshafts and followers - which are inevitably under severe shear (or 'rubbing') stresses, and will 'pick up' on each other in the event of lubrication film breakdown. The person concerned not only used it as described, but also added it to the oil immediately following his engine rebuild. Some interval later that engine was still burning excessive quantities of oil - and we duly stripped it again for examination. Upon examination the bores/piston rings, etc., were found not to have 'bedded' ('run in') AT ALL - this very clearly due to the Molyslip having lubricated everything a little too well in those particular circumstances!!!... Molyslip is NOT a substitute for REGULAR oil changes however (these removing acidic by-products of combustion, etc.), and I use it as a percentage of actual oil content rather than on the basis of a 'container per oil change' as generally recommended. That 'works' whatever the size and/or oil capacity of the engine in question - and ensures continuing protection. Certainly the resulting reduction in friction makes for discernible improved fuel consumption, performance, and smooth running. I personally have yet to encounter an engine that has required rebuilding in 'normal' use where Molyslip treatment has commenced, and been subsequently maintained, whilst the same has been in optimum condition. Clearly one must rule out failures attributable to distortion through cooling system failure, overheating, etc., which is totally understandable - or the dreaded cambelt failure, etc., etc.!...
All in all, I think it safe to say that you will never experience lubrication failure using Molyslip as advised....
23 May, 2023
Not that difficult to calibrate after all....
Regrettably I have to take issue with the earlier critical review which claims this tool is really difficult and/or confusing to calibrate. Taking the Newton Metre scale first, the "primary" increments are 15Nm apart - and then there ten increments of 1.5Nm per each turn of the handle/rotating collar, amounting to 15Nm (i.e. the amount between the aforementioned primary increments).... So all you do is "zero" the rotating collar at the multiple of fifteen below the desired torque, subtract the "primary" reading from that desired, then turn the collar increments clockwise to correspond with what is left over (e.g. 84Nm = 75 "primary" scale + 9 on collar; 132Nm = 120 "primary" scale + 12 collar). The Lbf/Ft "primary' increments are close to eleven apart, and then there are the ten gradations around the rotating collar - so "zero" the "7.5" collar increment on the "primary" scale below the setting desired, and call each clockwise increment on the collar 1 Lbf/Ft added from there.... (Close enough - OR 1.1Lbf/Ft IF you NEED to be pedantic!?!!) The sprung sliding lock collar seems quicker and easier than the "usual" knurled screw in operation too - so I find this torque wrench a worthwhile addition to my collection, particularly coping with a range of up to 330Nm (243Lbf/Ft) for things like "Godzilla" driveshaft nuts....