You don't do what started 20+ yrs ago without being respectful. And to imply I'm the one being disrespectful, guess you didn't bother to read all the posts. Just remember your own advise about "keeping opinions to ourselves". Not trying to have a conversation, I just added to a thread. So don't go and try to censor my 'word'..And no offence taken! At least not but you!

 

Lots of things. They all get health care, even the poor ones. They cut ham thinly and call it bacon. In the western half they turn most statements into questions by appending "eh?" to them. Poutine and Tim Horton's. A bunch of 'em speak French. They generally have bigger fish in their lakes and rivers. Less of their beer sucks. "Aboot".

But the Number One reason: We all secretly wonder if that geeky loner down the street really does have a Canadian girlfriend and she's so stinking hot that she's worth remaining abstinent for eleven and a half months out of the year.

 

Agreed, and you didn't even mention the maple syrup.

 

I figured that mentioning smokin' hot Canuckistani chicks and maple syrup in the same post would fire up VWandDodge before the weekend. He probably has things to do today. I'm trying to be a considerate forum participant!

 

Ok apparently that didn't come out right. I was not implying that you were not respectful and in no way did I mean to try and censor your thoughts. My words probably came out wrong. So my apologies.

 

tbone, if you go back several posts, it was not Its Me Patt that actually got off track. He was responding to a post where someone else was diss'n Canadians. Your remarks would have been more on target responding to that post instead.

You have be watch for the varied senses of humor here on the forum....and not take offense (I still don't see how someone can be offended by Patt's post) to what is said.


Back on topic - - removing a safety feature on a vehcile is seldom the wisest choice. I would give some serious thought before doing so.

 

No one was "diss'n" Canadians. Saying that you don't care about some other country because someone wants you to call their insurance company is not "diss'n". And Pat clearly did not understand that when someone says "most" and not "all" the person is not speaking for those in the minority. I am assume Pat was at some other point or location offended by someone bashing Canadians and is super sensitive to any mention of our neighbors to the north that he has to get overly defensive of them, but I digress

Back to the topic, I agree that removing a safety feature may not be a wise choice, but when that safety feature doesn't work or causes you a greater safety risk, removing it is a wise choice. I haven't seen any verifiable data that shows that RWAL is effective in any condition. Not to mention that even when new it didn't work properly. Now knowing quality Dodge electronics, what do you think the chances are that at some point that dump valve may just decide to act on its own? Considering the device doesn’t work as designed, I don't think you are putting yourself at any risk by removing it, are you?

 

Something OEM not working properly needs to be replaced, and if it decides to not work all of a sudden is not the same as knowingly bypassing/eliminating said part.

 

I agree, but in this case the part never worked correctly from the start. It is a poor design and replacing poorly designed parts with newer poorly designed parts does nothing but take money out of your pocket. If you are concerned about safety then bypassing said part will increase your safety because you eliminate a point of failure with out increasing risk what so ever.

Here is a good link that explains how the RWAL works (or doesn't) http://www.aa1car.com/library/abs_kelseyhayes_rwal.htm

 

Ok for starters, tbone its all good no worries man...thanks gds!!...this whole gettin heated bs is done and over...besides IDK about anyone else but after reading UrU's post I've got a big ole smile on my face..the whole ham/bacon line, how can you not laugh!