4WD 4life

Hi Bill. I had a friend test the broken bolt and he confirmed that it was mild steel and its torque limits were close to the manufacturers original torque specifications. Regardless of where the bolt was made it was obviously made to a price rather than a standard. The upgraded bolt in the Mitsubishi Safety Recall SR-01-002 uses a high tensile bolt and the tightening torque is 30 Nm higher. The harmonic balancer is also too heavy for the short snout of the crankshaft. Its a combination of poor design which somehow Mitsubishi thought it's customers in Australia were not worth of the recall the rest of the world recieved. I know the car was old and well travelled, but that incident cost Mistubishi a sale when I upgraded. I have now purchased a Toyota. Lifes too short to be waiting for the Automobile Association. I will check out your Fitch F300 and see how suitable it is for LPG

Hi Steve, I do wonder how much fuel you wasted in the life of that vehicle,as I do wonder if the suspect bolt was manufactured in CHINA. That is aimed at manufactures using CHEAP imported components,They have all been informed of Fitchfuelcatalyst, yet choose to ignor the benifits derived through fittment of the product to their vehicles.Like I recently fitted a fitch F300 to a local businessmand mitsubishi Pajero dieselv 2007 model.owner Wayne claims to be travelling 150k further on each tank,

I should point out this problem was on a 93 Pajero. It would extend from the first of the V6's to somewhere into the 3.5 engine. The safety recall or any other research from people who have had this failure will explain which bolt is flawed