In defence of the short course trainee

[Silly Sausage]

`grandad bike`....should suit your avatar nicely there Archy...

we used to go on the fields with them....

Indeedly, when I get my E-pipe and an off public highway route way to the boozer and back...

 

[ipf]

Indeedly, when I get my E-pipe and an off public highway route way to the boozer and back...

Smoking E's now are we Arch ?:beatnik2:

 

[Engineer54]

A Ford Escort RS Mexico

Nope, the Escort MK 1 RS (1600) was a far different car than the Escort Mexico....

 

[ipf]

Nope, the Escort MK 1 RS (1600) was a far different car than the Escort Mexico....

True. The Mexico gained it's name from Hannu Mikkola's MK1 RS winning the 1970 London-Mexico rally. Ford had the rally scene taped for a while, until the Audi Quattro reared it's head.

 

[Knobhead]

Sorry, ....but i firmly stand behind every sentence i've ever posted on the subject!!

Not sure why you think doing things in bits over time with different companies makes any difference?? Can't see it myself!!

I don't and never have accepted the term ''Domestic Installer'', there is no such thing, it's just a term created and used by the scheme scams to make money from under trained, under qualified and inexperienced folk that have been ripped off along the way by so-called training centres....

You are either a qualified electrician or you're NOT!! There is no inbetween!!....

In full agreement with you there.

I glad I stuck to the industrial side, no fast track wanabe’s crossed my path.

To join the company:
Membership of a scheme, not required.
Indentures, qualifications and proof of experience, mandatory.

If you weren’t company trained you had to prove your past experience. Some slipped through the net by talking a good job, they wouldn’t very last long.

 

[Knobhead]

I know I keep harping on about it.

The only way the trade will redeem its self is by a single national register that is recognised by everyone.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I know I keep harping on about it.

The only way the trade will redeem its self is by a single national register that is recognised by everyone.

I'll eat my hat if it happens in my working life ..... But you never know ...

 

[richy3333]

I'll eat my hat if it happens in my working life ..... But you never know ...

And I'll happily cook it up for you with a Thermadore sauce

 

[SPARTYKUS]

And I'll happily cook it up for you with a Thermadore sauce

Ahhh. A private joke on a public forum!

 

[richy3333]

Thought you'd enjoy that.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Certainly did enjoy it. Lobster tastic

 

[Engineer54]

True. The Mexico gained it's name from Hannu Mikkola's MK1 RS winning the 1970 London-Mexico rally. Ford had the rally scene taped for a while, until the Audi Quattro reared it's head.

The RS 1600 MK 1 and very early MK 2 were specials with all final drive, suspension components and other special build modifications being carried out at the Aveley/South Ockendon RS special build factory.

Mexico's however were built at the normal factory on standard lines. The engines were pre set-up at the engine plant, as were the gear boxes. In other words there was nothing really very special about the Escort Mexico out of the factory they just looked the part with the special paint colours and decals etc.... They only became special when worked on by performance company's

 

[spark 68]

Nope, the Escort MK 1 RS (1600) was a far different car than the Escort Mexico....

I never said what mark it was :cool3: ?, it is/was not my motor, the mexico mkII did get the RS badge later I believe.

 

[Engineer54]

I never said what mark it was :cool3: ?, it is/was not my motor, the mexico mkII did get the RS badge later I believe.

Not as far as i know, maybe via a retro fit performance company that was accredited to Ford RS.

MK 2 Mexico's were a bit of a sales gimmick, generally came with a 2.0L (over the standard 1.6 L), performance carb, different cam, and slightly uprated gearbox ratios and a so-called sport rated suspension/brakes. The rest was purely cosmetic...


The RS 1600 on the other hand was a pure twin cam thoroughbred, where very few of the main mechanical components were anywhere near standard and why final build work was carried out at the Aveley RS factory in Essex.

 

[ipf]

Not as far as i know, maybe via a retro fit performance company that was accredited to Ford RS.

MK 2 Mexico's were a bit of a sales gimmick, generally came with a 2.0L (over the standard 1.6 L), performance carb, different cam, and slightly uprated gearbox ratios and a so-called sport rated suspension/brakes. The rest was purely cosmetic...


The RS 1600 on the other hand was a pure twin cam thoroughbred, where very few of the main mechanical components were anywhere near standard and why final build work was carried out at the Aveley RS factory in Essex.

The MK2 was a 1600, I had one.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Thoroughbreds. All about 'blueprinting' and finer tolerances! Used to love that concept - the finer balancing weight wise of components, the polishing of ports so the gases had a smoother route.... Great stuff :conehead:

I was only a VW man so never really got past K&N Filters, and bodging fuelling components from larger (5 cylinder 2.2) engines onto the 4 cyl 1.6 and 1.8's

anyway thanks for listening sorry for going off thread OP....

 

[ian.settle1]

Was pretty tough to get caught speeding back in the late 60s/70s.
Used to take us a whole day to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh from Leeds.
Ireland was a 2 day trip, one way!

I know someone who had a car like that they got shut in the end

 

[ian.settle1]

I know I keep harping on about it.

The only way the trade will redeem its self is by a single national register that is recognised by everyone.

Which was spoken about in the early 90's and still no nearer

 

[Knobhead]

I'll eat my hat if it happens in my working life ..... But you never know ...

I said that at work, the lads glued salt and pepper pots to my helmet!

 

[Rockingit]

Which was spoken about in the early 90's and still no nearer

The attached was received by ME, yesterday (Sat 16/11/13).

View attachment Stephen Williams response2.pdf