2014 subaru outback transmission replacement cost

SUV Suggestion for < 26k USD

2023.06.05 09:31 manireditt SUV Suggestion for < 26k USD

Hi, need your advise. Planning to purchase a preowned certified car. Budget around < 25k on road. I feel i should go fully electric or just stick with gas. I don't find big savings with hybrid and most of them are costly. Requirements
  1. fit 5 people
  2. 95% for day to day errands
  3. i like to do lot of road trips.
  4. prefer to car camp thats like 10% of use
  5. prefer spatious
  6. good milege
  7. currently live in California
  8. does not quality for 7,500 tax credit for ev
What I am inlined to in the order of preference
  1. Subaru Outback
  2. Honda CRV Hybrid
Open for suggestions. please suggest. Appreciate all your help
submitted by manireditt to whatcarshouldIbuy [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 06:18 DudeNeedsToTalkRN What is going on in Senegal in 2023? Explained in details #FreeSenegal

Skip to the Last part for 2023 specifics reading everything would really enlighten you tho.
Location and Alliances
French Control / Neocolonialism
Senegal was a well ruled country despite its politics being mainly ruled by France from the shadow, France hold the reserve of CFA Francs currency and print it for 15 countries. 15 sovereign nations are entirely dependent on France's currency. France also control most of their seaports and has priority in every new market offering with mandatory acceptance for these nations. Despite its many resources Senegal is a very poor country it has gold, zircon, lots of sea territory for fishing, clay and many more industry needed resources and forestry that I can adequately explain. France also has military bases in most of these countries until recently they've been kicked out by Burkina and Mali. Recently lots of Gas and Oil sources have been found in Senegal and that could change the lives of millions of Senegalese citizen (keep that in mind as you read)

Abdoulaye Wade, Macky Sall, Dirty Politics and Spiraling Debt


3rd Mandate, Abdoulaye Wade vs The People (Macky Sall and Youssou Ndour incl.)


Link Archive Protest Youtube: https://youtu.be/i224i8CTB64
Link Archive Macky Sall Coallition : https://youtu.be/P_wigR7JFYY

Hopes, Justice, Regrets and Embezzlement of Funds

Dynasty Faye-Sall, War of Gains and Scandalous Deals (Petro Tim Oil & Gas)

Then slowely but crescendo new names started popping in the government, branded as the FAYE-SALL dynasty : Macky Sall, his wife Marieme Faye and the in laws Aliou Sall and Mansour Faye.
See here the BBC documentary that angered the Senegalese citizens: https://youtu.be/1TAN6PsxKAc
See video here: https://youtu.be/eS8UV8EtykQ
see video here: https://youtu.be/r4DHowh8KLo
The others (Moustapha Niasse, Youssou Ndour, Mame Mbaye Niang...)

The Claws of France gripping harder

Harder Living Conditions

The Rise of Ousmane Sonko

Macky Sall's 3rd Mandate, Sonko-Adji Sarr, 2021 Protests

Amnesty International Article : https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/senegal-one-year-after-march-2021-families-demand-justice

2023 Protests

After sentencing Ousmane Sonko to 2 years of prison, he is at first kidnapped while he travelled back home from Ziguinchor occasionally touring the country ,held at home and the people are out protesting to end this masquerade, for Macky Sall to either leave Sonko alone and finish his 2nd term or to leave the country altogether.
There's already 600 political prisoners before the protest.
The police shot live rounds, beat up and runned over several people.
And a new type of tear cas that can blow your limbs.
The people are fighting for a better future. Macky Sall doesn't care about Senegalese people. Senegalese so desperate for a better future that many died at sea on shipwrecks trying to reach europe on rafts or canoes.
In 2019, 210 senegalese people died in the mediteranée trying to reach europe because there's nothing left of hope of a better future in thish country, in novembre 2020, 414 senegalese people died at sea trying to ge to europe according to IOM
The 2023 protest showed an escalation of violence from the police, the constables and the 'nervis' these paid militias that have gone increasingly violent with machetes and semi automatic rifles and handguns. Fighting along side the police they have killed 28 people officially many were shot.
The Freedom to tour the country that Macky Sall was offered by Abdoulaye Wade is what Macky Sall is denying Ousmane Sonko.
The 3rd mandate that Macky Sall thought for is what he is denying us all.
Abdoulaye Wade never asked for the police to shoot at civilians, under his presidency killing in broad daylight wasn't a thing, he may have been a bad tyrant but Macky Sall infinitely a hating arrogant good for nothing that is acclaimed as Political Genius a lapdog if anything.
A warzone atmosphere against unarmed civilians.
The government issued an order for the internet to be cut off
Everybody is using vpns to keep the outside informed. Today, June 4th the mobile data were cut off only wifi network worked in order to keep protesters at home.
A terrible rumour that spent chills down my spine earlier today a senegalese citizen called on live tv saying he saw DEAD BODIES IN REFRIGERATED TRUCKSS BEING THROWN AT SEA near the Diamalaye Beach. The senegalese citizens are enquiring about it. Some people have confirmed through text but I am yet to believe it until photo or video proof is shown. We are talking about mass execution I will not believe it until I see proof of it.
This a very long and tedious thing to write and I'm doing it because I am afraid the Senegalese people will be cut off from the world and die in the dark.
The sound of an entire nations going silent is something I have witnessed once and I hope I never do.
ECOWAS took a neutral stance may the wrath of God be upon them.
For once in my lifetime I wish for Military Coup if it means the killers will be stopped. Please save the longest lasting WEST African democracy.
Please Spread the word under #FreeSenegal. A senegalese fearing for his freedom.
submitted by DudeNeedsToTalkRN to Senegal [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 05:34 staycurious72 Should I buy a 2013 XC70 (Turbo) T6 with 138K miles on it?

Looking at buying this from a private party.
What are the issues that I should expect at this mileage? The common issues that are cited are transmission, oil consumption and suspension related. But, I wanted to get a sense of the issues that people in this group may know first hand.
Is the maintenance cost MUCH higher than say a Subaru wagon, or are they marginally higher?
The current owner states that the car is in excellent shape. What questions should I ask about the maintenance history and/or problems that may not be obvious on a test drive?
The asking price is $12,800. Does this seem fair?
EDIT: what lifespan (miles) am I looking at for this car?
submitted by staycurious72 to Volvo [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 04:04 hitlicks4aliving 2003 Camry 3.0L V6 4Spd - Need Guidance on OBD Codes

2003 Camry 3.0L V6 4Spd - Need Guidance on OBD Codes
304k miles on the vehicle
I have these 9 codes, wanting input on course of action. Here's what I'm thinking:
p0128 - will replace thermostat because it's stuck open
p0420 - is the oxygen sensor even worth replacing at this mileage or should I just slap a anti fouler spacer on it? It costs about $50
p0430 - same as above but another sensor, should I replace or just assume the cats are bad?
p0500 - want to make sure I have the proper part. The part I found was Toyota 89413-08020. It's on top of the transmission and costs about $140. Please correct
p2241 - it's the o2 sensor at the top in the front of the engine bay to the right, pretty certain on this one.
P0456 - who knows what the hell is this but I'll just throw on a new fuel cap.
Thanks for your assistance guys
submitted by hitlicks4aliving to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 03:53 khoafraelich789 Which brand of car is most reliable? These are the most dependable vehicles on the market

Which brand of car is most reliable? These are the most dependable vehicles on the market

https://preview.redd.it/pf8topqev34b1.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d95fb4e72938424d73c98dfcda447978acf4047
Looking for a dependable vehicle? Kia, Buick and Chevrolet are some of your best nonpremium bets, according to a new report from J.D. Power.

The analytics company's annual vehicle dependability study found 186 problems per 100 vehicles on average, a slight improvement from last year’s score of 192.

A year-over-year improvement is expected as manufacturers learn from past mistakes, according to Frank Hanley, senior director of auto benchmarking at J.D. Power.

"This means as many consumers are keeping their vehicles for a longer period of time they can expect less issues than they have in the past," he told USA TODAY in an emailed statement. "Looking at what models are holding up over time before purchasing is the best way to avoid problems in the long run."

Car insurance:Car prices may fall this year, but auto insurance will cost more. Here's why.

Recalls:Honda, Kia, Volkswagen among 67,000 latest vehicles on recall

The study, released Thursday, looked at how 2020 model-year cars are performing in terms of quality, appeal and component replacement. The findings are based on responses from more than 30,000 owners fielded in August through November 2022.

What is the most dependable car brand?
Here are the brand rankings based on the number of problems per 100 vehicles, according to J.D. Power’s 2023 U.S. vehicle dependability study. The industry average is 186.

Lexus: 133
Genesis: 144
Kia: 152
Buick: 159
Chevrolet: 162
Mitsubishi: 167
Toyota: 168
Hyundai: 170
Mini: 170
Nissan: 170
Dodge: 172
Cadillac: 173
Mazda: 174
GMC: 175
BMW: 184
Ram: 189
Jeep: 196
Honda: 205
Infiniti: 205
Porsche: 208
Acura: 211
Subaru: 214
Volvo: 215
Volkswagen: 216
Chrysler: 226
Jaguar: 229
Mercedes-Benz: 240
Ford: 249
Audi: 252
Lincoln: 259
Land Rover: 273
The highest-ranking premium brand was Lexus, and Kia was the highest-ranking mass market brand.

Mass market brands had a better overall score than premium brands. The gap between the two has been growing, probably because premium brands are the first to roll out new features and offer more technology.

Car recalls:Honda recalls 114,000 Fit, HR-V models over back-up camera issue

What is the most dependable car model?
The Toyota C-HR and Lexus RX were tied for the highest-ranked models for dependability in the study, each with 111 problems per 100 cars.

J.D. Power declined to share findings on the least dependable models.

What are the most dependable cars and SUVs?

According to J.D. Power’s survey, here are the most dependable models per segment.

Compact car: Kia Forte, followed by the Toyota Corolla and Hyundai Elantra.
Compact premium car: BMW 4 Series, followed by the Volvo S60 and BMW 3 Series.
Compact sporty car: Mini Cooper.
Midsize car: Kia Optima, followed by the Chevrolet Malibu and Ford Fusion.
Compact SUV: Kia Sportage, followed by Buick Envision and Jeep Cherokee.
Compact premium SUV: Lexus NX, followed by Cadillac XT4 and BMW X3.
Large SUV: Chevrolet Tahoe, followed by GMC Yukon.
Midsize SUV: Chevrolet Blazer, followed by Hyundai Santa Fe and Ford Edge.
Midsize premium SUV: Lexus RX, followed by Lexus GX.
Small SUV: Toyota C-HR, followed by Buick Encore and Chevrolet Trax.
Small premium SUV: BMW X2, followed by Mercedes-Benz GLA and BMW X1.
Upper midsize SUV: Toyota Highlander, followed by Kia Sorento and Toyota 4Runner.
Upper midsize premium SUV: BMW X5, followed by Cadillac XT6 and Volvo XC90.
Large heavy-duty pickup: Chevrolet Silverado HD.
Large light-duty pickup: GMC Sierra, followed by Toyota Tundra.
Midsize pickup: Toyota Tacoma, followed by Chevrolet Colorado.
Minivan: Toyota Sienna, followed by Kia Sedona.

What are some common problems?
The study looks at 184 specific problem areas across nine categories, including driving assistance, infotainment, seats, exterior and interior.

The survey found infotainment systems were the most problematic, with drivers reporting issues with voice recognition, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity, built-in Bluetooth systems and touch screens. Overall, the category averaged about 50 problems per 100 cars – almost twice as many as exterior, the next highest category.

Source: usatoday
submitted by khoafraelich789 to CarInformationNews [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 03:01 fahrenheitfight 2014 Outback rhythmic rubbing/whooshing sound from rear of car

I have a 2014 subaru outback 2.5i limited. I just changed the driver side rear bearing hub assembly. Then rotors, pads, parking brake hardware on both driver side and passenger rear. There is a rhythmic rubbing sound that starts almost immediately as you get moving does not appear to get louder the faster you go. Interestingly I can't hear this sound when driving in reverse. I double checked the dust shields and they are not rubbing on either side. I had just changed the bearing out last week and was having this issue so bought a better brand hub bearing assembly all the brake stuff and yet I am still having the issue after putting it all on. Tires are not the issue as I bought brand new tires last month, and had an alignment done. I swapped the tire sides in the rear to double check and checked air pressure in all which was not causing the noise either. The sound does not sound like the bad bearing did before I changed it which sounded like the typical roaring noise as you increase speed. I have exhausted all my ideas. I have an appointment at Subaru in a few days to have the CVT transmission valve changed and will have them look then but wanted to get an idea beforehand. Thank you!
submitted by fahrenheitfight to subaruoutback [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 02:59 fahrenheitfight 2014 Outback rhythmic rubbing/whooshing sound from rear of car

I have a 2014 subaru outback 2.5i limited. I just changed the driver side rear bearing hub assembly. Then rotors, pads, parking brake hardware on both driver side and passenger rear. There is a rhythmic rubbing sound that starts almost immediately as you get moving does not appear to get louder the faster you go. Interestingly I can't hear this sound when driving in reverse. I double checked the dust shields and they are not rubbing on either side. I had just changed the bearing out last week and was having this issue so bought a better brand hub bearing assembly all the brake stuff and yet I am still having the issue after putting it all on. Tires are not the issue as I bought brand new tires last month, and had an alignment done. I swapped the tire sides in the rear to double check and checked air pressure in all which was not causing the noise either. The sound does not sound like the bad bearing did before I changed it which sounded like the typical roaring noise as you increase speed. I have exhausted all my ideas. I have an appointment at Subaru in a few days to have the CVT transmission valve changed and will have them look then but wanted to get an idea beforehand. Thank you!
submitted by fahrenheitfight to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments]


2023.06.05 02:07 Complete-Classic9372 25k budget Family SUV*Van 2020+

Hi Everyone!
I am looking to replace our family car. We currently have 2015 Ford Edge V6, low mileage(85k) but I do not like the gas mileage(17mpg) and the fact that it is a Ford(I have 2 other Fords so no insult intended, lol).
I am looking for 2020+, less than 50-60k miles, 25k $ OTD, preferably SUV...
I was looking for Outback, CR-V, Rav4, VW Atlas, Tiguan. Would love a hybrid but they are $$..
I would not mind 3rd row but most of them are around 20mpg. I would like at least 25-30 mpg.( Outback is good about this)... I do not care about 4WD,AWD we are in the southern part of the country.
I like the way VW Atlas looks. 2.0 or 3.6 either way. Cons: 20's mpg... But I can find a few of them -25k $ even certified pre owned ones.
I was looking at Subaru Outbacks but they are +25k mostly. Started looking at CR-V's. Any suggestions, recommendations?
TIA!

**Edit: Added some things.
submitted by Complete-Classic9372 to whatcarshouldIbuy [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 22:47 hotdidggity 2011 Subaru Outback 2.5i Premium: Valve cover gasket replacement

2011 Subaru Outback 2.5i Premium: Valve cover gasket replacement
Hi everyone. Attempting valve cover gaskets on this Subaru. However, I’m having trouble removing the valve cover for both sides.
I was told to remove the motor mount bolts for both sides and jack up the engine via the oil pan to give me room to remove valve cover.
Any advice or tips?
submitted by hotdidggity to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 22:41 UsedCicada9696 Open Forum talks about best vehicles to use to hitch a horse trailer with

Open Forum talks about best vehicles to use to hitch a horse trailer with
Kevin Bacon is doing Hyundai commercials § < Sad- > 2023-06-02 17:46
: . . Jeff Bridges used to do them § < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:47
: . . The man's gotta pay the mortgage < Zombie-Fungus > 2023-06-02 17:47-5
on his $15 million house.
: . . I never cared for Kevin Bacon. § < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 17:47
: . . : . . he's not kosher § < - > 2023-06-02 17:48
: . . : . . : . . LOL § < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 17:48
: . . joe biden does depends ads § < when-he-aint-falling > 2023-06-02 17:49+1
: . . : . . put a a cork in it, corky § < - > 2023-06-02 17:50+10
: . . There's no shame in commercials < - > 2023-06-02 17:49
Kia Tellurides are super nice too, as long as you get the tow hitch harness fixed
: . . : . . Why would anyone actually tow anything with a < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:51
Kia?
: . . : . . : . . It's a full size SUV more than capable of towing < - > 2023-06-02 17:52
But yea, get that harness fixed before it burns down your house
: . . : . . : . . : . . I'd still not use it to tow anyhing... NOTHING § < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:53
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Why? § < - > 2023-06-02 17:54
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . It's just not................ a vehicle I'd use < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:55
for that purpose. I like me some good 'ol American muscle for that. (Ford F-350.)
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Of course you do, because FORD is the acronym < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 17:56
for Fucked On Road Daily.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . My husband and I both drive new Ford trucks. < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 17:57
I’m not sure what you are getting at.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . It's a just a joke. lol § < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 17:58
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . No, it's definitely rooted in reality < - > 2023-06-02 18:00
Fords truck lines may be ok but everything else they produce is shit
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . My first car was a Mercury Sable, basically a < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 18:03
Ford Taurus, and the transmission went out on it after two years. I had a 1991 Ford Explorer and that thing kept falling apart on me to where I started thinking FORD was actually short for Fix Or Repair Daily.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . It can tow up to 5,500lbs with its 300 hp engine < - > 2023-06-02 17:57
There's absolutely nothing wrong with towing with a Kia, as long as you get that original harness replaced
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Like I said. It's weird and wrong to use it for < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:58
anything other than cruising. And if I see you out there on the road, driving it and pulling something with it, I'm gonna pull you over and we're gonna have some words.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Seems classist to me § < - > 2023-06-02 17:59
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Nope. I'm just helping a troubled soul see reason < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:01
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . He is right. A Kia is like a college < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:01+5
kid ride. Something inexpensive daddy buys to get his kid around. If you can afford toys that need to be towed, you should be able to afford a proper vehicle to tow them.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . He's actually not < - > 2023-06-02 18:06 pic

https://preview.redd.it/pa4ipuwsa24b1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6ebb5adbb1df4a98cefc8ef01f85b0d387557cd
A Kia Telluride with all the bells and whistles is a 60k vehicle You seem dumb
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Look at how the rear end of the Kia is sagging < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:07
from the load it's attached to, LMAO!
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . You're complaining about an inch of sag? < - > 2023-06-02 18:13
That trailer was towed 1,500 miles with no problems Jesus, you're a terrible classist
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Funny! The Ford doesn't have tow hitch < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:14
problems and doesn't sag with an even heavier load.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . They just come with their own set of problems < - > 2023-06-02 18:21
  1. Death Wobble
  2. Sunroof Leaking
  3. PCV Oil Separator Issues
  4. Drive Shaft Fracture
  5. Engine Ejects Spark Plugs
  6. Turbo Hose Blow Off
  7. Air Bag Failure
  8. Cab Squeaks
  9. Front Brake Rotors Warped
I guess FORD really does stand for Fix It Again Tony
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Seems they can still tow a load decently < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:23
without sagging and having hitch problems, which is the focal point of the load being towed. Also, I've NEVER had ANY of those issues with Ford.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . They do tow wonderfully. My last < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:25
truck went back and forth to Florida several times pulling a horse trailer with zero issues, even climbing the mountains, it had no problem .
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Correct. I wouldn't use a Kia to pull a horse < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:26
trailer or an RV trailer.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . All vehicles have issues. That is why you trade < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:23
it before the warranty runs out. We never have a vehicle not under warranty.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . At least it's not a Subaru. § < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 18:07
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . ...And here's what I'm talking about: < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 18:08 pic

https://preview.redd.it/6ubngbtcb24b1.png?width=474&format=png&auto=webp&s=96f94be7d89f031d39c7e73eaaf493554a79c28b
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . You seem poor. § < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:13+5
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Just when I thought you couldn't get dumber § < - > 2023-06-02 18:15
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Well, arguably you are the dumb one as < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:19+5
you think a Kia is a good vehicle to tow with. 🙄
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Reading comprehension problems too? Dumb as rock < - > 2023-06-02 18:25
Direct me to the post where I said it's a good vehicle to tow with I merely stated it's capable and that is the truth
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Ok...... 🙄 lol. I’m not going to rub < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:30
your nose in it. I’ll allow you to bow out with your pride intact.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . As somebody who pulls a horse trailer < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 17:55
Fairly often, no way I’d use a Kia. Lol
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . I would use a Dodge Ram. § < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 17:56
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . A Dodge Ram is better than a Kia for towing. § < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 17:58
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . 👆 This § < sullivan77 > 2023-06-02 17:58
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . That's what my grandparents would use for their < Morgan-LeFay > 2023-06-02 18:01
horse trailer. My sister got the truck after my grandmother died though, I wanted that truck, but I had my own Chevrolet Aveo at the time. A Kia and a small Chevy car I think would both not be good for towing.
: . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . : . . Yeah, they aren’t. I like something < ItsmeLD > 2023-06-02 18:02
with some power and built to do the job.
: . . : . . at first I thought they looked nice < - > 2023-06-02 17:57
and from certain angles they do, but after the new wears off they look a little ridiculus
: . . Bernie Madoff took his money lol § < - > 2023-06-02 18:14
submitted by UsedCicada9696 to OpenForumPG [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 22:23 SMHJ11 Safetied car broke down within a month

Hello, I bought a used car with safety from a registered used car dealership and now about 3 weeks later the transmission broke down. I've gone to two mechanics and both said the transmission needs to be fully replaced, one quoted me $3k for a remanufactured replacement and the other about $2k for a used one but with a year's warranty. Am I responsible to cover the cost of the repairs or is this technically the dealership's responsibility?
submitted by SMHJ11 to legaladvicecanada [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 22:12 Huskyus Looking for a car around 10-15k. Thinking about a 2016 Subaru Outback/Crosstrek with around 100k miles. Is it reliable? If not, what else should I look at?

I just sold my Jeep Wrangler for 14k. I have some cash to put towards another car and my max budget is 15k. I feel much more comfortable driving a small compact SUV and consistently drive 3-5 people around.
Currently I’m really interested in a Subaru Crosstrek / Outback. I have a few friends with them and they love them but is the 2014-16 model years reliable? If I were to pick one up with around 100k miles would I be good for 100k more? I can do basic maintenance and known how to check all fluids so that’s not an issue.
If I shouldn’t go the Subaru route, what should I look at? I was looking at the civic/accord/Camry/Corolla but would prefer a slightly bigger vehicle. I also need a car that gets around 30mpg+.
submitted by Huskyus to whatcarshouldIbuy [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 21:38 Elixi978 Tried to replace my car's stereo. Need to replace the bracket but don't know where to find a new one.

Tried to replace my car's stereo. Need to replace the bracket but don't know where to find a new one.
I just got a new stereo as a gift, and went to install it. It was going well and I was was removing the old stereo (seen in picture) but those two screws will not come out. At this point, I plan to just replace the bracket, but I don't know where to find a replacement. My car is a 2002 Subaru legacy outback, if that helps.
submitted by Elixi978 to CarAV [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 19:34 herbzman1 HDMI ports problems

As a follow up about 2 HDMI ports on my 9 year old LG 3D TV pushing in, I called a local TV repair shop & after giving him the service code # from LG he said the main board ($400) would need replacing, labor $100-150, $50 to pick up & return TV. I asked about soldering the ports back on the main board & he said not much success doing that & he didn’t have the equipment to do it. He suggested an HDMI switch so guess that’s the best route as I don’t see spending $600 on the repair. The TV did cost almost $3K in 2014 but doubt it’s worth that now but other than the ports problem, the TV works flawlessly & has a great picture for a 1080p TV. Prices you see on ebay for 3D TVs are ridiculous!
submitted by herbzman1 to diyelectronics [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 19:20 rjhancock Convince me not to do this.....

I've started doing research on a home office network upgrade as I do my more bandwidth intensive activities there versus at my office. I'm honestly asking to be convinced to NOT do this.
Looking at getting the
All and all will run about $5k.
Seriously, please convince me to not do this.
The Synology NAS would also be used by clients for transmission of files back and forth as well as with my contractors.
Note: the cost is a business write off so not too worried about it.
submitted by rjhancock to Ubiquiti [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 17:04 Drunk_Panda_456 Code PO847

Hello,
I just stopped by AutoZone to get codes checked on my 2011 Honda Pilot. Yesterday I had a blinking d light and my check engine light came on. Now it's only a check engine light.
It's code P0847. They say that you should replace the transmission fluid pressure switch and replace transmission fluid. Usually how much does it cost to get it replaced by a mechanic?
Also, how long can I drive it without replacing it? I wanna replace it, but it might take a few days before I can get an appointment and take it to the mechanic.
submitted by Drunk_Panda_456 to hondapilot [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 14:56 saltycupcakes Time to switch to EV?

We have a 2020 Toyota Sienna whose value is approx 40k and a 2014 Toyota Matrix whose value is approx 13k.
My commute: 5 days a week 116km per day for work ~28.5k km per year.
Wife’s commute: 5 days a week 122km per day for work ~25k km per year 41 weeks worked per year. Plus 1 90km weekly trip for leisure 4.7k km.
Loose calculations put our monthly fuel consumption between $750-$800/month at $1.60/L. Off peak charging seems to be around 8 cents/kWh.
We pay for oil changes every 8k for both vehicles so there’s that savings for one vehicle. The plan would be sell the Sienna and get an EV that I drive and when I find a fully WFH job, sell the Matrix and not replace it, and wife drives EV.
It seems like a no brainer to me. Wondering what costs I’m overlooking. I’d need level 2 charging I think.
submitted by saltycupcakes to PersonalFinanceCanada [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 14:27 RobertThePersian JK 3.6 Pentastar with persistent oil filter housing leak.

Long story short: about to be installing my fifth oil filter housing assembly in eight months.
The Jeep: 2016 RHD JK with 100k+ miles, used for mail delivery that I've owned for four years. Using Mobil 1 5W-20 High Mileage Synthetic before the new engine which has had whatever Mopar oil the dealership put in. Also, I do use a torque wrench to tighten the filter to 18 ft. lbs. at every oil change, which I've been doing around every 3,000 miles because of the intense use.
I came home one day in October 2022 and noticed something that caught my eye on the garage floor underneath my Jeep. I looked and there was oil running underneath my Jeep on the backside of the oil pan and along where the inspection plugs are at on the bell housing, and had the transmission pan covered. I looked in the engine bay and I could tell the valve cover gaskets were wet (this will become somewhat relevant later). I checked the dipstick and noticed I was down a half-quart of oil. I got in touch with a local shop that has a good rep within my small community and the mechanic said it wasn't my valve covers, that I had an oil filter housing leak that was just running along the valve cover. I wanted him to do the work because I wasn't super-eager about reassembling the intake and I needed new spark plugs anyways (this will also come back later), so that overlaps well enough. It took him a month to get around to it, I drove my backup a lot in the meantime, and the bill for spark plugs and the oil filter ended up being $660. That's how I got Oil Filter Housing #2.
But the Jeep kept leaking oil.
I took it back to the local mechanic the next chance I got, a couple of weeks later. He said he'd look at it that day, I guess he did, and assured me it was probably old oil that was still stuck along the way. I was skeptical; after probably fifty hours of use, any old oil should have run off or burned off a bit ago. The Jeep keeps on leaking oil, even after I do an oil change. I take it back and the local mechanic pours some dye in and tells me to come back in a day and he will look and see if it's still leaking fresh oil. Local mechanic finds that it is and he reinstalls the oil filter housing, free of charge to me.
We had a wet and icy winter in the central US that kept the garage floor and the bell housing and the transmission pan cleaned off so I didn't notice a lot of oil getting on the floor but I did have to keep the Jeep topped off, losing a quart about every 1500 miles. I'm figuring that's not super unusual for a Pentastar with 100k+ on the clock and I'm busy and don't have time to have the Jeep laid up in the weather that I bought it for. When spring comes around I start to notice the leak again. At this point I'm starting to suspect a rear main seal more than oil filter housing but the inspection holes are still dry.
One weekend in March, I did an oil change on a Sunday afternoon. The next day (Monday, the perfect day of the week for this to happen), I'm heading out to load my Jeep and I notice a gigantic puddle of something underneath my Jeep. It looks to me like the front crankshaft seal just pissed itself. I feel the puddle and the liquid is slick, like oil. It's also barely above 32F outside, and all the liquid I can see is running underneath the crankshaft pulley. Oil stick still looks OK though. I panic drive the Jeep back home and get it in the garage, put a mat under it, get my backup and do my route. I try to get a local shop (the one I went to before or any others within ten miles, which is about as far as I estimate it can go) to see if they can get my Jeep in but they refuse to take it because they are too busy. I call a Jeep dealership a couple of towns over that has a good reputation (as opposed to the one a town over, but owned by the same company, that doesn't) and have it towed there. I tell them about the immediate problem and the oil leak I've been having. The service advisor, who I have to say is one of the better ones I've ever worked with on anything, calls me back and tell me that it wasn't the crank seal, it was the water pump. They also noticed I had some rocker arms going bad. I tell them that I had noticed that too (I had always heard that Jeep dealerships wouldn't look at rockers until a check engine light came on otherwise I'd have taken care of this a year or two ago) and that they would replace those. The oil leak looked to be coming out of the oil filter housing and the valve covers (the same thing I thought six months ago). To skip ahead through a couple of phone calls, the rockers on the left bank of the Pentastar were also bad and a cam over there was damaged. I could have all of that repaired for $5300 or just install a reman engine + the oil filter housing for around $8k, which would include a three year, 100k mile parts & labor warranty. After thinking about what else could continue going wrong, I ended up telling them to put a reman in. I get over to the dealership to pick up my Jeep after it's all said and done and the SA says "Oh, we had to put new spark plugs in, the old ones were junk and weren't really for that vehicle." My opinion of the trusted local mechanic really has gone downhill but I'm thrilled to have all of their bullshit behind me. That's the story of how I got Oil Filter Housing #3.
Things are going fine with the Jeep, not hearing any crazy noises, but it does occur to me to check the oil after about 1,000 miles. I check and it's about a half-quart low. My eyebrows are raised but I think, "well maybe the dealership only put 5.5 quarts in." I top it off with some Mobil 1 I had around, and continue on as normal. After about 2600 miles on the new motor, I decide to check it again and the oil level is barely registering on the dipstick. I look underneath the Jeep and the back of the pan and the bell housing are all covered with oil again (nothing's on the transmission pan, curiously enough). I look up top and I can see oil coming out below where the filter is (which I haven't even touched on this engine). I top off the Jeep (with Mobil 1 again, which I thought about but that didn't make the Jeep oil level low to start with), call the dealership, and they conclude that it is oil filter housing and they replace the oil filter housing and change the oil, all under warranty and it didn't cost me a dime. That's Oil Filter Housing #4.
I got my Jeep back Wednesday of last week. Besides driving it home, I drove my backup vehicle on Thursday and drove the Jeep on the route on Friday & Saturday (yesterday). There's an empty church parking lot I usually stop at and re-sort and reorganize my parcels in. I decided to have a peek underneath just to check things out and sure enough, right on the bottom side of the bell housing once again. I'm going to be calling the dealership back first chance I get this week, so I guess this will be Oil Filter Housing #5.
So that's the full background.
My question is, are there any other causes for this besides just coincidentally bad workmanship spread across multiple mechanics and companies, or have Mopar parts quality just gotten this bad? Is there anything I can bring up to the Jeep SA that might be making these oil filter housing assemblies fail? I'm completely out of ideas here.
submitted by RobertThePersian to Wrangler [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 14:25 AnAutisticGuy Rented a Tesla Model 3 from Hertz for weekend: My Experience

A bit of background about myself. I'd never driven an EV prior to yesterday. My only exposure to driver assistance features was in a 2021 Subaru Outback which I owned for 1.5 years in which I used the lane centering and adaptive cruise features extensively (both highways and city streets). I sold the Subaru for a $1,500 profit a few months ago due to the crazy market and I'm using my old 2005 Toyota Camry. I decided to have some fun with my 15 year old son this weekend so we rented a Tesla. I'm also seriously considering purchasing one in the next year or so. Here's our experience so far:
Updates below here.....

submitted by AnAutisticGuy to electricvehicles [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 12:04 Then_Marionberry_259 JAN 19, 2023 GCX.V GRANITE CREEK COPPER ANNOUNCES POSITIVE PEA WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF $324M ON CARMACKS COPPER-GOLD PROJECT IN YUKON, CANADA

JAN 19, 2023 GCX.V GRANITE CREEK COPPER ANNOUNCES POSITIVE PEA WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF $324M ON CARMACKS COPPER-GOLD PROJECT IN YUKON, CANADA
https://preview.redd.it/o3rjf9m56z3b1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=023864b1f7b10bf6d4613369fb83c2b2ba08008d
VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / January 19, 2023 / Granite Creek Copper Ltd. (TSXV:GCX)(OTCQB:GCXXF) ( "Granite Creek" or the "Company" ) is pleased to report positive results from its Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") for the Carmacks Copper-Gold-Silver project (the "Project" or "Carmacks Project"), located in the Yukon, Canada's Minto Copper District within the traditional territories of Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation and Selkirk First Nation.
The PEA demonstrates attractive project economics with significant opportunities for additional mine life expansion, reinforcing the potential of the Minto Copper District to become a top-tier global copper district.
Granite Creek Copper will be hosting a live webinar to review the PEA results on January 24th , 2023, at 9:00am PT 12:00PM ET. To register, click here .
PEA Highlights
  • Attractive project economics:
    • Base case metal prices of US$3.75/lb Cu, US$1,800/oz Au and US$22/oz Ag: Pre-tax NPV 5% of C$324 million and 36% IRR After-tax NPV 5% of C$230 million and 29% IRR
    • Case 1 metal prices of US$4.25/lb Cu, US$2,000/oz Au and US$25/oz Ag: Pre-tax NPV 5% of C$475 million and 48% IRR After-tax NPV 5% of C$330 million and 38% IRR
  • Mine life of nine years at 7,000 tonnes per day with clear exploration potential to extend mine life with four target areas within 1km of the current resource.
  • Capital cost of C$220m with payback of 2 years from commencement of production.
  • Head grade of 1.10% copper equivalent ("CuEq") consisting of 0.90% Cu, 0.30 g/t Au and 3.5 g/t Ag.
  • Average cash operating costs of US$1.76/lb CuEq and all-in sustaining costs of US$2.57/lb CuEq.
  • Option for tailings treatment: PEA study identifies additional potential cash flow through processing of oxide tailings to increase total copper recovery. Recovery sensitivity shows an additional $180M pre-tax NPV based of a 20% increase in recovery rates.
The Company envisions developing the Carmacks Project into a low-carbon source of copper. A critical mineral, as defined by the Canadian government, copper is key to the transition to a zero-carbon economy through the electrification of transportation and other industries, and the development of renewable energy production. The 2023 PEA clearly demonstrates the viability of the Carmacks Deposit as a robust open pit sulphide and oxide copper-gold-silver project with significant potential upside from both resource expansion and secondary processing of oxide material to further improve oxide recoveries.The Project is to be powered by the Yukon's electrical grid which uses primarily renewable electricity.
"The completion of the PEA is a major accomplishment that doesn't just advance the Project beyond previous studies but completely re-envisions Carmacks as a high-grade, open pit copper, gold and silver producer with excellent expansion potential in a tier one jurisdiction", commented Timothy Johnson, President and CEO. "The inclusion of sulphide alongside oxide ore, either as a blend or a straight sulphide feed, has resulted in significant upside on the Project, with further opportunities recognized in both processing and exploration."
"Potential for near mine resource expansion is demonstrated in new volumetrically significant targets identified by comparison of the geophysical signatures of known mineralization with similar signatures of untested targets near the proposed pits ", continued Mr. Johnson. "These strong geophysical responses have a high correlation with copper sulphide minerals on the Project, giving us high confidence in these new targets, which are a priority for testing in upcoming drill campaigns."
PEA Study Approach
The PEA contemplates open pit mining using a conventional truck and shovel operation in two separate pits. Mining targets the high-grade, near surface oxide material in the 147 pit, then transitions to target sulphide material in the 1213 pit followed by final mining of the deeper oxide and sulphide material in 147. Mined material would be delivered to a crushing and grinding circuit consisting of a primary crusher, SAG mill and ball mill. Both oxide copper ore and sulphide copper ore would be processed via a simplified flow sheet consisting of well-established flotation technology producing a high-quality copper-gold-silver concentrate. Oxide and sulphide ore would be blended and sequenced to provide optimal cash flow and to minimise the environmental footprint with mined-out pits or portions of pits being reclaimed as mining commences in the next area. Both conceptual pits lie within 2km of the proposed mill site.
Tailings from the flotation circuit would be filtered and water recirculated into the flotation circuit. This would improve water management and limit environmental impact, with final tailings placement on a lined dry stack tailings facility at site.
A high-grade, premium copper, gold and silver concentrate would be shipped via deep seaports in Skagway, Alaska or other nearby facilities. Treatment and refining charges terms are within standard market rates.
Average copper recovery during life of mine ("LOM') is calculated to be 64% with approximately 2/3 of material processed being oxide ore and 1/3 being sulphide ore. Metallurgical studies returned 93% copper recovery when processing sulphide ore, 40% copper recovery while processing oxide ore and 82% when processing a 50:50 blend. Metallurgical work highlights the opportunity for further optimization of the Project through more detailed mine sequencing or discovery of near mine sulphide or that could be blended with ore from the 147 pit.
Table 1: PEA Key Parameters
https://preview.redd.it/dqw5q3o56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=e25bf25a05e5aba7ee07577e1b1c1e4a3cb66c1e
  1. Base case metal prices based on 36-month trailing average from January 15, 2022.
  2. Recovery includes both oxide and sulphide ore and is based on mining 2/3 oxide and 1/3 sulphide LOM.
  3. Total operating costs include mining, processing, tailings, surface infrastructures, transport, and G&A costs.
  4. AISC includes cash operating costs, sustaining capital expenses to support the on-going operations, concentrate transport and treatment charges, royalties and closure and rehabilitation costs divided by copper equivalent pounds produced.
  5. AISC is a non-IFRS financial performance measures with no standardized definition under IFRS. Refer to note at end of this news release.
  6. The copper equivalent grade (CuEq) is determined by (total copper x US$3.75) + (total gold x US$1800) + (total silver x $22)/$3.75)/total resource tonnes.
  7. Payback period is from commencement of mining.
Capital Cost
The PEA for the Project outlines an initial (pre-production) capital cost estimate of C$220 million and LOM sustaining capital costs of C$130 million, including overall closure costs of C$5 million. Initial capital costs include the construction of milling and processing facilities, lined dry stack tailings and lined waste rock facilities, on-site infrastructure of 15km of access road and facilities for water capture and treatment. Construction of a powerline (12.8 km, 138 kV) from an existing substation is placed under sustaining capital to allow for construction time of the power grid.
Table 2: Capex Estimates 1
https://preview.redd.it/1o5nj0p56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=567bac8c1cd2dd5d7e68d6979c4301222ea8eb80
1 All values stated are undiscounted.
Operating Costs
Operating costs estimates were developed using first principles methodology, vendor quotes received in Q3 2022, and productivities being derived from benchmarking and industry best practices. Over the LOM, the average operating cost for the Project is estimated at C$3.16/t mined and C$18.30/t processed. Tailings costs are included in processing costs.
The average cash operating costs over the LOM is US$1.76/lb CuEq and the average AISC is US$2.57 /lb CuEq.
Economic Analysis and Sensitivities
The PEA indicates that the potential economic returns from the Project justify advancing to a feasibility study.
The Project generates cumulative cash flow of C$371.2 million on an after-tax basis and C$505.8 million pre-tax at a base case of $3.75/lb Cu based on an average mill throughput of 7,000 t/day over the 9-year life of mine.
Table 3: Summary of Economic Analysis 1,2
https://preview.redd.it/1buxwyp56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=e223bea2cd85c993976f14df3da34306818df128
1 The analysis assumes that the Project is 100% equity financed (unlevered). 2 Appropriate deductions are applied to the concentrate produced, including treatment, refining, transport and insurance costs.
The PEA is significantly influenced by copper price assumptions. Using the Case 1 metal price scenario consists of near current prices of US$4.25/lb Cu, US$2000/oz Au and US$25/oz silver, the Project generates an after-tax Net Present Value ("NPV") using an 5% discount rate of $328 million and an after-tax IRR of 38% with a payback period of 1.5 years from the commencement of production. (Table 3), Outlined below in Table 4 is a detailed sensitivity analysis across gold and copper prices with silver kept at $22/ounce. Table 5 below highlights additional sensitivities to foreign exchange, recovery, CAPEX and OPEX.
Table 4: Copper and Gold Metal Price Sensitivity Analysis NPV- Pre-Tax values in Million CDN$
https://preview.redd.it/53xazmq56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=6e8f30ef6d50cf6f3e128636d18724f639c6c3fe
Table 5: Multiple variable sensitivity analysis (all values $CDN)
https://preview.redd.it/j53smkr56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=4db09d62e8cfa1a0bbe0eb2649962eb3c0315b91
Opportunities
  • The third conceptual pit, 2000S as identified in the Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE), could be brought into the mine plan if sufficient additional resources were defined by drilling to offset pre-stripping costs.
  • Electrification of the mining fleet. Significant cost saving and reduction in greenhouse gas production may be possible through the sourcing of electric vs. diesel haul trucks for the Project. The PEA envisions using a contract mining fleet for the Project and preference will be given to suppliers that can provide either fully electric or hybrid equipment.
  • Further discovery. Exploration conducted in 2022 consisting of geophysics, trenching and soil sampling identified four areas proximal to the proposed mine plan that if successfully drilled could enable longer mine life beyond nine years or provide additional sulphide mill feed earlier in the mine's life. Four targets on the Property require evaluation, all located within 1km of the current deposits. Two of the targets are located beneath the current resource and there is higher geological certainty that these may contain appreciable copper mineralization.
    • Zone 1213 shallow: Downward continuation of Zone 12 and 13. Estimated dimensions are 360m long, 15 - 40m wide, starting at approximately 65m below the current drilling.
    • Zone 12 deep: Downward continuation of Zone 12. Estimated from geophysics to be continuing for an additional 170m below current resource modelling. Approximated to be 580m long and 15-40m wide.
    • Gap Zone target: Geophysical anomaly that fits with current geological understanding of the fault offset between 147 and 2000S Zone. Estimated to be 500m long, up to 400m deep, and 30-50m wide.
    • Sourtoe target: Estimated from geophysics to be a lensoidal body of similar size to known deposits at 370m long x 370m deep with an estimated width of 15-50m. It has been lightly tested at surface by trenching and is weakly mineralized.
  • In addition, the Carmacks North target area is host to several mineralized zones that have the potential to add resources to the mine plan, all within 15 km of the proposed mill site.
  • Additional recovery through metallurgical improvements. The Company has retained Kemetco Laboratories to complete additional leaching and copper precipitating testing to evaluate the processing of tailings. The calculated grade of copper in tailings averages 0.32% with over 140 Mlbs of copper not recovered LOM. Recovery sensitivity show an additional $180M pretax NPV based of a 20% increase in recovery rates. Review of historical metallurgical testing has indicated that copper minerals present in oxidized material respond well to leaching. Once the copper is in solution the copper would be chemically precipitated to produce sulphide minerals that can be added back into the flotation cells.
Mineral Resources
The basis for the PEA uses an updated mineral resource estimate ("MRE") for the Carmacks deposit (effective date March 30, 2022). The mine plan contemplates processing 62% of resources outlined in the MRE. The MRE includes inferred resources that are too speculative to have economic parameters applied to them. Resources are not reserves and there is no certainty that the resources outlined on the Project can be converted to reserves.
Table 6: Mineral Resource Estimates
https://preview.redd.it/0qlgwcs56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=54919af5497328c0eee95a1ab86b9c621101971e
Notes:
  1. CIM (2014) definitions were followed for Mineral Resources.
  2. The effective date of the Mineral Resources is March 30, 2022.
  3. Mineral Resources are estimated using an exchange rate of US$0.75/C$1.00.
  4. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term gold price of US$1,800/oz Au with a metallurgical gold recovery of 60%, and a long-term copper price of US$3.75/lb with a metallurgical copper recovery of 95% for sulphide material and 60% for oxide material.
  5. Mineral Resources are estimated at a cut-off grade of 0.30 copper equivalent.
  6. Bulk density of 2.83 t/m 3 was used for tonnage calculations.
  7. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
  8. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Mining
The overall mining operation is expected to consist of two open pits completed over three phases. Phase I contemplates development of the 147 zone with low strip ratio. Phase 2 contemplates the mining of 1213 zone with a slightly higher strip ratio. Phase 3 contemplates pushback on the 147 pit to a final LOM strip ratio of 4.6:1, resulting in a total of 9 years of operation, plus one year of pre-stripping. Following this mining period, a low-grade stockpile of 2Mt grading 0.18% Cu, 0.06 g/t Au and 0.8 g/t Ag may be reprocessed once mining operations cease. All waste and tailings will be disposed near the mining infrastructure.
The contract mining operation is planned to be a conventional truck and shovel open pit operation, moving approximately 118Mt of material over the 9-year life of mine. This would provide the floatation processing plant with 21.3Mt of ore at a rate of 7 000 tonnes per day.
Metallurgy and Processing
The processing facilities and saleable mineral products are fundamentally different from the beneficiation procedures that were contemplated in the 2006 Feasibility Study and updated in the 2017 PEA. The processing facilities currently being recommended for the Project would include a simplified flotation circuit, capable of processing three individual types of feed materials, oxide, sulphide, and blended ores, each of which would produce a high grade, premium concentrate.
Metallurgical testing both by Bureau Veritas in 2021 and by SGS Vancouver in preparation for the PEA study support the simplified flotation circuit. Flotation testing of individual oxide copper ores, sulphide copper ores as well as blended ores has been completed in this initial phase of the process investigation.
A test program including mineralogy and flotation was completed on samples from the Carmacks Project. The flotation test program included test work on sulphide, oxide, and blend ores.
  • The sulphide ore assayed 0.92% Cu, 0.67% S, and 0.24 g/t Au. Gold and copper head grades calculated from the flotation test assays agreed well with the direct head assays.
  • The oxide ore assayed, 0.60% Cu, 0.06% S, and 0.25-0.82 g/t Au, indicating that nugget gold may exist. However, the gold head grade calculated from the flotation tests was consistently between 0.20 g/t to 0.23 g/t with an average of 0.21 g/t.
  • Sulphide flotation recovered 93.7% of copper and 69.0% of gold at 42.7 % Cu and 7.7 g/t Au grade (Sulphide F4) while oxide flotation recovered 39.8% of copper and 57.5% of gold at 26.2% Cu and 13.6 g/t Au grade.
  • A 50/50 oxide/sulphide blend batch flotation program recovered 75.3% of copper and 65.7% of gold at 40.8 % Cu and 12.4 g/t Au grade (Blend F4).
  • Locked cycle flotation on blend sample recovered 82.0% of copper and 70.1% of gold at 40.1% Cu and 10.6 g/t Au grade (Blend LCT1).
  • Flotation optimization and an economical evaluation of the target copper grade versus recovery is recommended in future test work.
As mentioned above, the Company has commissioned additional test work to evaluate the potential for further recovery of copper from tailings when material in the mill contains a significant percentage of oxide material. Review of historical metallurgical testing has indicated that copper minerals present in oxidised material respond well to leaching. Once the copper is in solution the copper will be chemically precipitated to produce sulphide minerals that can be added back into the flotation cells.
Infrastructure
The Project lies along the Freegold Road, a Yukon government-maintained gravel road, currently being upgraded as part of the Yukon Resource Gateway Program. The road would ultimately lead to the near by Casino Project and other significant development projects in the area. A 12.8 km transmission line would be constructed to access the 138 kV Carmacks-Stewart transmission at McGregor Creek. Future studies will look at alternate routes for powerlines that could also benefit projects near the proposed Carmacks Project.
Next Steps
Additional Metallurgical work. In addition to the metallurgical work underway to assess further recovery from tailings work will be completed to optimise recoveries of both copper and precious metal. Additional studies will also be completed to identify any metallurgical variability between the two proposed mining areas to assist in further mine plan optimization through sequencing and blending of ore.
Exploration Drilling. Significant resource expansion potential exists within 1 km of the proposed pits. In addition to the new zones identified by 2022 geophysical and geochemical surveys, and trenching, many areas of both the 2000S and 12-13 zones remain open for expansion.
Geotechnical drilling on 1213 pit. In order to advance the Project towards feasibility geotechnical drilling will need to be completed on the proposed 1213 pit. Significant geotechnical drilling in the 147 area dating back to 2006 when a full feasibility study was completed on that portion of the Project will also be reviewed.
Baseline environmental studies. In preparation for advancing the Project towards feasibility existing environmental studies including ongoing water sampling programs will be reviewed and updated.
Continued community engagement. The Company is dedicated to working with communities effected by the Project including Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation and Selkirk First Nation to ensure that the Project advances in a respectful way with maximum benefit to the effected communities.
Technical Report and Qualified Persons
The PEA was prepared by SGS Geological Services. ("SGS"). with several individuals and departments within SGS contributing to sections of the study. William Van Breugel P.Eng., is the lead consultant for this study. SGS Geological Services is known globally as the expert in ore body modelling and resource/reserve evaluation with over 40 years and 1000 consulting projects of experience providing the mining industry with computer-assisted mineral resource estimation services using cutting edge geostatistical techniques. SGS bring the disciplines of geology, geostatistics, and mining engineering together to provide accurate and timely mineral project evaluation solutions.
As part of the larger SGS Natural Resources group, they draw upon their massive network of laboratories, metallurgists, process engineers and other professionals to help bring mineral projects to the next level.
Table 7: Qualified Person
https://preview.redd.it/8k1317t56z3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=30892fe9cc2afd1d267399018d17ecb7624da3fa
Note: The Qualified Persons are independent as defined by Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") "Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects". The Qualified Persons are not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the PEA.
The Company cautions that the results of the PEA are preliminary in nature and do not include the calculation of mineral reserves as defined by NI 43-101. There is no certainty that the results of the PEA will be realized.
A NI 43-101 technical report supporting the PEA will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this news release and will be available at that time on the Company's website. Readers are encouraged to read the Technical Report in its entirety, including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the details summarized in this news release. The Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context.
A presentation summarizing the Project's PEA results is available on the Company's website.
Qualified Persons
All scientific and technical data contained in this presentation relating to the PEA has been reviewed and approved by William Van Breugel P.Eng., a Qualified Person for the purposes of NI 43-101. All exploration data including exploration upside potential has been reviewed and approved by Debbie James P.Geo., for the purposes of NI 43-101 The Qualified Persons mentioned above have reviewed and approved their respective technical information contained in this news release.
About Granite Creek Copper
Granite Creek, a member of the Metallic Group of Companies, is a Canadian exploration company focused on the 176-square-kilometer Carmacks Project in the Minto Copper District of Canada's Yukon Territory. The Project is on trend with the high-grade Minto copper-gold mine, operated by Minto Metals Corp., to the north, and features excellent access to infrastructure with the nearby paved Yukon Highway 2, along with grid power within 12 km. More information about Granite Creek Copper can be viewed on the Company's website at www.gcxcopper.com .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Timothy Johnson, President & CEO Telephone: 1 (604) 235-1982 Toll-Free: 1 (888) 361-3494 E-mail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Website: www.gcxcopper.com Twitter: @yukoncopper
Forward-Looking Statements
This news release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts including, without limitation, statements regarding potential mineralization, potential economic estimates, capital costs, operating costs, potential cash flows, historic production, estimation of mineral resources, the realization of mineral resource estimates, interpretation of prior exploration and potential exploration results, the timing and success of exploration activities generally, the timing and results of future resource estimates, permitting time lines, metal prices and currency exchange rates, availability of capital, government regulation of exploration operations, environmental risks, reclamation, title, and future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. Although Granite Creek Copper believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include failure to obtain necessary approvals, unsuccessful exploration results, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, results of future resource estimates, future metal prices, availability of capital and financing on acceptable terms, general economic, market or business conditions, risks associated with regulatory changes, defects in title, availability of personnel, materials and equipment on a timely basis, accidents or equipment breakdowns, uninsured risks, delays in receiving government approvals, unanticipated environmental impacts on operations and costs to remedy same, and other exploration or other risks detailed herein and from time to time in the filings made by the companies with securities regulators. Readers are cautioned that mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral exploration and development of mines is an inherently risky business. Accordingly, the actual events may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. For more information on Granite Creek Copper and the risks and challenges of their businesses, investors should review their annual filings that are available at www.sedar.com .
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
SOURCE: Granite Creek Copper Ltd.
View source version on accesswire.com: https://www.accesswire.com/735914/Granite-Creek-Copper-Announces-Positive-PEA-with-Net-Present-Value-of-324M-on-Carmacks-Copper-Gold-Project-in-Yukon-Canada

https://preview.redd.it/aj3mr5u56z3b1.png?width=4000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a19d027accb323fdb7b5d9be6de0947b7e25581
Universal Site Links
GRANITE CREEK COPPER LTD
STOCK METAL DATABASE
ADD TICKER TO THE DATABASE
www.reddit.com/Treaty_Creek
REPORT AN ERROR
submitted by Then_Marionberry_259 to Treaty_Creek [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 12:03 PNCZ Auto transmission fluid level

Auto transmission fluid level
Mechanics of Reddit, help a newbie out who just did a drain and fill, alongside filter replacement on his 2014 Mazda6 automatic transmission.
1) Is this the correct level of fluid? Both measures taken at around 55c degrees and on the same leveled ground.
I've drained exactly 4 litres of fluid and put back in the same amount.
First pic is before, second after.
2) How would you go around re-torquing the pan bolts, as it seems it's getting a slight leak around the gasket. Do I need to drain the fluid again and reposition the gasket? I was planning on doing another 2 drain and fills after about 150ish miles just to get as much of the old fluid out as possible.
Thanks!
submitted by PNCZ to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments]


2023.06.04 10:01 Connect_Trouble_164 Airbus wikipedia part one

The Airbus A300 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Airbus. In September 1967, aircraft manufacturers in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a large airliner. West Germany and France reached an agreement on 29 May 1969 after the British withdrew from the project on 10 April 1969. European collaborative aerospace manufacturer Airbus Industrie was formally created on 18 December 1970 to develop and produce it. The prototype first flew on 28 October 1972.
The first twin-engine widebody airliner, the A300 typically seats 247 passengers in two classes over a range of 5,375 to 7,500 km (2,900 to 4,050 nmi). Initial variants are powered by General Electric CF6-50 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans and have a three-crew flight deck. The improved A300-600 has a two-crew cockpit and updated CF6-80C2 or PW4000 engines; it made its first flight on 8 July 1983 and entered service later that year. The A300 is the basis of the smaller A310 (first flown in 1982) and was adapted in a freighter version. Its cross section was retained for the larger four-engined A340 (1991) and the larger twin-engined A330 (1992). It is also the basis for the oversize Beluga transport (1994).
Launch customer Air France introduced the type on 23 May 1974. After limited demand initially, sales took off as the type was proven in early service, beginning three decades of steady orders. It has a similar capacity to the Boeing 767-300, introduced in 1986, but lacked the 767-300ER range. During the 1990s, the A300 became popular with cargo aircraft operators, as both passenger airliner conversions and as original builds. Production ceased in July 2007 after 561 deliveries. As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service.
Origins:
During the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers such as Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation, based in the UK, and Sud Aviation of France, had ambitions to build a new 200-seat airliner for the growing civil aviation market. While studies were performed and considered, such as a stretched twin-engine variant of the Hawker Siddeley Trident and an expanded development of the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) One-Eleven, designated the BAC Two-Eleven, it was recognized that if each of the European manufacturers were to launch similar aircraft into the market at the same time, neither would achieve sales volume needed to make them viable.[2] In 1965, a British government study, known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers.[3]: 49 [4][5]: 2–13
European manufacturers were keen to explore prospective programs; the proposed 260-seat wide-body HBN 100 between Hawker Siddeley, Nord Aviation, and Breguet Aviation being one such example.[2][6]: 37–38 National governments were also keen to support such efforts amid a belief that American manufacturers could dominate the European Economic Community;[7] in particular, Germany had ambitions for a multinational airliner project to invigorate its aircraft industry, which had declined considerably following the Second World War.[3]: 49–50 During the mid-1960s, both Air France and American Airlines had expressed interest in a short-haul twin-engine wide-body aircraft, indicating a market demand for such an aircraft to be produced.[3][8] In July 1967, during a high-profile meeting between French, German, and British ministers, an agreement was made for greater cooperation between European nations in the field of aviation technology, and "for the joint development and production of an airbus".[2][9]: 34 The word airbus at this point was a generic aviation term for a larger commercial aircraft, and was considered acceptable in multiple languages, including French.[9]: 34
Shortly after the July 1967 meeting, French engineer Roger Béteille was appointed as the technical director of what would become the A300 program, while Henri Ziegler, chief operating office of Sud Aviation, was appointed as the general manager of the organization and German politician Franz Josef Strauss became the chairman of the supervisory board.[2] Béteille drew up an initial work share plan for the project, under which French firms would produce the aircraft's cockpit, the control systems, and lower-center portion of the fuselage, Hawker Siddeley would manufacture the wings, while German companies would produce the forward, rear and upper part of the center fuselage sections. Addition work included moving elements of the wings being produced in the Netherlands, and Spain producing the horizontal tail plane.[2][6]: 38
An early design goal for the A300 that Béteille had stressed the importance of was the incorporation of a high level of technology, which would serve as a decisive advantage over prospective competitors. As such, the A300 would feature the first use of composite materials of any passenger aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the tail fin being composed of glass fibre reinforced plastic.[5]: 2–16 [10] Béteille opted for English as the working language for the developing aircraft, as well against using Metric instrumentation and measurements, as most airlines already had US-built aircraft.[10] These decisions were partially influenced by feedback from various airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa, as an emphasis had been placed on determining the specifics of what kind of aircraft that potential operators were seeking. According to Airbus, this cultural approach to market research had been crucial to the company's long-term success.[10]
Workshare and redefinition:
On 26 September 1967, the British, French, and West German governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start development of the 300-seat Airbus A300.[6]: 38 [11]: 43 [12]: 57 At this point, the A300 was only the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, the first being the Anglo-French Concorde.[9] Under the terms of the memorandum, Britain and France were each to receive a 37.5 per cent work share on the project, while Germany received a 25 per cent share. Sud Aviation was recognized as the lead company for A300, with Hawker Siddeley being selected as the British partner company.[2] At the time, the news of the announcement had been clouded by the British Government's support for the Airbus, which coincided with its refusal to back BAC's proposed competitor, the BAC 2–11, despite a preference for the latter expressed by British European Airways (BEA).[9]: 34 Another parameter was the requirement for a new engine to be developed by Rolls-Royce to power the proposed airliner; a derivative of the in-development Rolls-Royce RB211, the triple-spool RB207, capable of producing of 47,500 lbf (211 kN).[13] The program cost was US$4.6 billion (in 1993 Dollars).[14]

In December 1968, the French and British partner companies (Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley) proposed a revised configuration, the 250-seat Airbus A250. It had been feared that the original 300-seat proposal was too large for the market, thus it had been scaled down to produce the A250.[5]: 2–14 [8][15] The dimensional changes involved in the shrink reduced the length of the fuselage by 5.62 metres (18.4 ft) and the diameter by 0.8 metres (31 in), reducing the overall weight by 25 tonnes (55,000 lb).[10][16]: 16 For increased flexibility, the cabin floor was raised so that standard LD3 freight containers could be accommodated side-by-side, allowing more cargo to be carried. Refinements made by Hawker Siddeley to the wing's design provided for greater lift and overall performance; this gave the aircraft the ability to climb faster and attain a level cruising altitude sooner than any other passenger aircraft.[10] It was later renamed the A300B.[9]: 34 [15]
Perhaps the most significant change of the A300B was that it would not require new engines to be developed, being of a suitable size to be powered by Rolls-Royce's RB211, or alternatively the American Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6 powerplants; this switch was recognized as considerably reducing the project's development costs.[11]: 45 [15][16]: 16–17 To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[8][10] By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[5]: 2–13 [15][16]: 17–18
On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture.[6]: 38–39 [15] In response, West Germany proposed to France that they would be willing to contribute up to 50% of the project's costs if France was prepared to do the same.[15] Additionally, the managing director of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Arnold Alexander Hall, decided that his company would remain in the project as a favoured sub-contractor, developing and manufacturing the wings for the A300, which would later become pivotal in later versions' impressive performance from short domestic to long intercontinental flights.[5]: 2–13 [9]: 34 [16]: 18 Hawker Siddeley spent £35 million of its own funds, along with a further £35 million loan from the West German government, on the machine tooling to design and produce the wings.[6]: 39 [15]
Programme launch:
On 29 May 1969, during the Paris Air Show, French transport minister Jean Chamant and German economics minister Karl Schiller signed an agreement officially launching the Airbus A300, the world's first twin-engine widebody airliner.[2] The intention of the project was to produce an aircraft that was smaller, lighter, and more economical than its three-engine American rivals, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[10] In order to meet Air France's demands for an aircraft larger than 250-seat A300B, it was decided to stretch the fuselage to create a new variant, designated as the A300B2, which would be offered alongside the original 250-seat A300B, henceforth referred to as the A300B1. On 3 September 1970, Air France signed a letter of intent for six A300s, marking the first order to be won for the new airliner.[6]: 39 [10][16]: 21
In the aftermath of the Paris Air Show agreement, it was decided that, in order to provide effective management of responsibilities, a Groupement d'intérêt économique would be established, allowing the various partners to work together on the project while remaining separate business entities.[2] On 18 December 1970, Airbus Industrie was formally established following an agreement between Aérospatiale (the newly merged Sud Aviation and Nord Aviation) of France and the antecedents to Deutsche Aerospace of Germany, each receiving a 50 per cent stake in the newly formed company.[3]: 50 [6]: 39 [10] In 1971, the consortium was joined by a third full partner, the Spanish firm CASA, who received a 4.2 per cent stake, the other two members reducing their stakes to 47.9 per cent each.[10][16]: 20 In 1979, Britain joined the Airbus consortium via British Aerospace, which Hawker Siddeley had merged into, which acquired a 20 per cent stake in Airbus Industrie with France and Germany each reducing their stakes to 37.9 per cent.[3]: 53 [5]: 2–14 [6]: 39
Prototype and flight testing:
Airbus Industrie was initially headquartered in Paris, which is where design, development, flight testing, sales, marketing, and customer support activities were centered; the headquarters was relocated to Toulouse in January 1974.[8][10] The final assembly line for the A300 was located adjacent to Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The manufacturing process necessitated transporting each aircraft section being produced by the partner companies scattered across Europe to this one location. The combined use of ferries and roads were used for the assembly of the first A300, however this was time-consuming and not viewed as ideal by Felix Kracht, Airbus Industrie's production director.[10] Kracht's solution was to have the various A300 sections brought to Toulouse by a fleet of Boeing 377-derived Aero Spacelines Super Guppy aircraft, by which means none of the manufacturing sites were more than two hours away. Having the sections airlifted in this manner made the A300 the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques, and allowed each company to manufacture its sections as fully equipped, ready-to-fly assemblies.[3]: 53 [10]
In September 1969, construction of the first prototype A300 began.[16]: 20 On 28 September 1972, this first prototype was unveiled to the public, it conducted its maiden flight from Toulouse–Blagnac International Airport on 28 October that year.[6]: 39 [9]: 34 [11]: 51–52 This maiden flight, which was performed a month ahead of schedule, lasted for one hour and 25 minutes; the captain was Max Fischl and the first officer was Bernard Ziegler, son of Henri Ziegler.[10] In 1972, unit cost was US$17.5M.[17] On 5 February 1973, the second prototype performed its maiden flight.[6]: 39 The flight test program, which involved a total of four aircraft, was relatively problem-free, accumulating 1,580 flight hours throughout.[16]: 22 In September 1973, as part of promotional efforts for the A300, the new aircraft was taken on a six-week tour around North America and South America, to demonstrate it to airline executives, pilots, and would-be customers.[10] Amongst the consequences of this expedition, it had allegedly brought the A300 to the attention of Frank Borman of Eastern Airlines, one of the "big four" U.S. airlines.[18]
Entry into service:
On 15 March 1974, type certificates were granted for the A300 from both German and French authorities, clearing the way for its entry into revenue service.[18] On 23 May 1974, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification was received.[16]: 22 The first production model, the A300B2, entered service in 1974, followed by the A300B4 one year later.[8] Initially, the success of the consortium was poor, in part due to the economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis,[6]: 40 [8][9]: 34 but by 1979 there were 81 A300 passenger liners in service with 14 airlines, alongside 133 firm orders and 88 options.[18] Ten years after the official launch of the A300, the company had achieved a 26 per cent market share in terms of dollar value, enabling Airbus Industries to proceed with the development of its second aircraft, the Airbus A310.[18]
Design:
The Airbus A300 is a wide-body medium-to-long range airliner; it has the distinction of being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in the world.[8][9]: 34 [12]: 57, 60 [19] In 1977, the A300 became the first Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS)-compliant aircraft, due to its high performance and safety standards.[6]: 40 Another world-first of the A300 is the use of composite materials on a commercial aircraft, which were used on both secondary and later primary airframe structures, decreasing overall weight and improving cost-effectiveness.[19] Other firsts included the pioneering use of center-of-gravity control, achieved by transferring fuel between various locations across the aircraft, and electrically signaled secondary flight controls.[20]
The A300 is powered by a pair of underwing turbofan engines, either General Electric CF6 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines; the sole use of underwing engine pods allowed for any suitable turbofan engine to be more readily used.[12]: 57 The lack of a third tail-mounted engine, as per the trijet configuration used by some competing airliners, allowed for the wings to be located further forwards and to reduce the size of the vertical stabilizer and elevator, which had the effect of increasing the aircraft's flight performance and fuel efficiency.[3]: 50 [16]: 21
Airbus partners had employed the latest technology, some of which having been derived from Concorde, on the A300. According to Airbus, new technologies adopted for the airliner were selected principally for increased safety, operational capability, and profitability.[19] Upon entry into service in 1974, the A300 was a very advanced plane, which went on to influence later airliner designs. The technological highlights include advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with supercritical airfoil sections for economical performance and advanced aerodynamically efficient flight control surfaces. The 5.64 m (222 in) diameter circular fuselage section allows an eight-abreast passenger seating and is wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Structures are made from metal billets, reducing weight. It is the first airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection. Its advanced autopilots are capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing, and it has an electrically controlled braking system.
Later A300s incorporated other advanced features such as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC), which enabled a two-pilot flight crew to fly the aircraft alone without the need for a flight engineer, the functions of which were automated; this two-man cockpit concept was a world-first for a wide-body aircraft.[8][16]: 23–24 [20] Glass cockpit flight instrumentation, which used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to display flight, navigation, and warning information, along with fully digital dual autopilots and digital flight control computers for controlling the spoilers, flaps, and leading-edge slats, were also adopted upon later-built models.[19][21] Additional composites were also made use of, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as well as their presence in an increasing proportion of the aircraft's components, including the spoilers, rudder, air brakes, and landing gear doors.[22] Another feature of later aircraft was the addition of wingtip fences, which improved aerodynamic performance and thus reduced cruise fuel consumption by about 1.5% for the A300-600.[23]
In addition to passenger duties, the A300 became widely used by air freight operators; according to Airbus, it is the best selling freight aircraft of all time.[20] Various variants of the A300 were built to meet customer demands, often for diverse roles such as aerial refueling tankers, freighter models (new-build and conversions), combi aircraft, military airlifter, and VIP transport. Perhaps the most visually unique of the variants is the A300-600ST Beluga, an oversize cargo-carrying model operated by Airbus to carry aircraft sections between their manufacturing facilities.[20] The A300 was the basis for, and retained a high level of commonality with, the second airliner produced by Airbus, the smaller Airbus A310.[19]
Operational history:
On 23 May 1974, the first A300 to enter service performed the first commercial flight of the type, flying from Paris to London, for Air France.[6]: 39 [18]
Immediately after the launch, sales of the A300 were weak for some years, with most orders going to airlines that had an obligation to favor the domestically made product – notably Air France and Lufthansa, the first two airlines to place orders for the type.[3]: 50–52 [18] Following the appointment of Bernard Lathière as Henri Ziegler's replacement, an aggressive sales approach was adopted. Indian Airlines was the world's first domestic airline to purchase the A300, ordering three aircraft with three options. However, between December 1975 and May 1977, there were no sales for the type. During this period a number of "whitetail" A300s – completed but unsold aircraft – were completed and stored at Toulouse, and production fell to half an aircraft per month amid calls to pause production completely.[18]
During the flight testing of the A300B2, Airbus held a series of talks with Korean Air on the topic of developing a longer-range version of the A300, which would become the A300B4. In September 1974, Korean Air placed an order for four A300B4s with options for two further aircraft; this sale was viewed as significant as it was the first non-European international airline to order Airbus aircraft. Airbus had viewed South-East Asia as a vital market that was ready to be opened up and believed Korean Air to be the 'key'.[8][16]: 23 [18]
Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result, they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80. The savior of the A300 was the advent of ETOPS, a revised FAA rule which allows twin-engine jets to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to them. This enabled Airbus to develop the aircraft as a medium/long range airliner.
In 1977, US carrier Eastern Air Lines leased four A300s as an in-service trial.[18] CEO Frank Borman was impressed that the A300 consumed 30% less fuel, even less than expected, than his fleet of L-1011s. Borman proceeded to order 23 A300s, becoming the first U.S. customer for the type. This order is often cited as the point at which Airbus came to be seen as a serious competitor to the large American aircraft-manufacturers Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.[6]: 40 [8][18] Aviation author John Bowen alleged that various concessions, such as loan guarantees from European governments and compensation payments, were a factor in the decision as well.[3]: 52 The Eastern Air Lines breakthrough was shortly followed by an order from Pan Am. From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 561 delivered aircraft.[1]
In December 1977, Aerocondor Colombia became the first Airbus operator in Latin America, leasing one Airbus A300B4-2C, named Ciudad de Barranquilla.
During the late 1970s, Airbus adopted a so-called 'Silk Road' strategy, targeting airlines in the Far East.[3]: 52 [18] As a result, The aircraft found particular favor with Asian airlines, being bought by Japan Air System, Korean Air, China Eastern Airlines, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Indian Airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and many others. As Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners which existed at the time, Asian airlines used A300s for routes across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft,[24] qualifying for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. In 1982 Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly the A300B4-200FFCC.[25] By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 400 aircraft sold to over forty airlines.[26]
In 1989, Chinese operator China Eastern Airlines received its first A300; by 2006, the airline operated around 18 A300s, making it the largest operator of both the A300 and the A310 at that time. On 31 May 2014, China Eastern officially retired the last A300-600 in its fleet, having begun drawing down the type in 2010.[27]
From 1997 to 2014, a single A300, designated A300 Zero-G, was operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as a reduced-gravity aircraft for conducting research into microgravity; the A300 is the largest aircraft to ever have been used in this capacity. A typical flight would last for two and a half hours, enabling up to 30 parabolas to be performed per flight.[28][29]
By the 1990s, the A300 was being heavily promoted as a cargo freighter.[16]: 24 The largest freight operator of the A300 is FedEx Express, which has 65 A300 aircraft in service as of May 2022.[30] UPS Airlines also operates 52 freighter versions of the A300.[31]
The final version was the A300-600R and is rated for 180-minute ETOPS. The A300 has enjoyed renewed interest in the secondhand market for conversion to freighters; large numbers were being converted during the late 1990s.[16]: 24–25 The freighter versions – either new-build A300-600s or converted ex-passenger A300-600s, A300B2s and B4s – account for most of the world's freighter fleet after the Boeing 747 freighter.[32]
The A300 provided Airbus the experience of manufacturing and selling airliners competitively. The basic fuselage of the A300 was later stretched (A330 and A340), shortened (A310), or modified into derivatives (A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter). In 2006, unit cost of an −600F was $105 million.[14] In March 2006, Airbus announced the impending closure of the A300/A310 final assembly line,[33] making them the first Airbus aircraft to be discontinued. The final production A300, an A300F freighter, performed its initial flight on 18 April 2007,[34] and was delivered to FedEx Express on 12 July 2007.[35] Airbus has announced a support package to keep A300s flying commercially. Airbus offers the A330-200F freighter as a replacement for the A300 cargo variants.[36]
The life of UPS's fleet of 52 A300s, delivered from 2000 to 2006, will be extended to 2035 by a flight deck upgrade based around Honeywell Primus Epic avionics; new displays and flight management system (FMS), improved weather radar, a central maintenance system, and a new version of the current enhanced ground proximity warning system. With a light usage of only two to three cycles per day, it will not reach the maximum number of cycles by then. The first modification will be made at Airbus Toulouse in 2019 and certified in 2020.[37] As of July 2017, there are 211 A300s in service with 22 operators, with the largest operator being FedEx Express with 68 A300-600F aircraft.[38]
Variants:
A300B1 - The A300B1 was the first variant to take flight. It had a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 132 t (291,000 lb), was 51 m (167 ft) long and was powered by two General Electric CF6-50A engines.[16]: 21 [39]: 41 Only two prototypes of the variant were built before it was adapted into the A300B2, the first production variant of the airliner.[6]: 39 The second prototype was leased to Trans European Airways in 1974.[39]: 54
A300B2 -
A300B2-100:
Responding to a need for more seats from Air France, Airbus decided that the first production variant should be larger than the original prototype A300B1. The CF6-50A powered A300B2-100 was 2.6 m (8.5 ft) longer than the A300B1 and had an increased MTOW of 137 t (302,000 lb), allowing for 30 additional seats and bringing the typical passenger count up to 281, with capacity for 20 LD3 containers.[40]: 10 [41][39]: 17 Two prototypes were built and the variant made its maiden flight on 28 June 1973, became certified on 15 March 1974 and entered service with Air France on 23 May 1974.[39]: 27, 53 [40]: 10
A300B2-200:
For the A300B2-200, originally designated as the A300B2K, Krueger flaps were introduced at the leading-edge root, the slat angles were reduced from 20 degrees to 16 degrees, and other lift related changes were made in order to introduce a high-lift system. This was done to improve performance when operating at high-altitude airports, where the air is less dense and lift generation is reduced.[42]: 52, 53 [43] The variant had an increased MTOW of 142 t (313,000 lb) and was powered by CF6-50C engines, was certified on 23 June 1976, and entered service with South African Airways in November 1976.[39]: 40 [40]: 12 CF6-50C1 and CF6-50C2 models were also later fitted depending on customer requirements, these became certified on 22 February 1978 and 21 February 1980 respectively.[39]: 41 [40]: 12
A300B2-320:
The A300B2-320 introduced the Pratt & Whitney JT9D powerplant and was powered by JT9D-59A engines. It retained the 142 t (313,000 lb) MTOW of the B2-200, was certified on 4 January 1980, and entered service with Scandinavian Airlines on 18 February 1980, with only four being produced.[39]: 99, 112 [40]: 14
A300B4 -
A300B4-100:
The initial A300B4 variant, later named the A300B4-100, included a centre fuel tank for an increased fuel capacity of 47.5 tonnes (105,000 lb), and had an increased MTOW of 157.5 tonnes (347,000 lb).[44][42]: 38 It also featured Krueger flaps and had a similar high-lift system to what was later fitted to the A300B2-200.[42]: 74 The variant made its maiden flight on 26 December 1974, was certified on 26 March 1975, and entered service with Germanair in May 1975.[39]: 32, 54 [40]: 16
A300B4-200:
The A300B4-200 had an increased MTOW of 165 tonnes (364,000 lb) and featured an additional optional fuel tank in the rear cargo hold, which would reduce the cargo capacity by two LD3 containers.[40]: 19 [42]: 69 The variant was certified on 26 April 1979.[40]: 19
A300-600 - The A300-600, officially designated as the A300B4-600, was slightly longer than the A300B2 and A300B4 variants and had an increased interior space from using a similar rear fuselage to the Airbus A310, this allowed it to have two additional rows of seats.[42]: 79 It was initially powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4H1 engines, but was later fitted with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, with Pratt & Whitney PW4156 or PW4158 engines being introduced in 1986.[42]: 82 Other changes include an improved wing featuring a recambered trailing edge, the incorporation of simpler single-slotted Fowler flaps, the deletion of slat fences, and the removal of the outboard ailerons after they were deemed unnecessary on the A310.[45] The variant made its first flight on 8 July 1983, was certified on 9 March 1984, and entered service in June 1984 with Saudi Arabian Airlines.[40]: 42 [39]: 58 A total of 313 A300-600s (all versions) have been sold. The A300-600 uses the A310 cockpits, featuring digital technology and electronic displays, eliminating the need for a flight engineer. The FAA issues a single type rating which allows operation of both the A310 and A300-600. A300-600: (Official designation: A300B4-600) The baseline model of the −600 series. A300-620C: (Official designation: A300C4-620) A convertible-freighter version. Four delivered between 1984 and 1985. A300-600F: (Official designation: A300F4-600) The freighter version of the baseline −600. A300-600R: (Official designation: A300B4-600R) The increased-range −600, achieved by an additional trim fuel tank in the tail. First delivery in 1988 to American Airlines; all A300s built since 1989 (freighters included) are −600Rs. Japan Air System (later merged into Japan Airlines) took delivery of the last new-built passenger A300, an A300-622R, in November 2002. A300-600RC: (Official designation: A300C4-600R) The convertible-freighter version of the −600R. Two were delivered in 1999. A300-600RF: (Official designation: A300F4-600R) The freighter version of the −600R. All A300s delivered between November 2002 and 12 July 2007 (last ever A300 delivery) were A300-600RFs.
A310 (A300B10)-
Airbus had demand for an aircraft smaller than the A300. On 7 July 1978, the A310 (initially the A300B10) was launched with orders from Swissair and Lufthansa. On 3 April 1982, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight and it received its type certification on 11 March 1983.
Keeping the same eight-abreast cross-section, the A310 is 6.95 m (22.8 ft) shorter than the initial A300 variants, and has a smaller 219 m2 (2,360 sq ft) wing, down from 260 m2 (2,800 sq ft). The A310 introduced a two-crew glass cockpit, later adopted for the A300-600 with a common type rating. It was powered by the same GE CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D then PW4000 turbofans. It can seat 220 passengers in two classes, or 240 in all-economy, and can fly up to 5,150 nmi (9,540 km). It has overwing exits between the two main front and rear door pairs.
In April 1983, the aircraft entered revenue service with Swissair and competed with the Boeing 767–200, introduced six months before. Its longer range and ETOPS regulations allowed it to be operated on transatlantic flights. Until the last delivery in June 1998, 255 aircraft were produced, as it was succeeded by the larger Airbus A330-200. It has cargo aircraft versions, and was derived into the Airbus A310 MRTT military tanketransport.
Airbus A300-ST (Beluga)
Commonly referred to as the Airbus Beluga or "Airbus Super Transporter," these five airframes are used by Airbus to ferry parts between the company's disparate manufacturing facilities, thus enabling workshare distribution. They replaced the four Aero Spacelines Super Guppys previously used by Airbus.
ICAO code: A3ST
Operators:
As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service. The five largest operators were FedEx Express (70), UPS Airlines (52), European Air Transport Leipzig (23), Iran Air (11), and Mahan Air (11).[46]
submitted by Connect_Trouble_164 to copypasta [link] [comments]