how much are they worth

Post by **hotrodder13** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

i have just baught a set of cobra slot mags on ebay but i need to sell my steel wheels before i can put them on. i want to know how much they are worth
they are standard minor rims (only 4). they were shot blasted. then had a lot of coats of red oxide primer then a lot of grey primer and then a lot of gloss black. they have a couple of nicks on the front that can be touched up.
two look new on the back and 2 have some marks but can be touched up. even though u dont see it.

they have got new nankang low noise tyres. they are 155/ 80/ 14 and have done around 1500 miles.
i will upload some piks Tomorrow

thanks tom

Post by **Kevin** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:14 am

There are so many around its difficult to say and having black rims you have a smaller market than the White of Silver rims, try ebay to get an idea of current prices.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:08 pm

Wheels are generally given away free - so the value is in the tyres only.
I hope the slot-mags fit the car!

Post by **mike.perry** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:54 pm

Nankang 155 x 14s. Worst tyres I've fitted to a Minor

Post by **hotrodder13** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:39 pm

i think the tyres are better then the cameo that were on before but people think diffrently. thanks for the help. and they should fit the person who sold them to me said they were on his minor. just have to look on ebay then.

Post by **aupickup** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:03 pm

bridgestones not a good tyre

Post by **hotrodder13** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:05 pm

i was told by the place i baught my tyres from that bridgestones were the best tyre for a minor. show what people say to sell and expensive tyre

Post by **mike.perry** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:45 pm

Here we go again. I think that the Bridgestones suit my Series MM far better than the Nankangs. Strange how people can have completely opposite views.
On the other hand I have no problem with the 175x13 Nankangs on my Traveller, it is probably down to the different amount of side wall flex from the different width wheels.

Post by **hotrodder13** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:40 pm

just a quick question what type of wheel nut will i need for cobra slot mags. theres about 4 diffrent ones to pick from.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:23 pm

You will need sleeve nuts - 3/8" UNF thread and o/d to suit the holes in the wheels - with thick washers to spread the load! I detailed before how they can be made fom Allen head bolts. They were certainly 'expensive' wheels ! Very similar to my Wolfrace on my TR7 - in fact - they may BE Wolfrace !

Post by **hotrodder13** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:50 pm

my wheels are cobra they say on the back. also i prefer the shape of the rounded hole on cobra to wolfrace. they just need a good polish now

Post by **hotrodder13** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:27 pm

are these the right kind of nuts
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... K:MEWAX:IT

gona check the sizes later.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:50 pm

That's the idea - if the o/d is correct - and obviously you need 16 - he says 'more than 10 available' - if not 16 , don't buy!

Post by **plastic_orange** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:31 pm

Contact Maurice at :http://www.mistertee.co.uk/
He'll sell you exactly what you need. I agree that cobras look better than wolfrace too.

Pete

Post by **hotrodder13** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:54 pm

thanks plastic ive bin lookin for that website my dad told me about him. he saids he knows everything about wheels and nuts.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:18 pm

Lots of 'negative' comments in this thread - but the Mods seemingly not caring!

Is it only Charles Ware we are not allowed to make negative comments about ?

Post by **PSL184** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:49 am

I seeked clarification earlier about a different thread with negative comments and I was told it was OK - So yes, it would seem that you are correct Roy.

Post by **LouiseM** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:02 am

I seeked clarification earlier about a different thread with negative comments and I was told it was OK - So yes, it would seem that you are correct Roy.

This is exactly what I mean about posts that don't state the full facts, giving readers an incomplete picture

PSL was referring to specific comments made by BMC in this thread, specifically when BMC stated that his cover had suffered from sun damage:

http://www.morrisminoroc.co.uk/index.ph ... 2&start=15

PSL considered that BMC's comments were implying that the cover was not fit for purpose and asked if this was allowed. In my view the comments were factual - BMC was not simply stating that the product was useless without providing further details - he was basing his comments on his personal experience of the product. I responded as follows:

"Nobody is saying that products or companies can not be mentioned. It is the actual content of the message that is the issue. I hadn't seen these particular comments until you brought them to my attention but in this particular instance various posters have provided details of their own experiences of the product in question.

davew1949 had a complaint regarding sun damage but has followed the T&C's as he contacted the manufacturer about this rather than post details on this site first. When the complaint was brought to their attention they explained that the product should not really be used in the sun and provided a replacement item. The content of davew's post is not critical of the company or product (in fact he is complimentary of the service provided). He is merely stating the facts and providing details of the manufacturers response to his complaint.

BMC subsequently posted comments that, whilst not expressed in the same manner, matched davew's in that he was voicing exactly the same complaint about the product. He does not appear to have taken his complaint to the manufacturer but as davew had already posted the manufacturers response to the complaint, so they have effectively been given the opportunity to have their say, the balance is addressed.

There may be a number of reasons why a product is faulty eg a fault in production which affected a small batch of items, or a 'one off' duff item, so it would be unfair to a trader or manufacturer for someone to post details on here without giving them an opportunity to respond to the complaint first"

This particular thread was started by someone who wanted advice and opinion about a product and various posters on the board gave their opinions. The thread was not started solely as a complaint about a product, trader or service giving the other person concerned no opportunity to respond.

As posted previously, it is the content of the message that is the issue - is it libellous, defamatory and could the club be subject to legal action as a result of the post?

Subject to what some people think, the moderators do give some thought when deciding if a post breaches the T&C's or needs to be moderated. There is never going to be a blanket 'one size fits all' approach as comments are looked at on an individual basis so for PSL to state that he "was told that negative comments were OK" gives an incorrect impression. I was responding to his specific question relating to specific comments.

Let's not get too hung up on this issue though. Nothing has changed. Members need to consider the T&C's before posting and think about the contents of their message. If there is a particular issue the moderators will take a view as to whether it needs moderating although it's probably fair to say that not every single message is viewed shortly after it is posted so we do rely on posters to be sensible. The messageboard has been run for quite a long time now without the club being subject to legal action so this system is clearly working

Post by **LouiseM** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:36 am

Is it only Charles Ware we are not allowed to make negative comments about ?

In answer to your question BMC, I think the situation has been clearly explained. If you have a complaint about a trader, manufacturer etc in the first instance you go to them. You do not post the complaint here giving the person no opportunity to respond. This forum is not the place to air grievances. As the full facts of the matter will not be known without a balanced response readers may get a false and incorrect impression of the trader or manufacturer concerned.

What would be unacceptable in my view is for someone who has never even used the services of the particular trader, or used the product etc to make generalised negative statements on this board implying that the company, manufacturer are providing poor service, workmanship, faulty parts etc without having any actual examples of their own to refer to.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:35 am

The point I was making is - there are various statements made (unfairly I think) in this thread about the general qualities of some brands of tyre. Yet nothing is said about this - it only seems to be comments about Charles Ware that are challenged! How strange