home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18 / NN_1992_18.iso / spool / rec / autos / tech / 11151 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-08-15  |  884 b 

  1. Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!cix.compulink.co.uk!dingbat
  2. Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
  3. From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
  4. Subject: Re: Anti-theft immobilisers
  5. Cc: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
  6. Reply-To: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
  7. Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:33:47 +0000
  8. Message-ID: <memo.577960@cix.compulink.co.uk>
  9. Sender: usenet@gate.demon.co.uk
  10. Lines: 15
  11.  
  12. In-Reply-To:  gss@btcase.bt.co.uk (Graham Sewell)
  13.  
  14. > >Anyone have any comments on these things ? Reliability, cost,
  15. > >quality of fitting work, ease of bypassing them, etc.
  16. > >I'm particularly interested in UK makes, like VECTA & Foxguard.
  17. > I have experience of two alarm systems in the UK, Sonic and AutoBlock.
  18.  
  19. No !
  20.  
  21. VECTA is an immobiliser, it *isn't* an alarm. I'm specifically
  22. looking for comments on dedicated immobilisers, and particularly the
  23. VECTA.
  24.  
  25.           Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
  26.