Friday, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:00
Mack, talk about trying to defend the indefensible of a poor quality designed and manufactured fridge. Now you have to resort to misleading statements to try and cover up the poor design and performance of the Liemack/Reefer. Mack, stop trying to eschew the facts. One thing converting to a form of AC, they are not running a 240vAC invertor.
More misinformation:
"Liemack like many others, had some isolated batches of insulation that failed after approx 18 months use" Who are these other manufacturers that had insulation that failed? You are trying to cover up yet again the poor design, quality and manufacturing of Liemack/Reefer. Of course poured in foam would only ever be used by a 'back yard' style operation, as pressure injected foad will not get voids or fail, and is metered in, and consequently controlled.
How do you justify the *massive* weight of the Liemack/Reefer compared to other brands which all of course perform substantailly better than the Liemack/Reefer, and use three times less power. A whopping 34kg's for the Liemack/Reefer, against all the other better performing fridges in all areas are between 18kg and 23kg. Perhaps at the end of the day, the Liemack/Reefer could be a good boat anchor.
Who cares if your mob took over, bought or whatever to Liemack. Why did the original business fail, probably not enough sales due to their poor performance and massive power consumption. Why re-birth something which is so grossly overweight, has such massive power consumption, requires very expensive batteries to run, 10mm cable (un-believable!!!).
The Liemack/Reefer is obviously a fridge better left on the store shelves, as there are other brands which consume nearly three times less current, weigh 50% less, have superior insulation, do not require special overly expensive imported batteries, and perform
well.
FollowupID:
4344