Ebay transmissions

2005 Mazda6 isport hatchback with the N/A (naturally aspirated) 2.3 engine and 5 speed manual transmission.
I’ve swapped the engine 3 times (finally found the problem and fixed it) Had my transmission rebuilt once Replaced the clutch Have a cheesy ass eBay cold air intake Installed Motegi Traklite V1’s Maxpeeding struts and springs Reinstalled a rear driver window after someone kicked in the door and broke the window
This is my car she’s a pain but she’s cool 👍

Hi from the UK! I'm looking what we call a gear box turret, to for onto a ZF S5-42 transmission I believe they came in f250 & f350 rangers? Correct me if I'm mistaken. Struggling to use eBay to search stateside only, any help would be much appreciated. Pictured above is the only option here in the UK but it way to priced and never in stock!

Bought a 2 core radiator for my 35th anniversary. Inside the radiator cap inlet, there’s a tube and the stock one doesn’t? I investigated and I think it’s for the transmission cooler. Can anyone confirm? I don’t want to put coolant where I shouldn’t lol… I don’t know why it’s exposed like that but it is an eBay radiator…

Hi from the UK! I'm looking what we call a gear box turret, to for onto a ZF S5-42 transmission I believe they came in f250 & f350 rangers? Correct me if I'm mistaken. Struggling to use eBay to search stateside only, any help would be much appreciated. Pictured above is the only option here in the UK but it way to priced and never in stock!

Some have good reviews but looking for personal experience. And which one did you go with if you did purchase..
12 days til it goes in the shop and I wanna make a good decision on this!
Plz no rude comments. Such as my car is junk or just let it go because the transmission are all crap. Yes I know.. It’s a good car, I’m fixing it and that’s my choice 🤷‍♀️ it’s made it to almost 190,000 miles on one clutch. thanks!!!

For the past 9 years I have regretted selling my '02 S2000 -- I bought it on Ebay Motors in 2005 and flew out to Houston and drove it back to Florida. For 10 years that car gave me so much joy, and even though I DD'd it for the first 8 years I had it I enjoyed every minute of ownership.
While I loved the Comptech Supercharger, I wish I would have kept it NA -- eventually blew up the motor, rebuilt it/sleeved the block (which of course led to AEM standalone, bigger injectors, more boost) and after 2 years blew it again because of a bad build. At that point, we were planning on having a kid -- and I did the "responsible/smart thing" and sold it.
I took a trip to Japan back in March -- I rented an S2k for the day to drive from Tokyo to Motegi and toured the Honda Collection Hall/Twin Ring Track and that night I knew I needed another S2k in my life.
After sifting through the internet, finding a bunch of trash cars and potential headaches -- I found the one, on cars and bids — 2004 w/112k, 2 owners and zero mods. I won the auction and then flew out to Dallas, and drove it back home to Orlando.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve: -Replaced the suspension with Bilstein PSS9 coilovers -Rebuilt the shifter -Replaced the motor mounts, transmission mounts and diff mounts -Changed the oil/trans/diff fluids -Replaced the valve cover with a new OEM w/ all new gaskets, bolts and seals -Replaced the spark plugs -Did a valve adjustment
Car is running like a dream!

While replacing my solenoids for my 6hp26 transmission I noticed a missing pin from the TCM connection and I didn’t think much of it until my car didn’t start until I put it in neutral , also got a code 5088” stating a faulty range sensor , so I purchased a TCM identical to mines on eBay , would I have to reprogram or just slap it on? And if it needs reprogramming how would it be done?

Claims of cheating in the CCT ; are the anti-cheating measures sufficient?
This event, as widely known, has been surrounded by a lot of controversy over implied or veiled accusations amongst players accusing other players of potentially cheating.
Nepo today after his loss to Lazavik posted "At least won one game, should be satisfied!". He then replied to a user who said "Lazavik plays fantastically well on the internet" (no prizes for guessing what he means) with this tweet below : https://twitter.com/lachesisq/status/1789012186439848285
However, this is not the first occasion on which Yan, and other top GMs, have suggested that other GMs are cheating during this event.
In the last edition of the same CCT event, after losing to Jospem, and Jospem subsequently drawing Lazavik, Yan made the following post, showing another participant, MVL's thoughts :
https://twitter.com/lachesisq/status/1753506063813353701
This comment, apparently made by Maxime, was sent to Yan, who decided to post it on his Twitter page.
It doesn't just stop with these two ; GM Eric Hansen, shortly after the Kramnik Hikaru drama first kicked off, stated that multiple top GMs had expressed to him privately that they suspected Hikaru, a past SCC and past CCT participant, and probably the most prominent online GM, of cheating online.
Another top GM, Fabiano Caruana, expressed in a podcast with Greg Mustreader, a chess Youtuber, that he estimated he played two cheaters every Titled Tuesday, and further, that he believed players in the top10 could potentially be cheating.
Whilst we cannot accurately judge the veracity of these claims, with little to no evidence to go off suggesting that any of Lazavik, Jospem or Hikaru or any other GMs are cheating, what is clear is that there is a huge paranoia amongst top GMs surrounding cheating, and not just a phenomenon spread by the likes of Kramnik. Given that events such as the CCT, with a total prize pool of $2,000,000 in 2023, are played online, an urgent and pertinent question must be, are the claims of these top players founded, and are the anti-cheat regulations sufficient for tournaments of such magnitude?
------------------------INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AGAINST PLAYERS---------------------- :
The first thing to note, before I start this write-up, is that I believe individual accusations against players, unless founded, to be fruitless, unproductive, and potentially extremely unfair, to players who play fairly and could have been falsely accused by the likes of Kramnik.
Whilst multiple GMs have accused the likes of Hikaru, Jospem, Lazavik or others of cheating online, it is necessary to say that no real evidence exists to accuse these, or any prominent GMs in CCT or other online events, of cheating.
This does not mean that none of them are cheating. It could be that many top GMs are cheating, or none are. It is just that we lack any sufficient evidence to make individual accusations, and therefore they are unproductive and fraught with risk.
The discussion should instead be surrounding the underlying systemic basis of anti-cheat detection, and whether we can have trust in the system currently in place, as in the end, the effectiveness of anti-cheat hinges on the measures put in place by the organisers. Without those measures being validated, there will never be any sufficient basis to accuse people, or exonerate people, of cheating.
In essence, if there is a cheating problem in chess, the solution lies not in accusing individual GMs, but showing the integrity of, or lack thereof, of the chesscom anti-cheating measures, which would be the main cause of any potential problem and the foundation to target to improve the situation of cheating.
Are the anti-cheating measures in the CCT sufficient? (My opinion)
My initial test statement for determining if the measures are sufficient, is comparing them to standard OTB practise, and if they fulfill the standards proposed by FIDE and by major tournament organisers in real OTB events. Given the significant prize money on offer in online chess events, it is reasonable to expect the anti-cheating regulations, at the minimum, to be on par with major OTB tournaments, if not better. Any failure to do such, means that they are not fulfilling the standards required in normal chess anti-cheating practise, which have been set in response to a number of mechanisms in which OTB participants may cheat. If these standards are not matched, this means theoretical cheating mechanisms not possible OTB become possible in online tournaments.
According to public information, the anti-cheating measures at the CCT mainly consist of multiple cameras set up in the player's rooms to allow arbiters to see different angles and access to the player's computer through screen sharing. I have also heard that the arbiters view Task Manager. However, I could not find a definitive link from Chesscom stating what their actual anti-cheating measures are for this extremely lucrative event, raising questions in itself (which I will address later after giving my opinion on these measures specifically).
Whilst the proposed measures seem to prevent rudimentary cheating methods, such as the use of a phone or openly displayed device during the game, they leave significant questions on whether this sort of anti-cheat regulation will be enough at all to stop any kind of sophisticated cheating.
Problem 1 - do the cameras cover every inch of the player's room, and all objects or structures?
I have heard (again, nothing official, as chesscom do not confirm) that they require the player to use two cameras (I have also heard 'multiple' from Chesscom mods, but again, no official confirmation). Are two, or any number of cameras, enough to spatially verify the entirety of the playing area, including all corners of the room, the floor, and the ceiling, all structures and objects in the participant's house, and any other potential rooms in which accomplices may work with them to cheat? If the cameras do not cover every inch of the participant's home, they therefore cannot definitively confirm there are not some areas of the playing space being used for cheating. This is breaking OTB regulations in which every inch of the playing area is in some way accounted for by tournament organisers, and confirmed as not being used for cheating purposes.
This doesn't just consist of using engines or technological devices to cheat - it could be something as simple as just writing long theoretical lines somewhere near your person which is not covered by cameras. It could consist of having certain books or theory near to your person. All of which would give a huge preparation advantage, and which is expressely forbidden under OTB rules. Do the cameras used by the players have the quality and the scope to fully see all areas of the house in high quality picture, to confirm no possible cheating appendices, accomplices, theory books or lines in the playing area?
Problem 2 - does Chesscom have sufficient technological expertise, and practical capability, to confirm the subject is not cheating on their computer?
Spectating someone in a technological environment in which they have complete control is very difficult. There are a number of mechanisms such as Virtual Machines in which alternate desktops can be created, outside of the view of an arbiter on Zoom, for example, and additionally, since the subject has control of their data in a closed environment, it can't be ruled out that any screen sharing transmitted through Zoom or other screen sharing program to arbiters can be falsified. Cheaters with sufficient technological knowledge, or perhaps, hired technological knowledge, could theoretically falsify program data, for example, or to ensure that particular screens are hidden from the view of the arbiter on their external connection through Zoom, as in screen sharing connections, you can only see what the subject allows you to see. Whilst it may be obvious if someone is hiding a certain screen, if they lack the knowledge to be able to do it effectively, it may become much more of a problem if a technologically capable cheater manages to hide cheating appendices through technology such as VMs and alternate desktops. Additionally, given the unreliability of Zoom calls and screen sharing at times, which can be dependent on a player's internet, any lag, freezing, or abnormality in the subject's screen sharing could be plausibly put down to short-term connection issues, which would be very difficult to disprove without having direct access to the subject's PC. (if a player briefly disconnects from the game and Zoom, and immediately reconnects 30 seconds later, for example, after having viewed some tab, how would Chesscom manage this situation? Could they issue any punishment for what may legitimately be short lived connection problems? One such incident happened, for example, where GM Mamedyarov disconnected, due to legitimate connection problems, for a substantial amount of time before the start of an online game in a large tournament.) Therefore, unless Chesscom are either physically or virtually directly accessing the subject's PC, and being allowed to themselves search through the PC for any cheating devices, before, during and after the game, it is impossible to rule out that the computer itself could be used for cheating. This raises further questions on whether such searches violate the player's privacy ; it is entirely reasonable that players would decline to have their personal laptops or PCs fully searched due to personal information that may be revealed during the process of the search, meaning it seems practically impossible for Chesscom to carry out such searches to fully determine the use of the computer.
It is possible that Chesscom do have such measures in place to directly access the player's PC through virtual connections, and search through it, however, this has not been publicly confirmed, again.
Problem 3 - is there complete sound verification of the subject's environment, and are the sound capturing devices fully verified as sufficiently operational?
Not all cameras have sound capability, or some have very weak sound capability. Are chesscom confirming that all camera devices used by players have a sufficient sound capability, and that the sounds coming from them go through a full authentication process to confirm that is legitimate sound from the subject's environment?
Without physical checking and confirmation of the players cameras to confirm they meet an acceptable sound standard, or that they have any sound capability at all, it is impossible to determine whether the sound transmitted to arbiters is of a sufficient quality to detect possible cheating.
If this was not the case, putative cheating could consist of moves being verbally communicated to the cheater by some accomplice or by text to speech devices, for example, which would not require the cheater to physically view a device or cheating tool, but simply to hear moves being called out, which would possibly not be detected by the arbiters if the hearing devices were of poor quality or without authentic sound.
For example : a cheater hears moves being called out from another room in the house, or near the house, or possibly, otherwise any verbal cues possibly transmitted through code (which is another problem, but we will get onto this). To hide this, they play standard white noise, or typical traffic sounds that could plausibly come from their environment, near to their cameras which provide sound, to make the signs of cheating less audible. Are there any mitigation factors for this?
For example : a cheater uses a camera with very poor sound quality, or no sound quality, so that the arbiters cannot hear moves or verbal cheating. Are there mitigation factors for this?
If the case, this contravenes OTB environments where arbiters are physically present to hear all sounds in the playing area and confirm the sources of the sounds.
Problem 4 - Is it theoretically or practically possible to detect if potential cheating is happening through coded or verbal cues, without being physically present at the site?
For example, cheaters may communicate through a certain code in which they transmit moves, or signals, to their accomplices and other cheaters to give them crucial information during the game. Hypothetically, this could consist of very basic things, such as honking a horn if the player is down on the evaluation bar, or making any certain sound to indicate the player is up on the evaluation bar, the player should play for a draw, and so on, or it could further consist of more complex cheating methods through coded sounds or speech, hidden as genuine environmental sounds (like horns honking, cars driving past, people talking in the street) to indicate what move should be played. Given the extremely substantial amount of prize money on offer, such a cheating mechanism is well within reason for players genuinely looking to cheat, and seems to have no apparent solution.
This contradicts OTB cheating regulations in which any strange sounds would be investigated and verified by the arbiters present, including removal of said individuals from the playing hall and halting of those certain sounds, with additional investigation sure to follow.
---PROBLEM 5 (BIGGEST PROBLEM!) :
How is it possible to verify a player has no cheating devices hidden on their person, or in appendices on their person, such as glasses, headphones, earpieces within the ear, without physically searching them at the playing area?
It is impossible to verify if a player has a cheating device concealed on their person through remote investigations ; objectively impossible, and one of the foremost regulations at major OTB tournaments ; all participants must be sufficiently searched with relevant detecting tools, such as metal detectors or frequency detectors, to ensure they have no cheating device on their person.
The current anti-cheat regulations, from what is seen, cannot possibly verify that players are not cheating with items physically hidden on their person, as they simply cannot virtually search the players.
This provides extremely troubling, very simple mechanisms of cheating, through which a player could easily steal thousands of dollars in prize money through simple methods to evade anti cheat detection.
This means it is already objectively possible to cheat in CCT events through appendices hidden, or plausibly worn, on the person, if physical searches of the players are not carried out.
A simple Google search already shows commercially available, cheap camera glasses with a purposefully concealed camera for 'spy' purposes : https://www.dictaphones.co.uk/Speak-IT-Premier-Spy-Camera-Glasses-p/spepcg.htm. As known, many chess players wear glasses, given they are commonly used through the population and necessary for some people ; normally not a problem at OTB tournaments, as they would undergo some kind of examination. However, these could be hypothetically used to stream the live action in the game in an online tournament to a potential accomplice, who would then signal through some means, such as verbal code, or an earpiece, to the cheater.
Such cameras could also be hidden within large headphones, that Chesscom has permitted players to wear - or hidden within smart watches the players are allowed to wear, or hidden in general wear, such as shirts, chains, pens, vases somewhere in the room etc, to allow viewing of the game by an accomplice who could therefore then assist the player in cheating. The possibilities are endless without physical searches of the playing area, which is the cornerstone of OTB regulations, and an obvious necessity to confirm that cheating does not take place.
Another simple Google search shows that minature earpieces, the physical size of a pin, are available for cheap prices on Amazon : https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/276408645163?var=578927393174&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338749372&toolid=20006&_ul=GB&customid=GB_293_276408645163.142094733279~1871028515000-g_CjwKCAjwi_exBhA8EiwA_kU1MnJS-Lj7Y_NBQnNJndAPCP_7bORQ7yIot1rvtuyWX5OhStaZw1M_2RoCvHUQAvD_BwE
As shown by the diagram on the listing, the earpiece, shown in the top right next to the illustration of the ear, is less than half the size of a small coin, with connected apparatus being worn as a wire over the body :
A device which could theoretically be hidden under the subject's clothing, which unlike OTB, again, is not physically searched.
Surely, other commercially available devices exist which make the subject of cheating even easier in said tournaments, I have not bothered to search for them but I'm sure it would be interesting to see how deep this could go in evasion of any cheat measures. As mentioned, possible devices could be anywhere in the playing area, hidden in mundane items such as glasses or any structures a normal house would have, that would comfortably facilitate possible cheating.
As mentioned, in other cases, you may not even need to hide the cheating device ; it could be concealed on an every day item, such as a pair of glasses, again, impossible to remotely verify as being legitimate glasses and not cheating devices.
There are significant, easily accessible, and impossible to detect, mechanisms of possible cheating in the CCT, involving devices worn on the person. According to public information, there is no plausible way in which current measures could detect cheating devices being worn on the person, and hypothetically speaking, these cheating methods would be foolproof without having to be physically searched by arbiters before and after your games in the tournaments.
Therefore, my question is - how are organisers ensuring that players are not wearing easily accessible cheating devices on their person, which would make cheating incredibly easy? Is there any way to ensure that players do not have cheating devices on their person, using remote methods?
Considering the last $2,000,000 prize pool in the 2023 CCT, the fact that hypothetical mechanisms of cheating are easily accessible, effective, and undetectable, in my opinion, constitutes a grave concern for the tournament's anti-cheat regulations, and draw real doubt over whether the legitimacy of the anti-cheat system can be trusted, as it does not meet the standard of OTB regulations, which would largely prevent all problems listed, including the most important one : searching of devices held on the person, including with technical tools to detect metal or frequency transmissions.
What could be done about these hypothetical mechanisms of cheating?
In my view, there are two possible solutions.
SOLUTION ONE : PHYSICAL SEARCHES OF PLAYING AREA AND PLAYER BY IN-PERSON ARBITERS
As happened with tournaments during COVID, proctors and arbiters could travel in-person to the player's house to search the playing area, search the player's person before going into the game and physically observe the players activity during the game, any sounds that may come from the environment or anything deemed suspicious. In other words, ensure the playing area fully conforms to OTB standards and regulations, and prevent any possible cheating through the computer itself.
This would largely solve the issues I have listed, but would cost a fair amount of money on the part of Chesscom, so it could possibly be implemented for the latter phases if costs were too high, however, given the significant prize money on offer, it is hard to think this couldn't be done in some form.
SOLUTION TWO : PLAYERS TO ENTER PRE-APPROVED VENUES, complete with searches and a clean reset computer.
Given the appeal of the CCT seems to mainly be that it is played in the online format, with premoves, mouse skills, and Chesscoms snazzy UI, it is hard to see why it is necessary that the players must be allowed to play at home or in their own venues which they control, and for reasons listed, could prepare any kinds of possible cheating mechanisms in closed environments.
I would propose that these events are held at external venues with standard OTB regulations and checks, where clean, reset computers could be used, along with full searches of the players, ensuring a completely clean competition with little prospects of cheating, whilst still preserving the online format.
This would be relatively cheap, and mainly consist of equipment and venue costs, which could then be successfully re-used for all future online tournaments.
For a tournament boasting 2 million dollars of prize money in its last iteration, it is hard to see why this is such an unreasonable request, given the fact that the existing version of the tournament has significantly concerning anti-cheat mechanisms, and the prize money on offer is too large to potentially risk any injustice or unfair play by competitions.
It is also possible, as mentioned, that this could happen after the initial 'play-in' phase, to prevent costs possibly raising too high for having to accomodate all players during the earliest phase of the tournament. After the individual sections of the tournament have entered their final stages, like today, with Nepo vs Lazavik, it is hard to see why with such a small amount of players and such high prize money on the line, that these matches could not be disputed in proper venues rather than at home.
The only possible consequences of this are taking away the players rights to play from their home, which as far as I'm concerned, has never been a necessity in chess, particularly when the games being spoken of are for such high amounts of prize money awarded to both losers and winners, making travel a minor expense compared to the money they will receive for participation.
Additionally, this could help suggest enhanced measures on players, who, for example, perform far better in the playin stages of the tournaments (less regulated, like now) compared to the next stages, played under full controls (although my preference would be that all sections of the tournament, due to the prize money on offer, are played with 1 of the 2 anti-cheating solutions listed).
One thing is certain - the prize money and 'points' on offer for performances in these different sections of the Tour, allowing players to qualify for the final, are far too important and far too consequential to be played under such lax anti-cheating regulations. It should be all parts of the Tour played under proper anti-cheating controls, not just the grand final.
This marks the end of this post. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments, and any reasonable disagreements you may have. I really desire for online chess to clean up, and that the players and the fans can have confidence in fair play online.
I know this is a controversial and heated subject on this subreddit, so please, if you disagree, disagree reasonably and do respect the amount of detail I went into to try and advance my view.
Additionally, if any chesscom staff are reading this post, and can answer all of the objections raised with up to date information on what are the current anti-cheat regulations, I would be greatly appreciative.
Thank you!

Hello All
I have a 1996 Pontiac Firebird Formula. 5.7 L Automatic Transmission with ABS & Traction Control.
I need a Rear Wheel Speed Sensor. ABS & Traction Control Lights on dash.
The discontinued GM part # 1045 6264.
As I understand it, this part# was only on 95/96 Firebirds & Camaros. No luck so far finding one anywhere.
Tried all the regular channels, EBAY, Rock Auto, O'Reilly, Advance Auto, Local Junk Yards, etc.
There were a few jerks on FB Marketplace that try to scam a Pay Pal payment but don't actually have any parts.
Any ideas or suggestions? Can the existing sensor possibly be rebuilt?
I appreciate any help or suggestions. :) Thank You!
https://preview.redd.it/gelqtio485zc1.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=654f73651962c29f7e91dcfbb150b4073eff3746
https://preview.redd.it/lj7iw5r485zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f7fb15a0dd2fa8fa1f8ce6cc84f9d019137f848
https://preview.redd.it/rmaro6r485zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e57764d32091dabf4db7f3d24f309ee7c04e720
https://preview.redd.it/fzygb5r485zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c3f83c449bf84bc2bf28d9b33d0d7a3f78e244d

Hello All
I have a 1996 Pontiac Firebird Formula. 5.7 L Automatic Transmission with ABS & Traction Control.
I need a Rear Wheel Speed Sensor. ABS & Traction Control Lights on dash.
The discontinued GM part # 1045 6264.
As I understand it, this part# was only on 95/96 Firebirds & Camaros. No luck so far finding one anywhere.
Tried all the regular channels, EBAY, Rock Auto, O'Reilly, Advance Auto, Local Junk Yards, etc.
There were a few jerks on FB Marketplace that try to scam a Pay Pal payment but don't actually have any parts.
Any ideas or suggestions? Can the existing sensor possibly be rebuilt?
I appreciate any help or suggestions. :) Thank You!
https://preview.redd.it/i25xuqpkb4zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4de7afbde5030980ec9e91a5df552c8b0aa100ba
https://preview.redd.it/yi8exqpkb4zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5e8fba196603c44379f9d5fecab911237e8cade
https://preview.redd.it/w6xs6tpkb4zc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e638edcaa8488901eeb17fdb812b31ac0f0b271

Okay so i’ve been digging through the internet for eons to find a manual spark transmission, and have never been able to find one. for some reason i search up 2020 spark manual and it pops up on ebay like it’s been there since my mom was in highschool.
ANYWAYS wondering what all i need to make this happen. it’s a 500$ transmission case with 70k miles on it. do i need to modify anything mounts? or buy any extra parts axel wise? i’m not 100% experienced in this, and im not planning on doing this overnight. it’ll be a project to work on for sure, but what do i need to make it work?
please anyone with knowledge and experience in this i’m all ears