No crank
LOL, best I could do.
Whenever anyone "tests" something, the usual best you can do is to test for an absolute fail. That is, if you test, say, a lamp and there's no continuity, and you are careful to make SURE the continuity test was proper, then the lamp is BAD
But just because you test it for continuity and it shows "good," that does not mean good, it means "might be good." The filament might be broken loose and just touching, IE intermittent.
This philosophy holds true in just about any component testing.
You have to check the "system," find the most likely culprit, and sometimes do a little guessing. This does NOT mean throwing a new starter at the problem.
LOL, best I could do.
Whenever anyone "tests" something, the usual best you can do is to test for an absolute fail. That is, if you test, say, a lamp and there's no continuity, and you are careful to make SURE the continuity test was proper, then the lamp is BAD
But just because you test it for continuity and it shows "good," that does not mean good, it means "might be good." The filament might be broken loose and just touching, IE intermittent.
This philosophy holds true in just about any component testing.
You have to check the "system," find the most likely culprit, and sometimes do a little guessing. This does NOT mean throwing a new starter at the problem.
