Indeed. There are two things I would do to improve my 3 series:
1/ Improve the throttle response. I don't know if a remap would
drastically change this.
2/ LSD. Available from a number of suppliers now.
I would do these before getting rid of runflats where the only issue I
can see myself is price (I'm one of the few to use the excellent
My last petrol turbo car produced max torque between 2,500 rpm and 4,500
rpm, but the max power was developed at 5,700 rpm.
But that car *really* came alive after 5,000 rpm, well past peak torque.
My experiments with accelerometers have demonstrated that the greatest
'g' (or acceleration) was produced between the peak torque rpm and the
peak power rpm.
On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
cc-related taxation laws.
I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
engine, it was.
It was a long time ago, I don't remember exactly. I recall that it
used a bit more than a typical four did but it couldn't have been
outrageously more as I wasn't exactly flushed with cash in those days,
and I wouldn't have kept it had it been a fuel-swilling pig.
I kept it until tin-worm ate right through the rear of the chassis in
1974 or so. Cars certainly rotted fast in those pre-galvanization
Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
How much fuel did it gulp then?
Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
rear wheel would fold under the car.
Most Triumphs only had fatal (for the car) flaws, such as rust (all models),
clogging injection (2500PI), boiling over (Stag), faulty steering (Toledo),
poor build (TR7) etc. etc.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
it will spin out if you do the same thing.
For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come
with capable drivers.
More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less
common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the
The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car
(or near it) when it was.
Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put
a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The
Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted
the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if
they do let go then you are in big trouble.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:33:57 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
I never had that happen with my Vitesse, and mine was one of the early
ones that were much more prone to it than the better sorted later
ones. When it did happen, the wheel did not "fold under the car."
There simply wasn't that much travel in the rear suspension. It would
ride up onto the edge of the tire, hiking the rear of the car up, and
then settle back down.
Actually, I always thought that the stock Imp handled pretty well. I
think that people used to put bags of sand in the front because there
was a perceived, but not real, benefit in reducing the positive camber
in the front. Ill informed intuition is often seriously wrong.
I don't see how 1.6L in audi is fundamentally different from that in a
as plebeian as you imply mazda and chevrolet are (unless i read too
much into your response)
Automakers, with rare exceptions for honda s2000, aren't exactly eager
to extract the most power out of the lowest displacement.
That might have something to do with the fact that
1. the target audience is not exactly looking for the cutting edge
2. you could just as well accomplish the same with the proper gearing
the 6th cog into works.
But, needless to say, one got to ask the question: what is the
there's just not enough power for a/c to be effective and the
points somewhere in the 1.6 to 2.0 range.
I'm considering a 1.6 mill in A4 because the $4/gallon gas might be
in the heavily screwed up US metro areas such as silicon valley and NY
but it's very real where i live. That coupled with the perception that
1.8T is not
the best engine audi had to offer. The perception in my neck of woods
is that 1.6 is bulletproof due to the simplicity inherent to its
The locals could not say the same about the bmw 4 pots even though
given that I want an xi trim I'd have to pony up for 2.5 I6 anyway
which I was considering before i dug for the service part of the
equation (see below).
[long rant about my views on service]
I want an awd sedan for my current purposes (don't want an suv or a
hence 5 is out of the picture for now: no awd and complex electrics ->
have mentioned that bmw service around here is vastly inferior to
that of vw in terms of avalilability and quality.
Me thinks i'd have to do with A4 or A6 quattro primarily because of
puny official bmw service in minsk. There are 6 or 7 official vw
in the city of 2 million and one official bmw service that reputedly
rips people off (it's good to be the only game in town i suppose).
I definitely don't want to be stranded with no options for service if
the relationship with the singular bmw service won;t work. And being
the picky bastard that i'm the chances of that are high: the locals
just don't seem to buy into the "customer is always right, even
when he is wrong". I don't think most of the businesses around here
can spell "l-o-n-g s-a-l-e". Hey! Make a buck! Quick!
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.