piking up their deisel Golf to be "almost" as fast as a supercar - even if it's one of those funny rice-fueled bamboo-braked Jap cars and not a proper £150k european peoples-car like we need to know about every week?
Where's the catch? there must be one else every Chav would be supersonic?
I was somewhat anticipating them smashing head-on with a thousand 1/10th second camaera shots...
(btw seriously - does VTEC and NOX mix well?)
supersonic?
Insurance. How many chav mobiles do you see that actually go faster than standard rather than having a load of s**te stuck to them that makes them look like piss poor concept cars?
Would be the same as any other engine, so it'd work fine. It basically just moves the power graph up however many horses you shoot in. You could put a stage in to kick in at the v-tec point for a silly kick in the back, or progressively phase it in from middling revs to give a smoother curve if you wanted. The only thing you must avoid is putting it in at low revs.
Engine wear being one.
supersonic?
Interestingly, look at the forum on
" Where's the catch? there must be one else every Chav would be supersonic? "
1) The initial oulay of at least £600. 2) Extra insurance costs, if their company will even allow the system. 3) £20 and hassle to re-fill the nitrous oxide, which chavs might need to do every couple of weeks. 4) Extra fuel costs, as the management system inputs more fuel with the nitrous oxide 5) Regular servicing / tuning at a performance specialist. A standard diesel Golf will only run uneconomically once it de-tunes itself, whereas a nitrous system can do some serious destruction to the engine.The message from "Cuzman" contains these words:
Out of interest, unless the spray pattern from the injectors is failing, how does a diesel go out of tune?
I didn't see the programme but from reading this thread, are you saying that they put NOS in a diesel?
Doesn't sound right but if you can, where can I get it :-)
Possibly because not everyone is obsessed with speed, performance, and handling. One sad side effect with the uk obsession with the above is that almost every car on the road has rock hard seats, and an over-firm and 'joggly' ride. If a manufacturer dares to be different and produces a car that favours comfort, refinement, and ride quality, then it is invariably attacked by the magazine/TV pundits who think that everyone wants to go around corners on two wheels. I don't mind admitting that I love driving big American cars. Whisper quiet, feather light steering, soft seats, soft and absorbing ride - superb. The sad fact is that probably around 90% of drivers in the UK are not obsessed with performance and handling and yet have to suffer the discomfort of cars produced by people who are. There is invariably a trade off in car design - if you favour performance and handling you lose out on comfort and refinement. Bearing in mind that most drivers never ever drive their cars to extreme - the loss of comfort is largely wasted. Drivers are enduring a bone-jarring ride for no good reason!
Kev
I dunno how on-topic this is in u.m.t.m but here in uk.rec.cars, most drivers enjoy driving rather than treating it as a necessary evil for getting between A and B.
I've got a car that was originally set up as a "hairdresser's car", with soft springs, etc, and this on a 2 seater sports car. Mines got a larger engine, and has had the springs uprated with dampers to match and so forth. The ride is harsh, I feel every bump and speed humps are 5 mph for me.
Not long ago, I was discussing car ride with other people with the same car, one who had the original 4 cylinder engine and springs, the other with a V8 and uprated springs front and rear. Seemed like an excellent idea to try out each others' cars to see what differences there were, given we all had insurance which allows this.
Driving the other V8, we came to the conclusion that mine was set up the same as the other, similar spring weights (500 pound front, 200 pound rear) and that mine was lower at the front, but raised at the back. Don't know why, possibly it has rally springs on the live rear axle, which makes sense as there's no extra play in the back, but more clearance, plus there should be more downforce at the back at speed as it is higher.
Basically, both cars handled great.
The other car, well it wasn't all that much slower, the four cylinder wasn't a slouch and while you could certainly feel the difference, it wasn't underpowered for the size. However, the soft suspension made the car pitch and yaw horribly and this made the drivers go much slower because it felt like it would bounce off the road where it wasn't very flat and where there was dirt and much, etc. Basically, it was quite obvious that stiffer suspension made the car far nicer to drive and there is no way on earth I would change mine to a more forgiving compliance just to be able to go faster over speed humps.
I might raise the front a bit, stiffer springs do that by default, but that lets more air in beneath the car and compromises stablility at speed, probably, so there's some reasons for not doing that without a wind tunnel to check what the consequences are. The lower set car, ought to consider lifting the back a bit, that way clearance is improved over bumps and uneven roads, without spoiling the stability.
The soft car, needs upgrading and stiffening, no doubt about that in anyone's minds, after trying them all out.
The point of this post, if one drives a car in a city, where the speed limits are relatively low and the roads are urban, with most of the hazards being speed humps, pot holes, and traffic jams, then one has a different set of criteria to help decide what their car should do. A spongy ride which wallows about above 50 mph, but allows you to take the speed humps at 30 without noticing them, and air conditioning for those long hours sitting on the Marylebone road, this would be quite suitable for some. Conversely, if you live in a village in the country and usually drive along a ten mile road with many corners, inconsitent camber, patches of mud from tractors and rarely any other vehicles to be seen, then your needs will be different. A decently sprung car that doesn't wallow about, but which makes you feel where the road is slippery and tells you about bumps so you are kinder to the wheels, probably suits you much better.
Which is bizarre in a sense, given the 4x4 off roaders suit the townie school run, and not actually anywhere they might be required to go off road, where a landrover is much more use (but with a harsh ride and no creature comforts, then, you don't find too many traffic jams off road.)
At the end of the day, there are cars with a ride that is too soft, which can be upgraded to firmer springs if necessary. The compromise is currently to the soft end of the spectrum, largely because motorway driving suits softer suspension and people often never find it too soft by going onto the windy roads which the motorways mostly replaced.
The big american cars achieve their soft ride mainly by being three times the weight of a european car and damping out the pitching, as the car can't move quickly when it strikes a brick. To make these move at the 55 mph american speed limit, used to require quite large and thirsty V8 engines and to handle the power, meant you had to have a slushbox automatic. The ponderous, and untuned steering, had to be power assisted, and since you're going to end up with appalling fuel consumption you might as well sap a few more MPG by slapping in a powerful air conditioning unit to cool the cavernous interior of the cruiser.
That's never likely to happen in the UK, although the Russians did manage a few like that, for their biggest cheeses, and the people carriers are definitely moving in that direction, against the trend of efficient, small and light vehicles.
I don't think it is a UK obsession. Look at the Ka, it's got a very good ride for something of it's size, and is rated as one of the best handling cars in it's class. The Elise is another car set up with a compliant ride for what it is, and is basically untouchable in the handling stakes. OTOH, Audis (and ISTR Vauxhalls too) are often criticised for having harsh suspension by the UK press, and they're criticised for not really handling. The fact is that cars aren't designed for the UK market, they're designed for the European market, and from what I've read in terms of foreign press covereage of cars, we're generally the ones that criticise cars for having jarring rides and a general lack of ability to remain composed on the normal British B road. It seems to me they must have some very smooth roads in continental Europe.
The need for correctly matched springs and dampers to the cars use as opposed to just sticking very stiff springs in can be seen by taking hard suspension to the limit. Fit solid struts. Doubt that anyone has ever done this on a car but years ago most motorcycle frames had no rear suspension, just a sprung saddle and whatever movement the rear tyre allowed. The introduction of rear suspension allowed a big increase in comfortable safe road speeds and made the 100mph lap of the Isle on Man in the TT races possible without reducing the rider to a state where they had to be lifted off the bike at the end of the race. The Norton duplex swingarm frame earned itself the moniker 'Featherbed' and it also had a such a good reputation for handling that it was the frame of choice for buliders of specials, Norvin, Triton, NorBSA.
-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
I drive a Rover 75. Over the past ten months it has given me problems (see other thread 'persistent sensor problem') but when it is running well I consider it to be ideal. Very refined, very quiet (mines a diesel as well!), and, although the suspension is set up for comfort rather than ultimate handling, it does not disgrace itself when pushed hard. For me the seats and handling/comfort set-up on the 75 is ideal - there are not many like it on the road however. I have a Vectra on hire at the moment while my car is being looked at and I don't like it. The seats are like church pews and the ride is jarring over rough surfaces - not a patch on my 75 which irons out road imperfections like magic! Everyone to their own I suppose.
Kev
Kev
Well i drove 465 miles continously the other week going from home to holiday destination. The last 100 miles were of the twisty road variety. I arrived at my destination having outcornered a new golf gti, yet with no aches or pains to complain of.
So you stick to your baggy assed ultra low tech yank tanks and i'll keep driving my ultra comfy (and quiet) ancient 7 series beemer.
The Norton duplex swingarm frame earned itself the moniker
The major reason for that was that at the time, many new Featherbed Nortons, minus engines were for sale, and relatively cheap. Very little choice was involved, as AFAIR there was no alternative frame available, at such a bargain price. The bikes themselves were being baught just for their engines, which were then used in 500cc race cars. Cooper 500's etc. Mike.
My dad had a Norton 650 but he tuned the original engine - however the Norton twin was not as strong as the Triumph, and the Vincent is just bigger
I should have said. It was the tuned single cylinder 500cc Manx engine they wanted. These were unobtainable on their own. Mike.
But if the chassis wasn't so much better than the other makers offerings they would have wound up staying empty. Most specials were based on the twin cylinder wideline frame and not the narrow single cylinder racing frame. You couldn't get the crankcase of a twin between the lower tubes on the 500cc single frame without cutting the lower bracing tubes, splaying the lower frame tubes and then doing some bronze welding to put the bracing tubes back. Using the wideline frame made special building a bolt on job as engine plates, exhaust, rearsets and clip-ons could be bought.
-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Fuel pump wear, Injector timing, leaky boost control hoses, possibly cam wear (although I've never heard of an instance of that). Relatively few failure mechanisms compared to a petrol engine.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.