[OT] Forza Motorsport 2

You have a small penis.

He can have his choice of sponsored wheel anything from Lotus to=20 Ferrari. Just needs a printer and some sticky back plastic.

--=20 Carl Robson Audio stream:

Because I like to go look at old cars?

Riight.

Why did you suggest Doug couldn't afford a 'Classic' Ford? Just as a matter of interest?

Because YMFs are the best paid people in the whole world, ever and we're all underpaid scum.

HTH.

nope. Sits nicely at just below half. Aircon blows cool not cold but works so needs a service. TCS and flyby wire work OK, and the sports switch on the trans works=20 properly as does the overdrive.

Only non working original part is the air suspension. The air bags have=20 been replaced with coilovers. But all the electrics and plumbing are=20 still there and capped to allow conversion back, should I decide that I=20 want to blow a couple of grand on a beater.

--=20 Carl Robson Audio stream:

Erm, wasn't it 'hard to read'[1]- one of the gauges was described as such, as I recall.

"Pete M" wrote in message news:f4hrkg$i53$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org...

Pah, wash *your* mouth out with soap, everybody knows the twin spark is faster, sexier, more robust, sounds better, blah blah blah than the 3.0 because it's lighter.

Erm, exactly.

The TSpark will lap a track faster than a V6, because the TSpark is an all-alloy lump, not only saving weight but keeping the car better balanced.

And yes, a chain-driven 4-pot is almost always going to be more robust than a belt-driven V6.

He feels free to throw the insults about. Why not?

Anyway, with a rotten MK2 2dr Essie shell fetching well over £1000 with decent examples doing £10k and there being some very exotic stuff there such as mint 65 Mustangs, Tickford RS200's then there's probably a lot he couldn't afford.

We proved that wrong many times. That's why the Sunbeam, the Giulietta and the 75s were V6, not 2.0.

The Sunbeam was a *lot* quicker on tarmac and gravel stages with a standard V6 than with a 2.0 tuned to 180 bhp. 2 minutes quicker around the IOM than its sister car which had the 2.0 in.

We also put the 75 3.0 up against a tuned TS around Oulton Park. The 3.0

The V6 is all alloy, and shorter than the TS so it's mounted further back which means the total weight difference isn't really that much. We had to go from 190lb springs to 200lb springs on the Sunbeam to cure any issues. Not exactly a major issue, even when the gearbox was mounted behind the engine instead of using a transaxle.

In the case of belts or chains snapping, yes.

In other cases, not necessarily.

In the case of 75 V6 vs 75 2.0 I'd vote for the V6 every time, sounds so much nicer a tiny increase in understeer is easily overruled by the massive increase in torque and available oversteer.

Oh, the back light on the aircon/clock readout, not the engine temp=20 gauge. Yes that is just 4 bulbs if I can be bothered to pull out the top vents=20 and remove two screws.

The aircon displays have two types of fail. Fail #1: the 4 back light bulbs go. Which means under very bright front=20 on light you can easily read the display. otherwise you it is very=20 faded.

Fail #2: the display goes completly, total LCD failure, no readable=20 characters.

I just can't be bothered getting the backlight bulbs with the green=20 laquer on to get the proper grey/green back light colour. Otherwise it=20 goes kind of BMW orange if you get the plain ones. =20

--=20 Carl Robson Audio stream:

Personal preference - very little between them in terms of performance in the race series. Most people I've spoken to at Alfa events prefer the balance of the TSpark, though.

Yup, my mistake, the new V6 is iron / alloy. But the old V6 is still

Power to weight ratios are largely the same.

V6s are more prone to head gasket failure than the 4-pots, too.

But the TSpark remains the better balanced car. I can't say there's a lack of oversteer in a TSpark and it will carry more corner speed.

The 75 3.0 has a 150 bhp / ton power to weight ratio.

The 75 2.0 has 150 bhp and weighs over 1.1 ton.

The 3.0 has loads more torque.

Only badly maintained ones.

The 3.0 is no slower through the corners and faster out of them.

Depends on which spec. you look at. The 3lt V6 varied between 180bhp and

If you look at the 180bhp version, then there's a whole 8bhp/tonne difference. Not a huge amount.

I've never seen a 180 bhp one but I'll take your word for it.

Seen many 188 and 192 bhp ones though.

Alfa figures from my handbook.

I think it refers to early catalysed versions to be honest.

In news:f4kj2f$p3$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org, Pete M wittered on forthwith;

Is the 180 bhp one the auto by any chance?

Autos were a 2.5, weren't they? - with only about 168bhp.