Recent content by anthonyj207

Looking V. Nice! Morrisons car park, Swansea.

Love the Engine, can not stand the look of the rear of the car! Now, if the engine would only fit in my Clio...

Got the Eagles for £80 a corner originally, fitted, balanced etc.. Second time round, got them for £65 a corner since they had been ordered by someone else and they had then cancelled the order. Ant.

Just on my second set of Goodyear Eagles now, great tyres! Get rid of the Contis!!!! Ant.

Hi, Valvers came in Phase I and Phase II original Clio shape. Engine 1764 (16V of course... ;)) 137Bhp @ 6500 158Nm @ 4250 Top speed 130 and 0-62 8.0 (many mags quote 7.7 to 60) Leather was an option, together with metallic or pearlescent paint, so was ABS. The colours were...

I cant believe this! Damaged my front splitter on a speed bump the other day. Ring Renault for a price - £104 + VAT?????????? WTF??????? Another hundred and I could buy a new ECU?????? Bugger! Ant.

Only grounded once due to a very steep, badly designed juction on some country lane. No probs otherwise...

OK :confused: Ant.

OK :confused: Ant.

I understand about the engines powerband but I always thought that the purpose of VVT was to provide a smooth transition, or best of both worlds between an engine that pulls well at low revs and a high revvin screamer. Ant.

Yes, but I thought that was a matter of a trade off between torque and better top end performance? My mate has had a set of racing cams fitted to his Rover and at low revs it is hard work to get going, but come 4500 it takes off like a rocket (due to the high lift cam profile). I dont know...

Im confused here, my valver had no VVT and youre right, at 4000ish RPM it came on cam and you had that lovely push and all hell broke loose. However, below 4000 it had very little go or torque. If the VVT does nothing, how come the 172 seems to have both the advantage of low down torque and...

I understand about the engines powerband but I always thought that the purpose of VVT was to provide a smooth transition, or best of both worlds between an engine that pulls well at low revs and a high revvin screamer. Ant.

Yes, but I thought that was a matter of a trade off between torque and better top end performance? My mate has had a set of racing cams fitted to his Rover and at low revs it is hard work to get going, but come 4500 it takes off like a rocket (due to the high lift cam profile). I dont know...

Im confused here, my valver had no VVT and youre right, at 4000ish RPM it came on cam and you had that lovely push and all hell broke loose. However, below 4000 it had very little go or torque. If the VVT does nothing, how come the 172 seems to have both the advantage of low down torque and...