Search results

I work on behalf of almost every major insurer in the UK, here are some interesting facts: 1. Only a broker makes money from car insurance, not the underwriter themselves. Aviva (who own Norwich Union) make a loss on motor insurance every year, for them it's nothing more than a route to...

The sad thing is, the Clio isn't half-bad, but when you read some of the biased posts that are regularly on here (and indeed EVERY other forum), it isn't hard to see why others with an open mind find it so amusing. If I think of all the other forums I've been on, those members that have the...

Frank 'Davros' Williams ran out of talent in a hire car (an XR4i I think), in 1986, whilst on his way back from Paul Ricard. Regards

A friend of mine used to work for Jordan F1, they'd have regular sales like this and it was for no other reason than to make money. Regards

Torque bias changed between the 8v and 16v (which had identical bodies), but it remained constant between the 16v and Evo1 (the Evo1 having the wider front/rear track, different body). 8v - 56% front, 44% rear. 16v - 47% front, 53% rear. Evo 1 - 47% to front, 53% rear. Incidentally, Lancia...

Stu is generally always spot-on, and with regards to the wider track (which appeared first on the Evo1), he's right again! :D Regards

I'm simply lost for words.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of suspension/car set-up would clearly see that your argument has little or no merit. Regards

I'm confused now - my comparison proves that having additional weight isn't necessarily detrimental to the handling provided the issue of suspension is addressed. If you need to apply the concept to a hatch, look at the additional 300kg Lancia put over the front axle of the Delta, didn't stop...

The point was that the additional weight isn't a serious enough factor to prevent the conversion from being done. Lancia put an extra 300kg over the front axle on the Delta shell to make the Integrale; won the WRC title 6 years in a row. Point proven? :D

The WRX has far less understeer than the standard NA simply due to it having far better suspension - there's no magical formula, it's as simple as that. As much as the Clio may be nose heavy, it would also be more planted too. Regards

Designed to be faster and better handling; how? They ALL have the same chassis as their slower counterpart, the only difference, with regards to handling, is the suspension they have. Regards

Your argument doesn't work as the Subaru WRX and Subaru NA are equal constants; they have the same boot, the same 4wd, yet the heavier car does not handle worse than the lighter car. WRX out-handles the 2.0 sport, despite being heavier. M5 out-handles the 540i, despite being heavier. Focus RS...

I disagree - it's no different to a Subaru WRX and a standard 2.0 NA; by virtue of the fact that the WRX is 65kg heavier, it should handle worse due to the additional weight? Alternatively, more suitable suspension is used. Regards

On a turbo-charged car; easily.

The Megane wouldn't even compete with a bog standard Mitsi, nevermind an FQ400. Interestingly, and as is normally the case on 'versus' style posts, people talk only about straight-line, almost no one has mentioned the most important point; handling. I've driven the Megane and it's still too...

If you're serious, PM me, I have a friend that works for a well-known car audio manufacturer and consequently I can get ridiculous discounts; £800 worth of headunit, amps, speakers, components and sub cost me less than £500. He's good friends with the development engineers so they can advise...

"... If i were to spen my days doing easy step tuning on turbos, slapping on boost controllers and sending them off again, i'd literally run into a wall headfirst." I don't see why it should be so difficult, compared to an NA engine. Mapping is probably harder on a FI engine as although the...

I'm on the phone to Reuters as we speak! MSport will be kicking themselves for having missed that trick? ;)

I'll bet an awful lot of money that a twin-exit box will have made NO increase on power whatsoever. Imagine this concept; WRC cars normally run 2.5" exhausts, single tail, and even the group 'B' cars didn't run much over 3". Regards

Hi I'd go for the narrowest section you can get on the fronts, probably 165, and 185 on the rear. If you call someone like Dom Buckley they'll probably have decent quality 2nd user Colways that'd be ideal, those are the preferred choice for most rally drivers on a budget. If you don't mind...

In terms of tuning, it's far cheaper to tune an FI than an NA, you have more bhp/lbft per CC pro rata, the torque is produced further down the rev-range, and consequently they're quicker; isn't that what everyone is after when they're tuning their vehicle - more useable power? The only...

I'll assume RR are telling the truth, but in any case it'd be the same for most modern generation FI engines, but their engine is producing 230lb/ft at 5k rpm, with a maximum level of 250lb/ft; I stand to be corrected, I'm only going on what I know of NA engines generically, but I can't see how...

Fair point, but I'd disagree, especially in the context of any engine that uses variable valve timing. A well set-up FI engine would be producing boost at 2.5k rpm, long before any VVT engine would be anywhere near it's power band. Better throttle response and pick-up from an NA, but ultimately...

You'll easily see another 25-30bhp loss through the 4wd, and whilst you may have more grip (it's not a giver, it all depends on the donor) you'll need to spend another £2k on finding the extra 30bhp from your engine. Regards

Tell me about it!!! At the 'infamous' Donny trackday (in joke for us :D ) I went through an entire bottle in one session, and my bottle was the biggest they could fit, it's the size of a fire extinguisher. It has to be £100+ to fill it, which I haven't done yet, so in the long term I think it's...

I'm told that the original design for that V6 belongs to Citroen and not Peugeot. It's probably one of the finest V6 engines in production, my 406 V6 coupe was easily one of the best cars I've owned. I'm determined to fit that engine in something else, even if it kills me!! :D Regards

It's easy: 1. 205 Mi16 with (167bhp+50bhp) 227bhp, weighing 960kg = 236bhp per tonne 2. M3 with 320bhp, weighing 1500kg = 213bhp per tonne By the way, I don't come from a background of having just had souped-up small cars (Stu8v will confer), I've also had an M3, E39 M5, 911 GT3, 30+...

Simple, and for the same reason it was done in the 205 (although I can only assume that the conversion you saw was poorly executed): The 3.0 V6 is easily tuneable to 260-280bhp, with relatively simple modifications, and so clearly the P2W ratio would be considerably higher than the 172. In...

They use the 406 box, and although it's tight, it does go in. The biggest 'moan' is that it's 40kg heavier than the Mi16 engine, which isn't the end of the world. Is it a case of someone having tried it, and failed, or is this just general concencus? Regards