Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 137 of 137

Thread: Quiz : Hello John, Got a new motor ?

  1. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chelmsford,Essex
    Posts
    24,155
    Rides
    0
    So, I managed to get her washed and dried and took some pics...



    Sexiest arse available on a car IMO









    Even the wheels are supercharged lol


  2. #122
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Wherever I run out of petrol!
    Posts
    14,343
    Rides
    0
    It look stunning JW.

    The only thing I didnt like about my old mans when he had his and its a shame its still the same all these yrs on is the seat adjustment controls cluttering up the door like that.

  3. #123
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    11,105
    Rides
    0
    Alloy body with a steel X-member under the floor to stop it sagging in the middle. F-types have had that X-member replaced under warranty. https://jec.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12343

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Wilkinson View Post
    I didn't modify my 200 until I had had it 7 years.
    I've had my Aprilia 5 years and only fitted a smoked screen
    Quote Originally Posted by arry View Post
    I fitted a smoke screen to my S13 after about 2 months of ownership
    2 years ago I went shopping while my MOT was done. I walked back into the test shed to find the tester playing at WWII destroyers after the command "make smoke". He had a new test machine that insisted on doing the BET test (as they should) before doing a non cat test. The one way valve trick worked at idle but didn't do anything at 2000 rpm. He told me I needed a new engine, I swapped the turbo.

  4. #124
    Engine Builder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Bas Vegas
    Posts
    93,116
    Rides
    0
    Awesome, let me know if you want get some photos of it
    Quote Originally Posted by silverzx View Post
    I like Mark, he seems fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slip_n_slide View Post
    Mark is right.

  5. #125
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK . . . . . . . . . . . Power: .. ..... . 361bhp
    Posts
    4,356
    Rides
    0
    That's a nice looking ride, or am I just getting old?

  6. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chelmsford,Essex
    Posts
    24,155
    Rides
    0
    And economical too...



    Oddly, I was getting 27.2 mpg at 72 mph but 28.3 mpg cruising at 80 mph (some of it was M25 in rush hour so 0-40 mph for 80 miles).

    Just for reference, this is 3 mpg better than I was getting doing the same journey in the Subaru

  7. #127
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chelmsford,Essex
    Posts
    24,155
    Rides
    0
    Also, I was thinking that it has a lot in common with the S13.

    Sleek fastback shape, RWD, forced induction, 2+2, GT car.

    I think it is a fitting replacement for Precious and I'm smitten

  8. #128
    Oor Willy sideways14a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    In cloud Cucold land
    Posts
    34,382
    Rides
    0
    That looks quite nice, although i wouldn't have washed it for fear of it breaking

  9. #129
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    11,105
    Rides
    0
    (80/72)^3 = 1.37 so 80mph requires 37% more power than at 72mph. Better mileage at 80mph v's 72mph would mean the engine is running at much more efficient load point on BSFC map.
    https://x-engineer.org/automotive-en...sumption-bsfc/

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Wilkinson View Post
    Also, I was thinking that it has a lot in common with the S13.

    Sleek fastback shape, RWD, forced induction, 2+2, GT car.

    I think it is a fitting replacement for Precious and I'm smitten
    Can you really get someone in the back seats?

    Like someone that finds the rear seat of a 2+2 coupe is so spacious that next weekend he tries to get his aunt in the back of his "2+2" Audi TT?

  10. #130
    Engine Builder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Bas Vegas
    Posts
    93,116
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Wilkinson View Post
    Also, I was thinking that it has a lot in common with the S13.

    Sleek fastback shape, RWD, forced induction, 2+2, GT car.

    I think it is a fitting replacement for Precious and I'm smitten
    Oh no, you are not getting away with that

    When I compared my Mustang to a S14a you said I was talking bollox as it was too lardy and now you compare a Jag to a S13
    Quote Originally Posted by silverzx View Post
    I like Mark, he seems fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slip_n_slide View Post
    Mark is right.

  11. #131
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chelmsford,Essex
    Posts
    24,155
    Rides
    0
    I wasn't comparing them just saying they have important (for me) similarities that might explain why I'm enjoying it as much as I loved having my S13.

  12. #132
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    11,105
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Oh no, you are not getting away with that

    When I compared my Mustang to a S14a you said I was talking bollox as it was too lardy and now you compare a Jag to a S13
    Mustang just like all BMW coupes (E31 excepted) is a 2 door saloon, just park it next to a S14 the difference is an easy to see 3". Not so easy to see 1" height difference on a big long car like a XKR. Mustang has a higher "saloon" roof line 54.8" than 910 Bluebird hardtop coupe 54.5" (also pillar less) but that's no S14 either. Nissan did try, 910 saloon had 55.1" roof height. So frankly the Mustang is much more a Bluebird 910 hardtop coupe with a big engine (Ok in 1981 the 910 hardtop coupe was like a wannabe Mustang with a little baby engine).

    Classic air cooled Porsche 911 set the benchmark for "sports coupe" at 50". They exceeded it at 52" when 911 went water cooled. But the more you pay and more hardcore the spec the lower they get, so some are now down to 50".

    S13 and S14 just need a 20mm drop to hit that benchmark 50".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Wilkinson View Post
    I wasn't comparing them just saying they have important (for me) similarities that might explain why I'm enjoying it as much as I loved having my S13.
    Just re-scaled a bit, mainly bonnet length. Something has to give and I think it's the back seats lose leg room like an Audi TT. When you get a 2 door saloon you can be reasonably sure that you get back seats with leg room, once you drop below 54" like a "sports coupe" back seats become a lottery.

    There are other factors to "sports coupe" styling. 2nd to roof height is the flank height at front wheel arch to peak of bonnet in line with front axle. The XKR X150 is razor sharp like the S13/14 while the Stang and (most [1]) BMW 2+2 coupes show yet again that they are 2 door saloons. Again Porsche set the benchmark with ease as without an engine the wing height is set by headlamps and scuttle.

    The devil is in the detail. A sports coupe has to be low and sleek. S13/14, 911,and XKR tick the boxes, Stang and BMWs don't, they are high performance 2 door saloons.

    [1] There was one that was nearly quite sharp but as they had all badges removed I was never able to ID it. It may have been a 2 door 5 series but I wouldn't know.

  13. #133
    Member arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    64,014
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skyshack View Post
    Classic air cooled Porsche 911 set the benchmark for "sports coupe" at 50". They exceeded it at 52" when 911 went water cooled. But the more you pay and more hardcore the spec the lower they get, so some are now down to 50".
    Not according to most sources - there was naff all difference between the classic and the 996 first generation of water cooled in respect of roof height.

    Wiki says 51.4in for even the cooking models of the 996
    Wiki says 51.2in to 51.6in for the classic
    Other sources are available - 996 in at 1305mm = 51.37in
    and the classic in at 51.97

    Not that it's in any way relevant, TBH

    Quote Originally Posted by skyshack View Post
    S13 and S14 just need a 20mm drop to hit that benchmark 50".
    The S15 needs a bit more at 25mm - what a POS that is compared eh.

  14. #134
    Engine Builder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Bas Vegas
    Posts
    93,116
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skyshack View Post
    Mustang just like all BMW coupes (E31 excepted) is a 2 door saloon, just park it next to a S14 the difference is an easy to see 3". Not so easy to see 1" height difference on a big long car like a XKR. Mustang has a higher "saloon" roof line 54.8" than 910 Bluebird hardtop coupe 54.5" (also pillar less) but that's no S14 either. Nissan did try, 910 saloon had 55.1" roof height. So frankly the Mustang is much more a Bluebird 910 hardtop coupe with a big engine (Ok in 1981 the 910 hardtop coupe was like a wannabe Mustang with a little baby engine).

    Classic air cooled Porsche 911 set the benchmark for "sports coupe" at 50". They exceeded it at 52" when 911 went water cooled. But the more you pay and more hardcore the spec the lower they get, so some are now down to 50".

    S13 and S14 just need a 20mm drop to hit that benchmark 50".



    Just re-scaled a bit, mainly bonnet length. Something has to give and I think it's the back seats lose leg room like an Audi TT. When you get a 2 door saloon you can be reasonably sure that you get back seats with leg room, once you drop below 54" like a "sports coupe" back seats become a lottery.

    There are other factors to "sports coupe" styling. 2nd to roof height is the flank height at front wheel arch to peak of bonnet in line with front axle. The XKR X150 is razor sharp like the S13/14 while the Stang and (most [1]) BMW 2+2 coupes show yet again that they are 2 door saloons. Again Porsche set the benchmark with ease as without an engine the wing height is set by headlamps and scuttle.

    The devil is in the detail. A sports coupe has to be low and sleek. S13/14, 911,and XKR tick the boxes, Stang and BMWs don't, they are high performance 2 door saloons.

    [1] There was one that was nearly quite sharp but as they had all badges removed I was never able to ID it. It may have been a 2 door 5 series but I wouldn't know.
    What a complete and utter load of bollox
    Quote Originally Posted by silverzx View Post
    I like Mark, he seems fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slip_n_slide View Post
    Mark is right.

  15. #135
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chelmsford,Essex
    Posts
    24,155
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    What a complete and utter load of bollox
    Very strong engineering-biased response, Mark.

    I particularly liked the way you systematically and thoughtfully refuted each of his reasoned arguments in true SXOC style

  16. #136
    Engine Builder Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Bas Vegas
    Posts
    93,116
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by silverzx View Post
    I like Mark, he seems fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slip_n_slide View Post
    Mark is right.

  17. #137
    muppet Dr Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Doune
    Posts
    8,723
    Rides
    0
    Late to the party I know but strong work JW Best colour as well

    All the best with it

    My XFR is coming up for service and MOT next week. Already clenching
    power-crazed Head-Mod

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •