davidwort

yep, a bit I guess.

It hasn't been done to deliberately increase compression, only a tiny amount as part of the general headwork if anything, this one has only been ported:

depends how much you skim, you can't go far because of the inlet valves. take a look at my cyl-head:

My Britax does, similar size, but it's a pain in the backside getting a little one into it, much easier to use the front seat, then you can raise the seat up as high as it will go and they get a great view! - wife gets put in the back.

It'll only need skimming if the head surface is warped and 16v's are a bit sensitive to skimming, in fact I think VW state the 16v head can't be skimmed, but you can probably get away with it. On my 1.8 engine the headgasket went between two cylinders and all it needed was a new gasket. I'd expact to pay: best part of half a days labour 20 quid for the headbolts approx 35 quid for the gasket set coolant 10 quid timing belt and tensionner 30 quid If you do it yourself you'd need a torque wrench and spline tool set and a straight edge to check the head for warping David.

Most batteries are sealed for life these days??? All you need on one you can top up is enough distilled water to cover the tops of the plates inside.

Have a go at adjusting them, all you need is a bit of grease and possibly a new split pin. Don't overtighten the nut though before putting the cap on and inserting the split pin, or you'll overheat the bearings. The washer should just move behind the nut given a gentle push with a screwdriver. David.

I'd check it from the connector on the sender to about 10cm back down the wiring, you can use a pin to make contact through the insulation at that point, the engine bay is the most likely area for problems. Other than that it's possible there is a problem with the electrics in the instrument cluster, but I'd follow all the wiring through first before trying new clocks.

Well the buzzer comes on if the sender isn't earthing through the engine, so any fault in the sender or wiring giving a high resistance could cause the buzzer to sound - or of course the sender working fine but the oil pressure not being minimum at 2,500 revs. As it's the 2,500 revs sender that seems to be the culprit here I'd check out the resistance in this wire, possibly replace the last 10cm or so and fit a new female connector. David.

Are you sure all the wiring is in good nick?, mine's shot at 15 years old and 140,000 miles, at least where it's more exposed.

The car in the front of the queue is probably a Rover with a blown head gasket :wink: K-Series, marvellous engine... with a 2 pint cooling system :roll:

Perhaps the Engine bay section of the Corrado Forum isn't the best place to get constructive advice for a Rover :wink:

if you get increased uplift, i.e. the back takes off, how's stiffer dampers going to help :wink: But since the back doesn't actually *take off* (it just goes light) improved damping may be what keeps the tyre on the ground better and prevents you going backwards into the armco.. You see where I was coming from? (I never said better damping increased the uplift ...)[/quote:2fb8f] sorry, just trying to be funny, perhaps I should borrow your sig.

if you get increased uplift, i.e. the back takes off, how's stiffer dampers going to help :wink: If you're really bored: Aerodynamic Considerations Aerodynamic factors, considered carefully, can improve many aspects of a vehicle. Some key aerodynamic considerations have been summarised here. [(vi) refers to Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design by R.H. Barnard] With an object moving through a fluid, the wake is extremely significant. When considering family vehicles, the nature of the vehicle’s rear, in three dimensions, can make the difference between a low or a high coefficient of drag (Cd). Improvements at the front can be made by ensuring the ‘front end is made as a smooth, continuous curve originating from the line of the front bumper’. On normal two and three box shapes, drag is often caused by high pressure just upstream of the front windscreen, ‘often with a separation bubble of recirculating air at the base of the screen’. The magnitude of this effect depends upon the windscreen ‘rake angle’. Making the screen more raked (ie. not as upright) ‘tends to reduce the pressure at the base of the screen, and to lower the drag’. However, much of this improvement arrives because a more sloped screen means a softer angle at the top where it meets the roof, keeping flow attached. Similar results can be achieved through a suitably curved roof. Design in plan as well as profile, is significant. ‘Curving the windscreen in plan view modifies the flow patterns considerably ... which reduces the extent and intensity of high pressure.’ The A-post is also an issue: ‘A strong outward cross-flow can occur towards the edges of the windscreen, tending to produce separated vortices around the A-posts.’ These effects can be minimised by smoothing the form of the A-post and increasing the curvature of both the A-post and the screen. Smoothing the transition from the body to door mirror is also significant as it can otherwise be a major source of drag and wind noise. At the rear of vehicles, the ideal format is a long and gradual slope. As this is not practical, it has been found that ‘raising and/or lengthening the boot generally reduces the drag”. Results of research state that drag due to rear slope angle will be at its ‘peak at 30º and minimum at around 10º’. Increasing the curvature of the roofline will also reduce the drag coefficient. Benefits are gained by bringing the roof line down at the front and rear. Simply ‘bulging the roofline up’ however, may cause such an increase in frontal area that any gains may be negated. In plan view, rounding corners and ‘all forward facing elements’ will reduce drag. Increases in curvature of the entire vehicle in plan will usually decrease drag provided that frontal area is not increased. ‘Tapering the rear in plan view’, usually from the rear wheel arch backwards, ‘can produce a significant reduction in drag’. Under the vehicle, a smooth surface is desirable as it can reduce both vehicle drag and surface friction drag. ‘For a body in moderate proximity to the ground, the ideal shape would have some curvature on the underside.’ In (vi), the author lists the following significant areas for thought when attempting to design a typical car (not a sports car or commercial vehicle): Smooth unbroken contours with favourable pressure gradients as far back as practical should be used. Strongly unfavourable pressure gradients at the rear should be avoided; some taper and rear end rounding should be used. The form should produce negligible lift. A If a hatchback configuration is required, the backlight angle should not be in the region of 30º, and if a notchback (saloon) is to be used, the effective slope angle (ie. the angle of a direct line between the roof and the highest, most rearward point) should also not be in the region of 30º. The underbody should be as smooth and continuous as possible, and should sweep up slightly at the rear, There should be no sharp angles (except where it is necessary to avoid cross-wind instability). The front end should start at a low stagnation line, and curve up in a continuous line. The front screen should be raked as much as is practical. All body panels should have a minimal gap. Glazing should be flush with the surface as much as possible. All details such as door handles should be smoothly integrated within the contours. Excrescences should be avoided as far as possible; windscreen wipers should park out of the airflow. Minor items such as wheel trims and wing mirrors should be optimised using wind-tunnel testing. The cooling system needs to be designed for low drag. Although aerodynamic concerns are not as strong in this vehicle as they may be in a sports car, for example, the basic principles outlined here should be observed throughout the design process. Energy efficiency can be improved with low drag and low levels of wind noise improve passenger comfort. Source: http://www.cardesignonline.com/design/a ... amics2.php

:? not on mine, it will go down, but pops back up if you let go of the switch, perhaps a trait of the early control modules???

I guess you can check the contacts across with a multimeter, with and without water across the terminals in the tank. Don't think the tanks are much new, and there always seems to be one spare kicking around in someones garage on here, try a wanted ad. David.

could well be... you'll then need a new header tank as the sensor is moulded into it.

I wouldn't recommend holding the button in the down position to keep it retracted to see how unstable it feels at high speed, perhaps it's best to let someone else reach over and hold it :oops:

senders are cheap and easy to replace, loads of VW's have them so a scrap yard would do, failing that new from GSF. Check the connectors and wiring are not damaged , they're prone to corrosion as they're so exposed to heat and salt spray where they are. Don't risk siezing your engine though, if you can't fix the problem with the wiring or senders then get a pressure check done by a garage. I've had the odd intermittent beep from my dash, when the car is cold, but I know everything is fine as the oil pressure gauge I have reads perfectly, it's the old wiring on mine creating a really high resistance I reckon. David.

:shock: wish I could get 75mpg, must reduce drag a fair bit on your motor :lol:

yeah, but my 1990 raises at 55 and it hasn't had any replacement spoiler units or anything, all original bits :? David.

55mph actually :wink: unless my speedo is seriously overreading, I think it's the later cars that had a 45mph setting. Also, it's probably been discussed in loads of places before, but I'm pretty sure the spoiler is intended to reduce the aerofoil effect of the car body shape at speed, which will make the car feel light and unstable, admittedly you'll need to be doing well over the UK speed limit to get that effect, but the C was intended for the autobahn and not British roads, and don't forget what happened to the spoiler-less TT's when they first came out. David.

the early 16v's have an idler pulley that deflects the alternator belt around the waterpump, it has two sections to provide 'slip' against the speed of the water pumps actual drive belt (the PS belt too, inner one). These things are notoriously crap and the bearing surface breaks up, they often chatter and rattle at certain temps and revs but the worst that can happen is your alternator belt comes off. I've never actually heard of them failing altogether though. The later 16v's have a better arrangement of pulleys that avoids the need for this one, you'd need all the pulleys and belts off a 2.0L 16v or a very late 1.816v to make the swap though. The intermediate shaft does not have V-belt pulleys on it and it's hidden inside the timing belt cover, I think you're referring to the water pump pulleys. Also, if you're referrring to the crank shaft v-belt pulleys, the large one has a damper built into it, but it's solid bonded rubber and rarely fails, my 15yr old one is fine although I've heard of a 2L 8v one that went. David.

yep, part is the same for all early C's up to chassis no. 50-S-000 051, part no. 357 412 329 also fits: golf 2's from 86 small engined golf 3's to 95 passats from 88-93 after that all C's use the later type mount 357 412 331 A as used on mk3 golfs including 2L 8 and 16v

it's just a rectangular fixing in a rectangular hole in the tailgate frame, if you just keep turning beyond 90 degrees with a screwdriver you'll just chew them up.