Yandards

Yeah I think this was them Furk

Checked all the torque loadings on the subframe and suspension bits on the front, with the cars weight on its wheels. Discovered the front subframe to car big bolt (Not the one that you access through the wishbone, but the one that holds that rear wishbone bush in) was around 1 and half turns lose from its torque of 130nm. This was a new bolt (along with all the others) that were changed when I did my suspension upgrades/rebushing about 2 years ago but only around 8k mileage wise. I am wondering if the load was correct when fitted by due to the car being on axle stands and the droop caused by the wishbones loading the bush you get a false torque load? Is this where the clunk noise is coming from? None of the other bolts had come loose either....

As the heaviest a rado can weigh is around 1500kg, at 82 you can have an overall vehicle load of around 2000kg so 82 should be fine.

Swapped out the 16v/G60 H&R springs for VR ones(after much research these are a better combo of spring and damper) and also fitted the earlier type of VR top mount assembly to the front. Riding much much nicer now and lost the teeth juddering crash that you get from using the 16v/G60 top mounts. Checked all the torque loadings on the subframe and suspension bits on the front, with the cars weight on its wheels. Discovered the front subframe to car big bolt (Not the one that you access through the wishbone, but the one that holds that rear wishbone bush in) was around 1 and half turns lose from its torque of 130nm. This was a new bolt (along with all the others) that were changed when I did my suspension upgrades/rebushing about 2 years ago but only around 8k mileage wise. I am wondering if the load was correct when fitted by due to the car being on axle stands and the droop caused by the wishbones loading the bush you get a false torque load? Is this where the clunk noise is coming from? None of the other bolts had come loose either....

Urgh. looks more like snake skin than paint. You got a link to what/where this is from Furk'z?

Damn you would spend a lot of time polishing that! Love the modified truck for transport as well.

Looks sweet - need some way bigger brake discs though :wink:

Yeah, get a boost gauge fitted and just try different size pulleys :)

There is a hell of a lot maths/physics involved with working out what you would like. The problem is the number of factors involved, as you stick a smaller pulley on you will still be using the same size inlet to the 'charger so the airflow has to increase in speed through the pipework to compensate (That venturi chap strikes again) This will increase tubulence, air temperature etc and so as Dr. Mat has already said this will result in a non-linear output for a set pulley size change. Then there are factors like back pressure in the system, inlet air temp increases (both pre and post charge) will all effect the level of boost achieveable. The problem being is that it is difficult to calculate the point at which a reduction in pulley size will result in little boost being generated due to a lack of hard maths on the factors mentioned above. :?

:pukeright:

Boo, no soul to that engine.

Exactly. It also states in the blue book of much info that you must loosen the bolts of all the mounts and rock the engine to ensure a 'stress free install' You need to undo the following: Front mount where it attaches to the engine bracket top single nut. Front mount where it attaches to the crossmember both bolts. Gearbox mount the top nut. Gearbox mount the two smaller bolts that hold it into the subframe. Rear engine mount just the two bolts that are at a 45 degree angle from underneath the car through the subframe. Try and rock it around and then do them up in the same sequence.

Check out the kb to look for 'How to things' Link to boost article is here: http://www.the-corrado.net/wiki/index.php/G60_boot_pressure_check

duff link for me

Thanks for meeting my expectations Dom :wink: :roll:

256mm to 280 is a good upgrade for a valver, can definitely feel the difference when driving mine and then jumping into 2cc's 16v. As for the other popular conversion of 280 to 288's I don't know - the calipers on the 288's are much larger compared to the 280's but it is only another 8mm of material to grab as opposed to 24mm jump for 256 to 280. Have to see what 2cc's are like if he finally gets around to fitting them.. :wink: Most people would get a benefit from a good brake bleed on here, after changing Nick's last year when it had been 'dealer' serviced only a couple of months before I think the previous owner was taken for some cash.

Your bound to cave in to the temptation to 'just see what they are like' as well.. :wink:

True but my point still stands when people fit drilled/grooved discs to their OE setup. Like suspension which pads are 'best' is subject to having tried more than one set and your memory of what your other pads were like when new.

You should have to go some on the brakes to get fade, although most people seem to forget that by fitting larger rims you will screw the effectivness of your brakes up. (Usually a heavier wheel and all the rotating mass is an inch furthur out than it was before(on 16's); hence brakes have to work harder to stop the car) I run greenstuff all round on my car and I have to say I have been bery happy with them. I am using the more recent compound, not the earlier stuff and I have a good progressive pedal with plenty of bite - I can lock the wheels in the wet with out trying too hard. As for drilled and grooved discs there was a school of thought that these are a waste of time unless you have a track day car. All the grooves/holes do is allow hot gases to escape when breaking hard and frequently. By putting holes and grooves on your discs you will lose braking surface area. Again if you are running bigger rims on standard brakes these will be of benefit to you, or just use this an excuse to spend some money on bigger brakes... :wink:

I think they are now owned by daimler crylser group, and as such build quality has suffered - but you don't want to mention the last part!!

OK here it is: 16v /G60 track at unladen weight* 1439mm front 1432mm rear (Riding on 6 1/2J x 15 ET 33) VR6 track at unladen weight* 1450mm front 1432 rear (Riding on 6 1/2J x 15 ET 43) *Unladen weight is empty fuel tank, no tools, no jack and no spare wheel. The VR has a turning circle of 11m and the 16v/G60 10.5m Both cars have the same wheelbase of 2475mm and a ground clearance at GWV(Gross vehicle weight) of 129mm. Hope that answer that one! The reason the VR is wider at the front is due to bigger wishbones.

Sounds good Henny, loking forward to seeing her on the rollers at Stealth.

Nice, good to see another press car.

Just over 2 years now. Bit of a long term thing with the amount I have spent on the engine so far..

Tightened up my offside inner cv joint as it had manged to come loose and was just about to spit its dummy out. (Good job I had a good nosey around it on the ramp!!)