White2505

It may not have stopped the 400 from speeding BUT it has slowed down the majority of traffic travelling through that set of roadworks that otherwise may have ignored the speed limit set to protect the people working on that stretch of road. How many people travelled through that stretch of M5 in an hour? must have been thousands. You sort of have to think those 400 that were caught deserve worse than they got, afterall its not like roadworks with speed limits on motorways are inadequately signed up prior to the camera and the signs these days also tend to say the speed has been reduced to protect the workforce! Can those 400 people's journey really have been more important than the safety of those people working on the road?

H8rra, pious and condescending? well thats your opinion I guess my opinion is they are big, they are flourescent yellow and very easy to see. if you apply the basic fundamentals of the highway code, i.e. looking further ahead than the car in front off you and leaving sufficient distance between you and the vehicle in front that you can brake to a halt in the distance you can see to be clear ahead of you then you should'nt get caught out. Still I guess adhering to the highway code is condescending? if you dont speed you should'nt get caught out. is asking you to adhere to the law condescending? I have no issue with cameras being funded by those that break the law. is having my own opinion condescending?? How many accidents can you actually document as being caused by a camera?? As previously stated I have responded to thoughts/opinions put on here by other people within this thread, I have replied with thoughts of my own. If you dont like people disagreeing with your point of view and then discussing it on a forum designed for the purpose you may have somewhat missed the point of why we are here.

H8rra have you read the enitre thread? the points I make are in relation to points raised in other posts by people within this thread. The simple answer imo is NO cameras do not cause accidents, the decisions made by drivers prior to and upon seeing the cameras could do. Is this the fault of the camera or the drivers of the vehicle! you would have appeared to have misunderstood my point about speeding. We all know almost everybody speeds to some degree even if its just nicking a few miles an hour over the limit. I point out speeding is a choice you decide to make. This can be either through deliberate action (putting your foot down) or through inaction (allowing your speed to increase while running downhill instead of using the brakes or changing down a gear to limit your speed). I make the point that most of us know where the cameras are in our local area, even the ones other people in this thread have claimed (possibly accurately) are deliberately hidden. I point out that if you speed in an area you are unfamiliar with you cannot mank about the fact you were caught because you chose to break the speed limit in an area that is unfamiliar to you.

Speed cameras, that'll be those large flourescent yellow things on the side of the road, if you're not scanning far enough ahead to see them you pretty much deserve to get caught. (we can all give examples of cameras where they are somewhat obscured by local features) if you are'nt local and don't already know where these are you have no right to be speeding in an unknown area and then gripe about getting caught afterwards. For many of those with the knee jerk reaction to the yellow box its a combination of not looking far enough ahead and being a habitual speeder. Afterall if youre hitting your brakes hard enough that the vehicle behind you runs into the back of you you have to question how much over the speed limit where you travelling when you approaching the speed camera?? The car behind you is so close they'll hit you if you brake..... you should be travelling slower then not faster, they'll either back off, overtake you or continue to tailgate you but at least if they do hit you it will be at a slower speed and offer less chance of serious injury to those involved. Frustrating as the damaged car is it's still better than being maimed or killed. Cameras are there to make money...... so what! can you think of any other law enforcement system paid for by the offender rather than the general public??....... stick two fingers up at the government money grabbers by sticking to the speed limit, it aint rocket science. If you do get caught it's no good manking about it, afterall you had the choice whether to exceed the limit or not.

9a block is 15mm taller than kr so a little "persuasion" should have seen it in I'd have thought.

if I remember correctly the vdo part number is 360-006 I dont remember whether it was volksbits or vagparts.com or one of the others but somebody had plenty of stock just before christmas.

using 2423lbs as the unladed weight plus another 100 lbs for the driver and a standing 1/4 of 14 seconds gives 182hp so whose done a standing 1/4 recently AND had their car dyno'd?

google is my friend http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm will calculate based on 1/4 mile time or final speed on 1/4 mile run of course this all depends on your launch technique etc would be interesting to see if there was a way of using this type of formula whilst accelrating from say 20mph to 60 mph without the need to change gear. this would remove the constraints of traction loss off the line,differences in gear changes on multiple runs etc. All hypothetical stuff but good for a laugh in nothing else!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... %3AIT&rd=1 ebay link for the g-tech unit although there are several different ones out there. frankly if you knew the equation they used for working it out you could do it yourself with nothing more than a £3 stopwatch. like i said probably woefully inaccurate but an amusing way to spend 1/2 hour in the car ragging up and down a quiet straight back road!

Saw one of these gadgets you fit onto the windscreen of your car. it measures your 0-60 , standing 1/4 and (if you input the cars weight) somehow gives a hp figure. there are NO connections to the car other than power. What equation are they using to give a hp figure? I realise it is going to be inaccurate (they quote +/- 1%) but I am intrigued at how they think they can work it out with time and car weight only

So two questions here No1: abf 2.0 bottom end, standard 1800 kr 16v head, K&N panel filter, tubular exhaust manifold to miltek full exhaust system. What sort of power should I bee seeing from this set-up. No2: so if I have understood correctly from other threads. the best the 16v engine is producing in non turbo/supercharged form on here seems to be around the 160-170 mark. so what thoughts are there on how to exceed the theoretical 170bhp barrier without going full out engine management and turbo/supercharger. i'm not after a 350bhp firebreather just interested in maximising the potential of the existing set-up

thanks Matth76, have decided to fit a 2.0 complete bottom end to my kr head, this combined with a few other tweeks should give me a healthy power figure and plenty of grin factor!

Much like the corrado, she tempremental and also leaves me skint and broken ;) could'nt sell the corrado and would'nt DARE sell the missus...... you can see who wears the trousers in our house!

really need to get just the bottom end as mine is in the gargae in bits currently and the missus would go spare if I brought another car home.... especially if I started stripping it on the drive!

nice one thanks for the help guys, am definately on the look out for a 2.0l bottom end now so i can get my c back on the road

cool, seems daft spending money on my goosed 1.8 bottom end when I can have a definate 2.0l. just gotta find a bottom end for sensible money. disappears to wanted section!

so, If I have read all the searched material correctly I can bolt my kr head and other ancillaries straight onto an abf or 9a bottom end for instant 2.0l appeal, power and torque? sweet!

so if I read right. to take a 1.8 kr to a 2 litre I need a crank and conrods from a 9a engine? are these rare as rocking horse **** or are they readily available? if so where from?

yep, 4-2-1 not sure what the rebuild will cost yet as I have not had the full story on how goosed my bottom end is yet. all I know for certain currently is the number one bearing shell disintegrated taking the journal out on the crank. the pistons look okay but the rest is in the hands of the engineering guy.

unfortuanetly number 1 big end bearing went damaging the crank beyond repair. The engine is stripped and with an engineering company currently to assess the existing known damage and whether there is anything I have'nt spotted. rebuild and refit is unlikely to be until week 1 or 2 of January. shiny bits sat in the shed and no car to fit them on :( will update once its sorted though

Okay, the close ups of the welds are not as clear as I'd like (still trying to work out the damn camera) but here you go:-

Well the manifold turned up today and it looked very nice indeed, good quality welds etc. won't know what the fit is like for a couple of weeks as the block is still at the engineering company after it went bang! will let you know but at the moment it looks like a good deal for £150

its a fiddle! the plate should slide towards the nearside to clear the mounting lugs then with judicious wiggling you should be able to pull it from underneath the scuttle. make sure you disconnect all the cables first as this makes it much easier.

I have a spare ignition amplifier from a 1.8 16v. pm me if youre interested.

once my engine has been put back together after the big end failure I should be 2.0L with 42mm inlet, k&n, milltek system with supersprint type manifold, drilled airbox and mercedes injectors. figure I'll throw it at stealth for some RR time and see what the old girl gives us power wise. After the last attempt it can only get better!!