Car modifications

Car Modifications Talks Archive

A-E | E-M | M-S | S-Z

1st page | 2nd page | 3rd page | 4th page | 5th page | 6th page | 7th page | 8th page | 9th page | 10th page | 11th page | 12th page





Subject:
Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting

From: "DervMan" <dervman(at)ntlworld.com>

Subject: Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting

Lines: 40

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:13:13 GMT

NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.0.53.182

_______________________________________











"AstraVanMan" <Peter(at)Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xlyre.14422$jS3.12667(at)newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

>> We`re not seriously arguing that the Sei/Cinq Sporting isn`t slow are we?

>> `Cos lets face it, if its fast, then so is Dervy`s Ka, and i for one am

>> NEVER going to say that, unless he gets a 2.0 ZVH Turbo in there ;)

>

> ZVH. What a mad idea that was. You`ve got a Zetec engine, a reasonably

> good, rev-happy engine, so you take the 16 valve head off it, and put a

> CVH head, known for lots of problems like valve guides going, etc etc.

> Okaaay.



Well, the Zetec-E isn`t especially rev happy. It`s arguably better than a

CVH, but not really by much. The Zetec-SE is much rev happier (at least

apart from the detuned 1.4 used in the current Fiesta and older generation

Focus).



> Seriously, what *is* the attraction in doing that? Is it the extra

> low-down torque that the 8-valve CVH head provides? Is it worth the

> sacrifice?



It`s because the CVH is easily tuned, either atmo or turbo, whereas the

Zetec-E isn`t. But the Zetec-E has a very strong bottom end. This means

you can produce more power with greater reliability.



> Having said all that, I`ve had a couple of 1.3CVH Escorts, and I was

> always quite impressed with them, compared to the 1.3 OHVs I`d previously

> had - they had hydraulic tappets for one, and did seem a lot more modern,

> smooth and refined. In comparison, like.



The later CVH engines were much better. Sadly the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 are not

compatible (as I understand). The 1.8 has a totally different design, but

later CVH 1.8 Sierras are much better than earlier machines.



They`re also cheap to fix.



--

The DervMan

www.dervman.com













Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting
GO >>>

From: "DervMan" <dervman(at)ntlworld.com>

Subject: Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting

Lines: 67

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:16:16 GMT

NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.0.53.182

_______________________________________











"Ronny" <ronny(at)nospamfsplanes.net> wrote in message

news:TqednZTbFOy_ETPfRVnyhQ(at)pipex.net...

> DervMan wrote:

>> "Me" <no.0ne(at)nowhere.com> wrote in message

>> news:9mire.601873$Ge2.500631(at)fe03.news.easynews.com...

>>> Took the missus car for an MOT the other day and can anyone tell me

>>> how this car is known as a "Sporting", I think a moped would have a

>>> better 0 to 60 time and everyone tries to intimidate you when you

>>> drive them too!

>>

>>

>> Please ignore the helpful advice on making one faster, it doesn`t

>> work, it`s still slow in a straight line...

>>

>> ...but that`s not the point. The Cinquecento (and Siecento) are all

>> about the package. They have a great buzzy little FIRE engine and a

>> nice grippy feeling. In isolation or compared to most of their

>> peers, they _feel_ quicker.

>>

>> For the young, the Italian (probably) or those seeking good value, it

>> works.

>>

>> I like them. Would I have another Siecento or Cinquecento? I prefer

>> the Cinquecento - Fiat rubbed out the hard edges of the Cinq when

>> they made the Sie, the ride is a bit softer and it generaly doesn`t

>> work quite as well.

>>

>> Annoyingly for Fiat, Ford produced a sub-B car that trades punches in

>> the performance stakes, goes around corners even better, uses more

>> petrol, has a longer service interval and sits in a cheaper insurance

>> bracket - oh and sold stacks more.

>

> If you want a fun small car like that, try a VW Lupo GTI or the Seat

> Arosa,

> much more fun, better engines, decent specs.



Hmm. Aye perhaps - except back in 1995 the Arosa or Lupo wasn`t out.



But to be fair the GTI is missing the point. The Cinquecento took the small

car concept and proved that you don`t have to have a 1.6 125 PS donk and

stiff suspension to have a laugh. They`re not meant to be quick cars, only

feel quick.



The best thing about the Cinquecento Sporting is that you can cane it

10/10th of its abilities and still spend the majority of the time inside the

speed limits.



> This review made me laugh :)

>

> "Only the 1.1 petrol is still on sale. Fun round town, stretched out of it

> and overtaking needs forward planning and a note from your mum. Avoid the

> Citymatic gearbox"



:)



> Reminds me of Alan Partridge when he phones his wife, and tells her about

> her husband Renault Megane review in top gear magazine "Over taking

> national

> express coaches can be a long a drawn out affair" :)



Hehehe.



--

The DervMan

www.dervman.com










Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting
GO >>>

From: "DervMan" <dervman(at)ntlworld.com>

Subject: Re: Fiat Sceicento Sporting

Lines: 113

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:30:53 GMT

NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.0.53.182

_______________________________________











"SteveH" <steve(at)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message

news:1gy5tnw.1syq1jrb1jh4nN%steve(at)italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan <dervman(at)ntlworld.com> wrote:

>

>> "Me" <no.0ne(at)nowhere.com> wrote in message

>> news:9mire.601873$Ge2.500631(at)fe03.news.easynews.com...

>> > Took the missus car for an MOT the other day and can anyone tell me how

>> > this car is known as a "Sporting", I think a moped would have a better

>> > 0

>> > to 60 time and everyone tries to intimidate you when you drive them

>> > too!

>>

>>

>> Please ignore the helpful advice on making one faster, it doesn`t work,

>> it`s

>> still slow in a straight line...

>>

> <snip>

>>

>> Annoyingly for Fiat, Ford produced a sub-B car that trades punches in the

>> performance stakes, goes around corners even better, uses more petrol,

>> has a

>> longer service interval and sits in a cheaper insurance bracket - oh and

>> sold stacks more.

>

> That was also more expensive, less rust resistant, had a nasty engine

> designed in the 1950s and looked like it was styled by a 5 year old.



I thought you liked the Cinquecento though?



Oh you`re on about the Ka, heh.



It was more expensive, to the tune of about £1,000. But it also has a

superior ride.



If you judge the Cinq by your example, I gotta judge the Ka by ours example.

Our Cinq had a bubble of rust coming through the rear hatchback, which was

covered under warranty. We`ve nothing like that with the Ka...



But you`re right, at least in the early years. I keep on seeing parked

Cinquecentos looked very much the worse for the wear these days. It`s quite

sad, really.



As for the styling, you`ve the boxy, sit-up-and-bed Cinquecento, or the

swoopy curvy Ka. I`ve run both, on balance I don`t really prefer either

exterior. They`re different. However, the Ka`s interior is much better to

live with and it`s better equipped. Pre-1996 Cinquecentos didn`t have a

light-up dashboard, and all had all sorts of strange funkiness with regard

to the interior switches. Rear wash / wipe on the dashboard? Electric

window switches on the dashboard in the middle? Eh? Not the easiest of

cars to get used to.



> The

> Ka may (allegedly) corner better, but it`s just not fun.



You`re wrong. It is fun. It`s different fun. With the Cinquecento, it`s

great fun to nail it corner after corner after corner. It feels raw, eager,

buzzy. The Ka doesn`t have the eagerness, but it`s more refined, more

subtle and a damn sight easier on the ears when you have to take the

motorway route.



> It`s also loads

> bigger on the outside but, for some unfathomable reason, smaller on the

> inside.



In some respects it is. Driven four up, nobody gets much room in the back

of either. There`s about an inch more headroom in the Cinquecento (Dervy

measured) and about half an inch less knee room. Neither is comfortable for

me to sit in the back. But you`re right, there is more room in the

Cinquecento.



The Ka is a four seater, the Cinquecento seats five - in theory!



Seats in the normal upright position, the Ka`s boot is _significantly_

bigger than the Cinquecento. If you buy a car like this to go shopping,

that`s important.



Seats folded down, the Cinquecento rules. It has a great boxy cargo hold

with more room than the Ka. Access is also better (the Ka has a curvy ass

and rear lights that cut in on the shape). And the Cinquecento`s rear seat

base forms a half height bulkhead, letting the seat backs fold flat.



Mind you the Ka has a split / fold rear seat as standard, which wasn`t

something my Cinquecento SX had, so you can take three people (including the

driver) and something chunky from Ikea, which isn`t an option.



More room in the Cinquecento, then, less versatile under certain conditions.



> Think that just about covers it.



No there`s more. The Cinquecento didn`t have power assisted super quick

steering, most Kas have. It didn`t have ABS on the options list. It was an

option on all Kas from early 1997. It didn`t have air conditioning

available in right hand drive form, optional in some Kas from 1997, standard

in others, unavailable in the basic one. It had a transmission that would

get stuck in fifth and wasn`t especially fluid at the best of times - small

Ford tranmissions rule the world. Occasionally the rear windscreen would

shatter, not something the Ka is known for. It had a ventilation system

that could either demist the windscreen or the side windows, but not both at

the same time. The Ka can manage this.



I think the Cinquecento is a great machine and I would possibly have

another, but as a design, it is simply outclassed by the Ka.



Ford raised the city car game by devising a chassis that slapped everything

else in the class about the face with a wed haddock in the twisty material

but also gave it a supple ride and decent motorway refinement.



--

The DervMan

www.dervman.com














Last "Cars" Post on Wordpress:


Title: GT-R35 かわいそうに。。
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:49:39 +0000
Author: jdmsteve

I dont find this photoset entertaining, nor any humorous words can be thought up to describe the unfortunate incident. I personally do not know the owner of this car, but i feel for him…deeply. Those who have been jacked i the past should be rather disgusted at these kinds of sights, and should feel a deepened hatred towards those who steal.

The brighter side of this story that, im assuming-

the owner can afford a GT-R, so can afford full coverage insurance,

The thieves will have a VERY hard rime selling the rims (rare)

atleast they didnt take the whole car

-SE


More on: http://jdmsteve.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/141/



____________________________________________________________

Title: BMW Lovos Concept is Secretly a Porcupine
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:44:44 +0000
Author: dustin61

Although this car design is just a concept, and most likely all it will ever be, it is definitely something interesting to think about. The design was created by Pforzheim University alumni Anne Forschner for BMW. The concept has many different panels all covered in solar photovoltaic cells that can both charge the car and act as wind brakes. A great car in theory, but something tells me most people wouldn’t be too happy if they saw this car flare its panels on the highway.







More on: http://treewoodnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/bmw-lovos-concept-is-secretly-a-porcupine/










Wholesale Clothing | Goldmedaillon
Amphetaminabhaengigkeit | Geldgeschenke | Call Europe | Számítógép Eladó | Sheepskin Rugs

Powered by x701.com