Derelict Town Centre Building Options

[TJHaines]

What shops would people like to see put in the old ATS tyre & exhaust centre in Thatcham Broadway that's supposedly going to be redeveloped into 3 shops and 13 flats?!

[Blake]

Automotive tuning is no longer about BHP and MPH. Now it's more about MPG with gas at over £6.50 per gallon and amid the growing menace of climate change.

[motormad]

Automotive tuning is no longer about BHP and MPH. Now it's more about MPG with gas at over £6.50 per gallon and amid the growing menace of climate change.

I still get 50mpg and my car is quicker than an R32.
I have a 1.9 engine... there is a replacement for displacement, it's called forced induction!

[Andy Capp]

I still get 50mpg and my car is quicker than an R32.
I have a 1.9 engine... there is a replacement for displacement, it's called forced induction!

Out right performance is only one of several factors. Not that I think the adage is strictly true anyway!

[motormad]

At the end of the day, it's still a Golf with the comfort level of a skateboard and tyres that must wear out for a pastime.
50mpg, not the way you suggest you drive it.

And sorry what exactly is wrong with a Golf?
Further to that; have you ever been in my car? No, so I offer you this delicious cup of steaming cup of something that's probably censored. You are making assumptions and I'm just laughing away at you, because you have no idea about anything on this subject at all. (much like me on anything council related).

You clearly drive a Hyundai.

Out right performance is only one of several factors. Not that I think the adage is strictly true anyway!

Oh, no that's true - But a larger displacement engine is normally

Heavier (thus negatively effecting handling)
More expensive to run (Fuel and road tax)
More expensive to maintain (eg if something goes wrong).

And excuse my lack of understand of English (I was originally born as a boy from Reading) but adage means....? (I refuse to Google words).

[Andy Capp]

Oh, no that's true - But a larger displacement engine is normally

Heavier (thus negatively effecting handling)
More expensive to run (Fuel and road tax)
More expensive to maintain (eg if something goes wrong).

And excuse my lack of understand of English (I was originally born as a boy from Reading) but adage means....? (I refuse to Google words).

A bigger engine can be lower revving, have more torque and thus go for longer between service intervals. And they don't necessarily need a turbo to blow its guts into the engine.

The adage was applied to mean more power for less effort (tuning).


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adage?s=t

[motormad]

A bigger engine can be lower revving, have more torque and thus go for longer between service intervals. And they don't necessarily need a turbo to blow its guts into the engine.

The adage was applied to mean more power for less effort (tuning).


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adage?s=t

Okay cheers

Well that is interesting, the torque to service intervals serves no correlation really? I mean if you took a Mustang V8 (large, relatively lazy low revving engine) they have a variable service interval (apparently it measures oil quality or something) but this is "up to 10 thousand miles".

On any petrol engined car, car oil will be well past its best quality after 15k regardless of what the manufacturer says (oil physically can't last that long without becoming degraded, user-submitted samples to Blackstone oil labs prove that) and that is less on a diesel, and MUCH less on a diesel with a DPF which contaminates the engine oil with diesel on active regeneration. I do mine every 8-10k and that's at a push.

Turbos these days are really reliable and rarely blow up, unfortunately it is true when they do let go sometimes they can take out the engine with it.. 8/10 times a turbo failure is down to the owner, EG driving it hard from cold or not changing the oil regularly enough. The 2/10 failures would be a manufacturing fault which over time has caused the failure.
My old turbo was taken off at 144k was in good health.

The whole mindset of large engine meaning more performance is so far gone, just look at all of the angry Americans, shouting at us Europeans or the Japanese, for making quicker, lighter, nimbler cars. "YEEHAW MUSTANG 5.7 LITRE YEAHH".. they yell, as a Honda S2000 comes screaming past.
Not to say I don't love a bit of American muscle..

[Andy Capp]

Okay cheers

Well that is interesting, the torque to service intervals serves no correlation really? I mean if you took a Mustang V8 (large, relatively lazy low revving engine) they have a variable service interval (apparently it measures oil quality or something) but this is "up to 10 thousand miles".

On any petrol engined car, car oil will be well past its best quality after 15k regardless of what the manufacturer says (oil physically can't last that long without becoming degraded, user-submitted samples to Blackstone oil labs prove that) and that is less on a diesel, and MUCH less on a diesel with a DPF which contaminates the engine oil with diesel on active regeneration. I do mine every 8-10k and that's at a push.

Turbos these days are really reliable and rarely blow up, unfortunately it is true when they do let go sometimes they can take out the engine with it.. 8/10 times a turbo failure is down to the owner, EG driving it hard from cold or not changing the oil regularly enough. The 2/10 failures would be a manufacturing fault which over time has caused the failure.
My old turbo was taken off at 144k was in good health.

The whole mindset of large engine meaning more performance is so far gone, just look at all of the angry Americans, shouting at us Europeans or the Japanese, for making quicker, lighter, nimbler cars. "YEEHAW MUSTANG 5.7 LITRE YEAHH".. they yell, as a Honda S2000 comes screaming past.
Not to say I don't love a bit of American muscle..

To a certain extent you are making straw man fallacies.

Service intervals is more than just oil change and can mean anything up to a full strip down and rebuild.

A normal aspirated engine will never have a turbo failure if it doesn't have a turbo.

Sure you can squeeze more power per cubic area out of smaller engines, but only if you refine them and usually make them rev higher.

All other things being equal, bigger engines are more powerful than smaller engines.

I never said I agreed with the adage. It is just a rule of thumb and not an absolute.

[motormad]

Service intervals is more than just oil change and can mean anything up to a full strip down and rebuild.

To a certain extent you are making straw man fallacies.
On a road car - it's not expected for a normal 4 stroke piston engine (hence excluding the Rotary engine) to need serious component replacement work.
A full strip down and rebuild is not something covered in a vehicles "service intervals". I mean just lol.

A normal aspirated engine will never have a turbo failure if it doesn't have a turbo.

I never said they did neither did I imply in my post that they did..... straw man fallacies in action.

Sure you can squeeze more power per cubic area out of smaller engines, but only if you refine them and usually make them rev higher.

Are you talking about specific output? Because this is a straw man fallacy.

Most large/American engines make very poor specific output. For example, the 5.4 V8 engine which is still used in Mustangs make less power PER LITRE (and has a redline which is very similar so the whole "higher revving" argument is moot) than the engine of a Daewoo Matiz.

54bhp/l in the Mustang vs 64bhp/l in the Matiz, both rev to around 6000rpm.

All other things being equal, bigger engines are more powerful than smaller engines.

Well again, captain obvious is here. And a straw man fallacy.
After all, the engine in a Mondeo ST220 (the like 2004 one) is literally half an Aston V12, - Even down to the valve angles which are exactly the same. And surprisingly it makes basically half the horsepower.

This whole discussion started from saying "there is no replacement for displacement" - And there is a replacement for displacement, as I said - It's called Forced Induction. Or Variable cam profiles. (as in vtec).
Both of which allow an engine of a smaller size to produce the power and torque of an engine which is 25 to 100% bigger than itself. Thus, a replacement for displacement. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion lol.

[Andy Capp]

First, you need to do some revision on what a straw man fallacy is, because reading your replies, you don't know. I didn't really make any straw man fallacies, I just made some plain old fallacies.

This whole discussion started from saying "there is no replacement for displacement" - And there is a replacement for displacement, as I said - It's called Forced Induction. Or Variable cam profiles. (as in vtec). Both of which allow an engine of a smaller size to produce the power and torque of an engine which is 25 to 100% bigger than itself. Thus, a replacement for displacement.

Good, so perhaps you might now shut up, because you seemed to have missed several times already about my not believing it to be necessarily true either.

Out right performance is only one of several factors. Not that I think the adage is strictly true anyway!

I never said I agreed with the adage. It is just a rule of thumb and not an absolute.

PS - I was not the creator of the expression.

[motormad]

That is true Wabbit, there are a lot of younger people who use these nail bars, but there are also a small demographic of the TOWIE crew just aged 40. And at the end of the day what's wrong with that if it makes them happy.

First, you need to do some revision on what a straw man fallacy is, because reading your replies, you don't know. I didn't really make any straw man fallacies, I just made some plain old fallacies.

You just over-use the term so found it funny to mock that.

Good, so perhaps you might now shut up, because you seemed to have missed several times already about my not believing it to be necessarily true either.

That's why there are people like you who don't know, and people like me who do.

PS - I was not the creator of the expression.

Could have fooled me the amount of times you like to coin it!!

[Andy Capp]

You just over-use the term so found it funny to mock that.

I use it where I feel it appropriate and you are classic for being guilty of it; making up your own argument to refute.

That's why there are people like you who don't know, and people like me who do.

Exactly, I am not young enough to know everything.

Could have fooled me ... !

That is not that hard.

[motormad]

I use it where I feel it appropriate and you are classic for being guilty of it; making up your own argument to refute.

Because I'm the one who has to argue with myself, aren't I Andy.

Exactly, I am not young enough to know everything.

I don't know everything. I am however knowledgeable about cars and having already proven my point with fact, where as you haven't.

That is not that hard.

I am easily bamboozled.

[Andy Capp]

I don't know everything. I am however knowledgeable about cars and having already proven my point with fact, where as you haven't.

You have conjured an argument that makes sense, but doesn't address the origin of the expression, nor does your argument negate the veracity of the phrase, but I don't care much for it either (as I have said several times already) - especially as it was only intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment (you seemed to miss that bit as well). The adage itself is an old expression that was simply a guide that one should consider when seeking to improve the performance of an engine. Sometimes you can save yourself a lot of farting about if you just get a car with a bigger engine. I once had an 850 Mini, and despite some tuning mods, dashing about at 60/70mph wasn't as economical and effortless as driving around in a standard 1100 version.