Alez
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 06:47 AM |
|
|
Yet another new midi?
I didn't know this one, just saw it on Sat in a car show in Madrid.
http://www.yes-roadster.net/
830 kg but does 0-60 in 4.2 secs from a turbo-ed straight 4 producing 286 bhp, they are using a well known engine, I asked the guy at they show but I
can't remember what it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 08:51 AM |
|
|
It's pretty ugly though.
Adam
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
Looks like paul banhams bat !!!!!!!!!!!
[Edited on 31-5-04 by mangogrooveworkshop]
|
|
|
AvonBelgium
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 12:08 PM |
|
|
VW/AUDi 1.8 t engine
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
I like it!
Would like to see some more body shots though.
Reminds me of the 5EXI and it's kind.
Very tidy!
Spyderman
|
|
|
violentblue
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 01:33 PM |
|
|
I like the look, didn't check it out from all angles though
a few pics of my other projects
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
Yeah, there's more I like than dislike...quite nice...
BUT, why do people insist on having these shite, flashy, slow, low-content websites? I'm struggling to find any decent sized views I can
study....grrrrrrr...
|
|
|
Alez
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan B
BUT, why do people insist on having these shite, flashy, slow, low-content websites? I'm struggling to find any decent sized views I can
study....grrrrrrr...
Annoying!!
BTW, forgot to mention it's not the classic spaceframe + GPR panels, but a monocoque (or kind of) made of aluminum and things: yes, the guy at
the show had all his concepts mixed up, sometimes it's better to have no info (like in the website) than being fed with random data from some
random temp-expert.
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
I like it, reminds me of a few mitusbishi concept vehicles, epecially the rpm 7000:
and the new eclipse concept
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
Looks like an upturned bathtub, and the website is SOOOOoooo anoying.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Mk-Ninja
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 07:06 PM |
|
|
Nah
I'm sure I've got one, just don't know where I've put it
|
|
|
robinbastd
|
| posted on 31/5/04 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
Yea,mostly
Only a dead fish swims with the tide.
http://smuttygifts.com/
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 02:33 AM |
|
|
I like it, looks a lot like an Audi TT... which I also like. Don't like the scissor doors though.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 02:42 AM |
|
|
I just noticed the car requires 98 octane fuel. I don't know where you live but all I can say is, good luck finding it. Must be a
European-only thing.
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 05:30 AM |
|
|
Kurt,
I'm surprised to hear that 98 RON fuel is a rarity in the US. Premium unleaded is required for a lot of new cars now in Australia (my Mazda 6
for example). My preferred brew is Shell Optimax (data sheet here) but I
think all of the big oil companies have a premium product of one sort or another now.
Then again, the usual North American approach to performance is just to add more cubic inches rather than lifting compression <ducks
and runs>.
Dominic
P.S. Took your advice from some time back and started watching the DVD's of "The Office". Oh My God .... How did I miss this
hilarious show when it first aired. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
GTAddict
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 12:06 PM |
|
|
When the fuel testing labs of a certain large well known motor vehicle company blind tested pump-drawn Shell Optimax in the UK, the RON of all samples
was between 101 and 103.
My FTO lives on nothing else.
Mark.
|
|
|
andkilde
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 12:36 PM |
|
|
The confusion lies in octane ratings.
The 98 is RON, the 94 we get in North America from Sunoco is (RON+MON)/2
MON=motor octane number which is a test done using an SAE standard "test engine" at really abyssmal running conditions, high intake temp
among them.
MON usually runs 10 points below RON which is a "test tube" measure of octane.
So...
Our 94 is about the same as their 100, except for those unfortunate folks in California who get saddled with 91(ish) octane goat urine.
Have I confused you more? 
Cheers, Ted
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
Yup, here in California the highest I ever see at gas stations is 92 octane. Unless you buy race gas, high octane just isn't going to
happen.
Re "The Office", yes, isn't that an amazing show?!
|
|
|
Alez
|
| posted on 2/6/04 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
Uh, I'm a bit embarrased to ask, but what does octane mean to us users from a plain practical standpoint? Better performance? (More bhp.) Less
engine mechanical stress? (Less maintainance.) Better miles per gallon? (So it ends up being cheaper.) I'm used to putting just anything and
I'm obviously wrong considering this thread! 
|
|
|
andkilde
|
| posted on 2/6/04 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
Octane ratings determine a fuel's "knock" resistance. Knock occurs when the fuel in the combustion chamber self ignites before the
spark plug fires.
Octane rating has no effect on the amount of energy the fuel contains though. If your car runs without knock on low octane fuel you will not make more
power or get better mileage by purchasing premium.
But, knock is very bad and can destroy an engine rapidly -- best to stick with manufacturers recommendations for stock engines and experiment with
modified ones.
FWIW, a BEC will probably need premium.
Cheers, Ted
[Edited on 2/6/04 by andkilde]
|
|
|
Alez
|
| posted on 2/6/04 at 01:46 PM |
|
|
Thanks a lot Ted, very clear. I'm now changing to premium for my Blade, sticking to 95 for my good old Golf GTI
|
|
|
