The STUPID thread

[Ascendant Rice]

stupid question, is it possible for the zze spoiler to be modified to fit the zre? maybe even molding it to the existing small spoiler the ascent and conquest have?

[SuperDave]

Anything can be done with money. But at a guess it'll have to be widened at the minimum. Then the mounts won't line up so it'll have to probably be permanently fixed to the bumper. In other words it would be easier to start with some foam, shape it and have it glassed up. Or modify a damaged lip for a ZRE to make it look like what you want with some bog or something.

[DJKOR]

Here's my stupid question:

Why do girls have to be so damn difficult to understand?

[Hiro]

Here's my stupid question:

Why do girls have to be so damn difficult to understand?

Because if the chase was easy, we'd get bored.

Which is why things get boring when you settle down/get married, there's no more chasing to be done. I'm heading that way at a rapid pace :P

[Andrew357]

Here's my stupid question:

Why do girls have to be so damn difficult to understand?

That is the mystery of woman.

That being said, without the mystery I wouldn't have started my weight loss run. So for a little bit longer, they can continue to be mysterious.

[Ascendant Rice]

the kitchen does things to a person

[Andrew357]

the kitchen does things to a person

hahahahahahahaahahahah

I just woke up my brother in the next room!

[DJKOR]

That being said, without the mystery I wouldn't have started my weight loss run. So for a little bit longer, they can continue to be mysterious.

Quite a valid point you have there. I have to say that if it wasn't for the last person I was 'hoping to know better', I wouldn't be in the same shape I am now. That's what I call good motivation.

[Andrew357]

That being said, without the mystery I wouldn't have started my weight loss run. So for a little bit longer, they can continue to be mysterious.

Quite a valid point you have there. I have to say that if it wasn't for the last person I was 'hoping to know better', I wouldn't be in the same shape I am now. That's what I call good motivation.

Yeah.

There's nothing like the time when the realisation that certain memories, feelings and moments you had with someone were not gone, not dead; but had never been. To be absolutely crushed, down and out, in the dumps.

To be able to regroup and ask yourself "Why me? What if?". To be able to look yourself in the mirror and really identify the real cause to your problem; usually an issue you've been hiding away. To be able to fuel your drive and motivation by looking at your past haunts. To be able take arms to your cause and fight for a change.

That my friend, is true motivation.

[RedSportivo]

Does the engine lift when lift kicks in?

Edited September 14, 2010 by RedSportivo

[SuperDave]

It 'rears' (much like a wild horse ) if that's close enough?

[maca_10]

A serious stupid question, how do i make my display pic of my car not so crappy, when i reduce the size i can't seem to keep the quality

[DJKOR]

A serious stupid question, how do i make my display pic of my car not so crappy, when i reduce the size i can't seem to keep the quality

Depends on what you are resizing it with and the settings you use. How about this. Go to the following site, upload the full image and I will resize it for you and re-upload it.

http://upload.djkor.com

[maca_10]

hey thanks for the tip.

Instead of going to all that trouble, i tried resizing it with another program.

The first one i was using was paint!

but it looks better now. obviously not as good as yours but still alright

thanks for your help

[TroysRollaSX]

hey thanks for the tip.

Instead of going to all that trouble, i tried resizing it with another program.

The first one i was using was paint!

but it looks better now. obviously not as good as yours but still alright

thanks for your help

Paint... there's your problem. A much better option is to use irfanview, it's free, fast and does a decent job: http://www.irfanview.com/

Once you've got it installed, load a picture into it, then click the image menu, then select the resize/resample menu option.

Or if you only want part of that picture, simply select what you want to keep with the mouse held down over the pic, draw a rectangle around what you want to keep, then click the edit menu and select the crop selection menu option. Then you can resize it if need be.

When saving, if you're saving as a jpeg, the save quality slider makes a BIG difference, and controls how much compression is applied to the image. The lower the quality, the worse it will look, but the smaller the resulting file will be. The higher the quality, the better it will look, but it will be bigger.

Usually between 80% and 93% is a fair compromise to use.

I hope that helps a bit.

[TroysRollaSX]

And also i feel that 1st n 2nd gears arent showing a bigger difference in torque aa 3rd. If this is true, y is that?

I believe (and I could be wrong here I'll admit), that it's a result of torque multiplication, which is what the gearbox does.

Think of riding say a mountain bike with 6 cogs on the rear wheel and 3 at the front. Remember how much easier it is to pedal with it set to the smallest cog at the crank and the largest cog at the wheel? Think of that as first gear. Why is it easier to pedal then? Because the torque (turning force) you apply to the pedals and thus crank is then multiplied by the gearing difference between the sizes of the 2 cogs. You don't need to apply as much force to get moving faster, but the ultimate top speed isn't particularly fast because very quickly your legs can't go any faster.

Now think of the same bike, but with it set to the biggest cog at the crank, but the smallest at the rear. Think of this as top gear. Close enough to impossible to start moving with, and you require a lot more force (torque) applied to the pedals and crank to speed up, however the top speed that can be achieved is much higher. This is because the torque multiplication is much lower.

In the case of the C52 gearbox in my SX, for example, first gear is 3.166:1, and the final drive ratio is 4.310:1.

So for every revolution of the engine while it's in 1st gear, it's then multiplied by 3.166, and then multiplied again by 4.310 before being passed along to the drive wheels by the drive shaft. So at say 2000 engine rpm, after the gearbox it becomes 6332 gearbox rpm (2000 x 3.166), and then it's multiplied again by the diff (final ratio), so it becomes 27290.92 driveshaft rpm (6332 x 4.310). Now lets see the numbers at 4000 engine rpm, they would be 12664 gearbox rpm (4000 x 3.166) and 54581.84 driveshaft rpm (12664 x 4.310).

Now lets look at 5th gear (ratio of 0.815:1), same rpm. 2000 rpm gives us 1630 gearbox rpm (2000 x 0.815) and 7025.3 driveshaft rpm (1630 x 4.310). 4000rpm gives us 3260 gearbox, and 14050.6 driveshaft.

Compare the final resulting numbers (at 2000rpm 27290.92 in 1st, 7025.3 in 5th, 4000rpm 54581.84 in 1st, 14050.6 in 5th) and you can see that there is a MASSIVE difference in how much difference the gearbox is making to how much torque is being transferred to the wheels (remember, torque = turning force).

Now think about how much you need to bury your right foot in 1st compared to 5th to accelerate. When you look at the numbers involved, you can see that the engine is needing to do a lot more work in 5th then it is in 1st, because there is a whole lot less torque multiplication being done.

I hope I've made sense, and I didn't take into account the tyres rotational speed, which then can show has fast the vehicle is travelling, and yes I've over simplified it a bit, but the very short version is this:

The lower the gear, the more torque multiplication the gearbox does and thus the easier it is for the engine to increase rpm.

Edited October 1, 2010 by TroysRollaSX

[Hiro]

In the case of the C52 gearbox in my SX, for example, first gear is 3.166:1, and the final drive ratio is 4.310:1.

So for every revolution of the engine while it's in 1st gear, it's then multiplied by 3.166, and then multiplied again by 4.310 before being passed along to the drive wheels by the drive shaft. So at say 2000 engine rpm, after the gearbox it becomes 6332 gearbox rpm (2000 x 3.166), and then it's multiplied again by the diff (final ratio), so it becomes 27290.92 driveshaft rpm (6332 x 4.310). Now lets see the numbers at 4000 engine rpm, they would be 12664 gearbox rpm (4000 x 3.166) and 54581.84 driveshaft rpm (12664 x 4.310).

Now lets look at 5th gear (ratio of 0.815:1), same rpm. 2000 rpm gives us 1630 gearbox rpm (2000 x 0.815) and 7025.3 driveshaft rpm (1630 x 4.310). 4000rpm gives us 3260 gearbox, and 14050.6 driveshaft.

Compare the final resulting numbers (at 2000rpm 27290.92 in 1st, 7025.3 in 5th, 4000rpm 54581.84 in 1st, 14050.6 in 5th) and you can see that there is a MASSIVE difference in how much difference the gearbox is making to how much torque is being transferred to the wheels (remember, torque = turning force).

You got it the wrong way around dude. Both the gearbox and final drive are REDUCTION ratios, ie the first gear ratio of 3.166:1 is 3.166 turns of the engine gives 1 revolution of the gearbox output shaft. So to get one revolution of the driveshaft, you need to have 13.65 turns of the engine. So 2000rpm in first gear gives 146.6 turns of the driveshaft, and in 5th you have 569.4 turns of the driveshaft. (ie about 4 times faster than in first).

With gearbox ratios, torque and speed are inverse relationships. So if you have a 4.3:1 reduction (ie 4.3 turns of the input = 1 turn of the output) in speed you have a 4.3:1 multiplication of torque (output torque is 4.3 times greater than input torque).

[TroysRollaSX]

In the case of the C52 gearbox in my SX, for example, first gear is 3.166:1, and the final drive ratio is 4.310:1.

So for every revolution of the engine while it's in 1st gear, it's then multiplied by 3.166, and then multiplied again by 4.310 before being passed along to the drive wheels by the drive shaft. So at say 2000 engine rpm, after the gearbox it becomes 6332 gearbox rpm (2000 x 3.166), and then it's multiplied again by the diff (final ratio), so it becomes 27290.92 driveshaft rpm (6332 x 4.310). Now lets see the numbers at 4000 engine rpm, they would be 12664 gearbox rpm (4000 x 3.166) and 54581.84 driveshaft rpm (12664 x 4.310).

Now lets look at 5th gear (ratio of 0.815:1), same rpm. 2000 rpm gives us 1630 gearbox rpm (2000 x 0.815) and 7025.3 driveshaft rpm (1630 x 4.310). 4000rpm gives us 3260 gearbox, and 14050.6 driveshaft.

Compare the final resulting numbers (at 2000rpm 27290.92 in 1st, 7025.3 in 5th, 4000rpm 54581.84 in 1st, 14050.6 in 5th) and you can see that there is a MASSIVE difference in how much difference the gearbox is making to how much torque is being transferred to the wheels (remember, torque = turning force).

You got it the wrong way around dude. Both the gearbox and final drive are REDUCTION ratios, ie the first gear ratio of 3.166:1 is 3.166 turns of the engine gives 1 revolution of the gearbox output shaft. So to get one revolution of the driveshaft, you need to have 13.65 turns of the engine. So 2000rpm in first gear gives 146.6 turns of the driveshaft, and in 5th you have 569.4 turns of the driveshaft. (ie about 4 times faster than in first).

With gearbox ratios, torque and speed are inverse relationships. So if you have a 4.3:1 reduction (ie 4.3 turns of the input = 1 turn of the output) in speed you have a 4.3:1 multiplication of torque (output torque is 4.3 times greater than input torque).

Ahh, cheers, had been thinking about that since I posted it and thought I'd got it wrong there, but wasn't sure, thanks. Anyway, I was on the right track I think, just forgot that it's reduction instead of multiplication, but the torque multiplication part was the main bit and I was on the money there, even if I totally stuffed up the maths (guess who failed year 11 maths? lol)

The gearing analogy on a mountain bike and the force required to go forward in the different gears made sense tho to illustrate the torque multiplication I hope?

Edited October 1, 2010 by TroysRollaSX

[TroysRollaSX]

Oh well, seems that my post was in the right thread, hahaha

Now, my stupid question. Does the 4AGEs cold start injector get activated at any other time other then when the engine is not up to temperature? It doesn't look it from the wiring diagram (looks to me like it only operates when the thermotime switch activates it, but thought it best to ask.

Reason being that I'm considering adding a relay and LED in the instrument cluster to show when the that system is active, to remind me to be gentle with it until that light goes out and stays out (and yes, I'm aware that it will probably flicker if I don't use a suitable capacitor as well), but if that injector gets activated at WOT then it wouldn' t be so much a 'still cold' light, more a 'back off' light, if you get what I mean?

Or is this idea too stupid for even this thread? lol

[Hiro]

Oh well, seems that my post was in the right thread, hahaha

Now, my stupid question. Does the 4AGEs cold start injector get activated at any other time other then when the engine is not up to temperature? It doesn't look it from the wiring diagram (looks to me like it only operates when the thermotime switch activates it, but thought it best to ask.

Reason being that I'm considering adding a relay and LED in the instrument cluster to show when the that system is active, to remind me to be gentle with it until that light goes out and stays out (and yes, I'm aware that it will probably flicker if I don't use a suitable capacitor as well), but if that injector gets activated at WOT then it wouldn' t be so much a 'still cold' light, more a 'back off' light, if you get what I mean?

Or is this idea too stupid for even this thread? lol

Fairly sure the CSI only gets activated on cranking (and then only if the temp is cold enough). Once the engine is running it shuts off completely.

[Kenshin X]

for all you NSW people out there.

i was coming back from sydney yesterday when i came across these safety T-cams. while these are straight forward there was one thing that i was pondering: what are the two rope black looking things that u roll over on the road? they are those black rope that doesnt stretch all the way to the middle of the road. in victoria, these are used for counting the amount of cars and they have a counter bolted on the side of the road. not sure if the ones in NSW are used for the same thing or are they part of the speed camera.

reason i'm asking is because on the hume hwy i came across those black rope things and i was accidently doing abit over as i rolled over the ropes

cheers

[httttt]

for all you NSW people out there.

i was coming back from sydney yesterday when i came across these safety T-cams. while these are straight forward there was one thing that i was pondering: what are the two rope black looking things that u roll over on the road? they are those black rope that doesnt stretch all the way to the middle of the road. in victoria, these are used for counting the amount of cars and they have a counter bolted on the side of the road. not sure if the ones in NSW are used for the same thing or are they part of the speed camera.

reason i'm asking is because on the hume hwy i came across those black rope things and i was accidently doing abit over as i rolled over the ropes

cheers

They are the same. Although when they use two they are roughly measuring the speed you are traveling they have no way to pin you for it as 1. it isn't accurate and 2. they don't have anyway to identify the car.

EDIT: Please never speed over them as it will only give the RTA more reason to put up a speed camera near by.

[1stKill]

I have a similar spot in my house...should i commision an artist to do one of my Aurion,say mashing it down the freeway in the wet. :P

Edited October 3, 2010 by 1stKill

[TroysRollaSX]

The passenger side front electric window has become very slow to go up and down, easily half the speed of the other windows. Anyone able to point me in the right direction of what might be the cause and how to fix it?

[TroysRollaSX]

Also, I figure this is a good place to ask if anyone has the graphs for kw and torque for the 16v redtop 4AGEs? I'm curious to see what the torque curve looks like if at all possible...