Hiro

but but but but .... it looks like a turbo ..... is driven by the belt ..... so its obviously a new technology referred to as BDT (belt driven turbo) ...... pfffft whats this centrifugal supercharger talk ..... get with the times :P :P :P :P :P You should know what I'm like with semantics... Plenty of Ford enthusiasts will know it as a centrifugal supercharger (Vortechs are a well-known upgrade for 5.4L Boss and late 302 Windsor Falcons), and a Rotrax is an excellent alternative to a turbo on a 20V

Belt-driven turbocharger is a furphy, because turbocharger itself is a contraction of turbine-powered supercharger. It's actually a centrifugal supercharger.

Volumetric efficiency cannot be ignored, as it is the ratio of air actually drawn in compared to displacement/cycle. An engine does not necessarily draw in a full displacement's worth of air every cycle, as things like flow restrictions, valve overlap, back pressure, scavenging etc. A supercharged engine (either via a centrifugal turbocharger, centrifugal supercharger or positive displacement blower) will have a higher volumetric efficiency, often greater than 1, as more air is being pushed into the engine due to the air being compressed ("boost"). N/A engines can have VEs greater than 1, usually via things like lift, or intake speed is increased so that air flows in quickly and then not allowed to escape, thus creating partial boost despite not using a turbo/supercharger. Think of it as a train. The train has 60 seats in a carriage (displacement), and the doors remain open for 30 seconds at a station (valve duration), and the fare each passenger pays is the power created. For a VE of 1, 2 people will enter the carriage every second, thus completely filling the carriage at normal capacity (naturally aspirated). If the flow into the carriage is restricted (ie posts on the platform, small doors etc), say only 1.5 people can enter per second. Thus, the carriage will only have 40 seats filled before the door closes (0.667 VE). If there is an outside force pushing the people (turbo/supercharger, think the "pushers" they have on the Japanese metro), you can get more people in before the door shuts, even though they don't all have seats to sit in (and thus are squashed in, creating extra revenue or "boost"). Or, if flow is exceptionally good without the pushers, lots of people will get into the carriage, but find out that they have nowhere to sit. If the doors shut before they can get back out, the boost situation will be recreated.

Remember that an internal combustion engine is just a glorified air pump. So the fact that it consumes ridiculous amounts of air is not surprising at all.

Me brain says you're thinking of ARGO rods, not pistons.... And there's nothing wrong with a 7AFE (I should know, I drive one every day), everyone knocks them until they need the block for a 7AGE conversion.....they are competitive compared to 4AGEs, but obviously not to the ZZ series (but then again, neither are 4AGEs unless serious dollars are invested)

The yen has tanked, and new car sales in Europe are down 20%. That, and Toyota do a LOT of assembling in America. Toyota Aus is pretty safe because we're weathering the storm, and there's always a market for Camrys to be exported to the Middle East

I've always thought a cool way to get in-car footage would be to take a spare stock headrest, rip the cushion out but keep the base (maybe add some reinforcing too). Then, bolt the top of a tripod mount to the base of the headrest, and then attach your camera to the tripod mount. Then simply pull out the stock headrest, and drop in your custom camera mount headrest. Aim it towards the driver a bit with the tripod mount for that "over-the-shoulder" look, and you're off, without any holes in bodywork or interior panels Dunno what scrutineers would think about it though.

That's what is known in the industry as "a foot in the door". You have to start somewhere, with something. What Toyota Aus didn't do then was put their shoulder to the door to stop it jamming their foot. Instead, they woosed out like little girls and pulled the foot out, only to try again properly a few years later with a nice big shoulder-charge called the ZZE123.

The only Richard Burns I know of is the rally driver, and he's dead.......which some would say is more presentable than Charlie Cox, but I don't quite agree there. Agreed wholeheartedly. C*ck-head and Gerbil-face (as I call them, Cox and Pizatti respectively) aren't presenters, they're drivers who can talk to a camera. We need the opposite - presenters who can turn a steering wheel with some modicum of capability. Warren Brown has that in a James-May kind of way, but Gerbil-face (despite being an advanced driving instructor and Porsche factory driver) giggles like a school-girl over anything more exciting than a Hyundai Getz, and C*ck-head drones on like a Beetle at cruising speed - no emotion, enthusiasm or general likeability

Exactly. Sometimes you have to wonder if people even read posts properly.....

If you read what I posted above, you'll notice that I'm disregarding the physical comparison between the vehicles. It's irrelevant. The same engine was used in later, larger 3-series sedans anyway. What I am saying is that BMW released an engine in a car that had a new technology feature 7 years ago (that some car companies are only introducing now, yet still claiming it as "new"), and the car wasn't a top-of-the-line luxo barge that costs half the earth, from a company that DOES build top-of-the-line luxo barges costing half the earth. The comparison to the Berlina was to put the price in context with a car that most of us could relate to. For a company that builds cars primarily in the $60-150,000 range, a $40,000 car is bargain-basement, and for it to debut something as radical as Valvetronic is my main point.

You mention airbags and Lambo doors yet you don't want it to look like a ricer?

i guess that also goes for all the rage about vsc and abs. mercedes had abs in the 1970s and vsc in the early 90s more so exciting for the availability of the technology finally being in cars the majority of people can afford Ironically, the first BMW car that came out with Valvetronic was the 316ti Compact, one of BMW's cheapest ever cars, and roughly the same price as a Holden Berlina (well within the affordable range for an average middle-upper class family). but that's comparing a large 4dr sedan with a little 2dr buzz box. how many familys with kids buy a 2dr bmw as the family car? i certainly wouldnt get a 2dr bmw over a large car just for the way the cams work I wasn't using it as a comparison of the cars, merely the fact that what is being touted as the latest greatest thing was brought out 7 years ago in the cheapest, smallest car a certain company makes (albeit a $40,000 car). With things like ABS, cruise control, airbags etc when they came out they tended to only be in the more expensive, larger models (like S-class Mercs). Valvetronic was also quickly applied to most of BMW's non-sporting models (it makes the valvetrain quite heavy, and inertia is a terrible thing for revs and response). Once again, features being displayed in the smallest, cheapest of a range before becoming widespread. It'd be like Holden inventing a new drivetrain feature and debutting it in a Barina, before releasing it across the Astra and Commodore ranges etc, as opposed to originaly debutting it in a Senator or Calais or the like.

i guess that also goes for all the rage about vsc and abs. mercedes had abs in the 1970s and vsc in the early 90s more so exciting for the availability of the technology finally being in cars the majority of people can afford Ironically, the first BMW car that came out with Valvetronic was the 316ti Compact, one of BMW's cheapest ever cars, and roughly the same price as a Holden Berlina (well within the affordable range for an average middle-upper class family).

It's completely fine if you floor it now and again. The one thing is that any form of motor would probably last the longest if it ran at the same speed non-stop. This isn't practical in a car engine, and there is always moments when the engine would be revving then released suddenly. So say you are putting your foot down, the RPM increases then say the TC kicks in and cuts the power, this could be compared to driving down the road with your foot on the accelerator then suddenly lifting your foot off it completely. Engines are built to handle all these sudden changes and I'm pretty sure that in reference to what you are saying, its affect on its life would be immeasurable. Which is the whole point of a CVT transmission, or diesel-electric generators in ships/trains etc. Run the engine at a constant rpm and infinitely vary the gearing to match speed.

Nothing really special there, BMW have had it on some of their non-performance engines for the last 7 years...

Yeah, Dawn's a good ship, seems so modern in comparison to what I've seen of the Sun. G/f's mother has been on the Star, Sky and Sun, she's going on the Dawn in May. Freakin' huge ship, only just makes it under the Harbour Bridge.

If my hands are classed as hammers, then yes :P

A hot and sweaty bus-ride in Noumea....

any pictures to confirm this? Which means you must also look a little like Trent Reznor. Give me your face. Cheers. Here's one of me and the g/f in Noumea. Been going through photos from the cruise a couple of weeks ago, that was the best photo that wasn't one of the formal-night ones (which are on paper, not memory card, and I haven't scanned them yet)

Leads are superficially fine (could well be originals too, I haven't changed them, but I've got some spares just in case), haven't had too close a look at them though since everything runs fine when off idle. If leads or plugs were crapped you'd expect misfires at all RPMs. ISCV is top of my list, first thing to check come lunch time. Well, after checking the ISCV at lunch-time, the results came back inconclusive. Middle pin was reading battery voltage, as it should, and the resistance between the outer pins and the middle pin were both 22 Ohms, as they should, thus leading me to believe that the valve is not obviously faulty. Didn't get a chance to clean the valve or t/b last night, as we were surprised by a surprise visit from my brother, so that took up the rest of the daylight hours. However, this morning the car started perfectly fine, and idled perfectly fine, all the way to work. So either it's an intermittent problem, or there is a problem with the connector on the ISCV (it was firmly plugged in when I checked it, but may still have been jarred slightly at some stage). Neither of which are problems which will warrant concern until the new year, as long as the thing continues to run.

For a car that isn't designed for iridium plugs, there is no point using them as they don't really improve anything. They are primarily used for applications where long spark plug life is required, such as in a V6 Camry where the intake manifold has to be removed to reach the rear bank of plugs - that would be a major hassle to do every 20,000km or so just to change a $12 set of plugs, thus the use of 100,000km plugs.

Be careful when topping up your brake fluid, if it's above the LOW line and the pads are new then top it up, if it's near LOW and the pads are old and very worn then DON'T top it up. The level in the reservoir drops as the pads wear (the pistons automatically push the pads out as they wear so that they _just_ touch the rotor), so if you fill the reservoir up before you do a pad change it will overflow when you push the pistons back into the caliper to accept the new pads.

Makes sense, not something that would spring to mind because it's rare for ADM cars to have something like that.