Smoke them tyres

Agree that this could be the cause, BUT: Be VERY careful with throttle application with either taking the hose off the wastegate or physically locking it shut. Turbos build boost via their rpm and their boost delivery is NOT linear. Overdoing it with the throttle would lead to a large boost spike and large turbo overspeed.....test just enough to justify or eliminate this as the cause. Fitting a boost gauge whilst testing would also be a good idea. Modified turbos can sometimes be lazy due to people roughly hi-flowing them. I would actually call it downright butchery in these cases. A few I have seen involve snapping off each turbine blade tip. Yes, it does improve flow, but it will also cripple the power the turbine can generate to drive the compressor. People who do this should not be let anywhere near these precise items, and should be flogged with the nearest big spanner you can find.

Tab, So obviously no business plan on $43b didn't worry him?????? They are waaaay out of their depth.

Zap, Old style rampant nepotism will be how I will remember this most recent decision on the NBN. It staggers me that these 2 "independent" non techie cheeseheads can say that they arrived at a valid informed decision. Windsor can't even operate a PC apparently. Oh yeah..... NFI of technical matters (previous learning/knowledge) + taking all your current advice from others who have NFI (minimal knowledge boost in as few hours as possible)= valid decision. WTF????? Then Conroy tries to say that it will have minimal impact on the viability of the NBN by delaying the run out to the most profitable areas. Clearly, they are all in the swamp. What other possible outcome can it have than an "evolving" or rolled out DEBACLE. More and more people are now coming out and expressing concerns. Where the hell were they prior to the election? Vested interests as you say. You have expressed your concerns pre and post election. Now that is an opinion I would rely on.

Tab.....can we make this a sticky? I'm sure many would find it helpful.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/82882/ariel-atom-500-v8-built-to-celebrate-10th-birthday/

Thought that "around" -1 degree may be the max you would get on front camber, but it's DEFINITELY worth the ask. Mine only managed -1 per side.....but it will still be a GOOD improvement that will help the front tyre life and grip. Those settings and their suggestion of extra caster....all good. Always glad to help and pass on helpful info. Knowledge rather than poking around in the dark. Let the baseline tuning/testing begin.

These 2 idiots have taken the promises by Dullard as gospel and something that she can deliver. Yeah right! Implementation is something Labor know NOTHING about. Or well thought out policies for that matter. I have been astounded at how these 3 have gone about making their decision. Surely effective and considered decision making should take all valid opinions into account. Valid information should be looked at no matter where it comes from. NO WAY would I just rely on Treasury with their predictive record. But it would appear that in this case it has not. I think that they had no idea of the mental structure or framework to apply to reach an effective decision. These 2 have now tied themselves to such a hopeless incompetent mob. They should be judged exactly the same as them next time around. What person who cares about outcomes can't see the train wreck coming????? And now, Bob Brown is now effectively the deputy PM as she now has to holding weekly meetings with the nu**er. Stable and effective govt will be very non existent with this "parliamentary peoples forum". Let the circular firing squad begin when it all starts to go south. Which won't be long.

The other reason that geometry and all of the rest of this becomes important is because of the reduced "give" in the shorter sidewalls of large diameter rim/tyre combos. The larger diameters will be more sensitive to this with a narrower window.

The rear vision mirror and to a lesser extent the side mirrors vibrate on rippled roads in mine after fitting the new shocks and springs. Mirror appears to lack mass. Overall, pretty good though. I think that this may have changed now though. When I look and hear about their new cars, I think they may have peaked 3 or 4 years ago. I think in some respects, when an owner does have a problem, they can be b*st**rds as good as anyone. Have a read about Prado and Camry oil sludging...... COMPLAINTS CORNER: TOYOTA KLUGER, , ENGINE - COMPLAINTS CORNER.COM

-The reduction to zero toe should improve initial turn/tip in (only). Race cars do this and sometimes even have toe out. That will make it "feel" sharper, but will not change ultimate sustainable grip in a corner....that's dependent on other factors. The question is whether this is sufficient toe at -1degree neg camber to maintain even tyre wear. The toe balances out the camber from a tyre wear point of view. I'm usually pretty attuned to chassis changes and I don't know if I could pick 0.5mm per side toe change????? Don't know how much effect it will have with std rubber bushes. Poly ones would definitely help the settings though. -As far as the front camber is concerned, the std wheel alignment settings call for that but mine could only achieve that with the shims removed (BF Dec05 build). It didn't look anything like that std with a critical eyeball passed over it, and the wheel alignment confirmed that (in my case anyway). Mine has definitely responded to more camber and a moderate amount of more caster. Don't know if I would class the std setting for castor "generous", but it depends on how hard it is to be driven. Have a look at one of our cars on full lock parked....I wouldn't say it is generous. Some of the old Merc's....now they have generous caster. We don't want quite as much as that though. -I thought the only adjustment for XR's in the rear was for camber via the lower control arm eccentric. Changing it will change toe with camber, but not independently. BA's might be slightly different here. From what I have seen, the Territory's get an adjustable toe link, but fixed lower control arm pivot. The XR's are the other way around.....why?....who knows? Don't know how they can keep the std camber but take some toe out of it with the std fixed length arms in the XR case????? -The added toe via suspension compression in the rear ("countersteer") is caused by the arc of the rather short toe link as far as I can see. To my understanding, it will add understeer (?) as the front and rear "axles" now have different thrust lines. I believe that the effectiveness of this will change between low and high speed corners, but I may have to read up on that myself. -If you could get that much camber into it with a touch more caster, that would be a vast improvement. Grip and tyre life will be much improved. With that camber, you will need about 3mm toe in per side (1/8") for even tyre wear. That is what I run and it is very streetable. Zero toe, with that camber will wear the insides. With the rear, I reckon you could get away with removing the bar and fitting the blade links with poly as you want to do. Have a good look at the std ones when they are removed, and you will see they have no hope of wheel control. Mine feels like the suspension has much better control of the wheel just by fitting that bush to each side. As a side benefit, axle tramp will be vastly lessened, aiding diff bush and cv life. -These settings will mean that the full contact patch will be used and the outer edge of the tyre will still do it's bit, but it WILL stop the outer edge from taking most of the load, and literally destroying itself. Bit of a shame to have good tyres and have to replace them just because the outer edge is buggered. Sort of gives you that ripped off feeling. -Even though our cars have double wishbone suspension at each end, the front needs more camber for 2 reasons: -the shorter upper arm on the rear is much more effective at countering the outward roll of the upper pivot because it is on a sharper arc....ie shortens it's effective lateral distance as it moves up. This is due to it's pivot point being much closer to the wheel axle line than the front. The std camber here should be fine. Mine on this setting remain happier with cornering loads than the front from a wear pattern point of view. The rear bar removal will also aid suspension compression, helping this effect. Traction should not be affected as the sway bar doesn't act in a straight line anyway....it should actually help traction over uneven surfaces as the wheels can now move independently more freely. The front however, does not fully counteract this camber gain under cornering, so needs a little extra initial camber in this respect -it is the end yawing the car. The rear simply has to "follow". When are the bushes to be replaced?

Set up is science isn't it???????? Less body roll is not necessarily better. What we are looking for is a "window" that the car will be happy with. When I went the 680 front springs in mine, it had less cornering grip than the 620's for the same grip tyre. The tyre tended to slide at it's limit because there was not enough weight transfer ie high side load with limited downward weight applied. On the link I posted, there should be a graph that shows grip vs applied weight. It is not linear....that is why it is a "window" I suppose. What we want is the softest suspension settings that will do the job. Fitting stiffer and stiffer components to the car can effectively "lock" the suspension in one position. Hardly dynamic or balanced at the limit. A sway bar is too stiff when you get the car feeling like it has a side to side shimmy/rocking in it over different bumps on each side of the car. The bar should stiffen it up, but not to the point that each wheel cannot move independently of each other without rocking the chassis. It should complement the springs, not override them. The 27mm bar with the Lovells springs and shocks at the front is in the zone. The rear springs that are std are also in the zone. I would keep those ON the car. The std rear bar and the zero camber settings on the front have been put into the car to give it some understeer/push so that the average person does not get themselves into too much trouble. This is at the detriment of front tyre life. These are the 2 combined ways of managing the understeer in these cars. I don't believe it will be PROPERLY ELIMINATED due to the weight and limited tyre width of our cars, but they can be MUCH better. I don't know why people are so obsessed about keeping the rear bar on. The utes don't have them from what I have seen. Just because it is fitted std, doesn't mean it has to stay there. This certainly works in the engine bay dept. What weight is there in the rear end anyway?.....basically sheet metal paneling as even the fuel tank is within the wheelbase now.I haven't had the rear bar on for a long time now and I am not convinced that I need to re-fit it anytime soon. I think you are on the right path by getting the work done and doing a back-to-back comparison. Baseline testing is always the way to do chassis adjustments.

Expensive Daewoo and GM have always been crap at interiors. The red lighting I presume they have kept? It's CRAP to focus your eyes on and looks EXTREMELY CHEAP. The red dash will date badly. I wonder if it will fade to PINK? Layout is also quite dated...but I guess the Expensive Daewoo loving "influenced" journo's will love it.

The front understeer is not helped by a gripped up rear pushing it. Using the stiffer bar on the rear end of the car will reduce the understeer and push of the car. But why do that to ungrip the rear when the real problem is still at the front? Traction over bumpy surfaces will be an unintended consequence of this stiffer bar. This does not help our cars, which are already somewhat under tyred.

Chunks off the front and understeer......I'm not surprised. On the front of the tread blocks no doubt? Pics? A good read here would help our understanding of chassis dynamics.....http://home.scarlet.be/~be067749/58//index.htm Different tyres will only change the overall characteristics (understeer) if the grippier ones are fitted to the front only. The stiffer rear bar will restore the balance, but at a lower grip level than can be possible....re slower. This stiffer bar will cause less weight transfer to the rear outer in cornering. Therefore, it will induce more slide and more heating of the tyre over a run of laps.(That is why the Top Gear one lap dash is unrealistic. It should be done over 3-5 laps to accurately check how fast the car ACTUALLY is and then the average used). Removing the rear bar (more weight transfer) will compress the rear suspension more, allowing shorter upper arm to do it's job of counteracting body roll. This will keep the tyre squarer to the road with no additional camber dialled in. The std rear spring is what I am running and I have no reason to change it.....std is spot on in this case IMO. The max negative camber I could get out of my BF on each side on the front was 1 degree (minimal/nil shims), but trimmed equal on both sides. I now have 2.5 neg on each side on the front and response is much better again, although a few tricks have been employed to get this at the std ride height. The Fulcrum upper arm mounts are exactly the same as std. All you need to buy is their slide in shims if the wheel aligner doesn't have them. The 1.5mm shim pack is the one to get if running minimal shims. I would think that if the Lovells are only slightly stiffer as Pat has said, that they are right on the money. I wouldn't be changing those. I think everyone should try it without the rear bar on....it's no cost anyway. I have done the same to a friends BA XR8 and he was surprised at how much better it was. I don't see the point in restoring the "balance" by detuning it and making it slower than it could otherwise be. It also adds no additional weight to these heavy cars once the heavier front is fitted.

I would IMO: 1. Lift the car back UP to std ride height. The current lower roll center (intersection of control arm pivots) and fixed c of g that the ssl setup is, actually means that the roll center has moved to a much lower point further away from the c of g. What this means is that the fixed c of g can now get much more leverage on the front of the car during cornering. That is where the forces in cornering are acting through. These cars usually hammer the outside edges of the front tyres. I presume that is where the tyre was most worn? Tyre wear pattern is always something I watch very closely. It's a great way to see what the tyre is actually experiencing and telling you about chassis setup. You can have more grip AND longer tyre life, the geometry and spring and bar settings just have to be correct to expose the full contact patch to the road. Lower is not necessarily better. 2. Pat is right in that a bigger rear bar will restore the balance. The bigger rear bar will lessen weight transfer to the rear, and hence grip to achieve that. More camber will then be requires to get then rear to not do the same to it's tyres as the front. My preference is to remove it though and try and get some weight transfer to the rear to help "unload" the front. The weight transfer in cornering is LATERAL and DIAGONAL. Chassis stiffness is the transmitter of that. With the 27mm front, that is in the zone, but I would remove the rear and see how it feels. That sharpens up turn in and mid corner grip as the load transfer makes the actual cornering load at each end of the car much more equal. This will actually help the front tyres to not roll over onto their outer edges so much. You can re-fit it if you don't like it. A no cost option. Have a close look at any rear wheel drive race car (that is well setup), particularly as it loads up it's suspension entering a corner. The rear will always have softer rear springs (traction) and more roll (cornering load balance). This is also why the V8 's fiddle with the rear roll centre. A turn "here or there" can make a noticeable difference. Raise it for less roll, lower it for more roll. 3. Do you know what rate the springs are on the front? I have gone from the std 520's to std XR height 620's.I am now thinking that King Springs have chosen this as a good compromise for sixes AND eights. They just seem that tad stiff for the lesser weight if the six. If I build the enthusiasm in the near future, I will get some made at about the 570-580 in/lb rate that I think will actually be an improvement from where it is now. 4. Those bushes mentioned are the ones to go for that will be the most value for dollar spent AND promote tyre (and diff/cv) life. 5. You need to get some more front camber into it. About zero is std. That is completely ineffectual for cornering. Dynamically when cornering (with the std bushes), the geometry probably goes into positive camber. Add body roll and you get the picture. The fronts have no chance but to understeer as they "fall over" onto their outer edges. Outer edges in distress usually take small chunks out of the leading edges of each tread block, or have a sort of ski ramp on each tread block caused by distortion under load. If you can get at least 1 degree negative that will help. More camber is better than more caster as to increase caster loses some camber (just the way the geometry is). More caster won't be as good as more camber, as it arrives "too late" to be effective for the small amount of wheel movement to negotiate a turn. It is also steering dependent, not load dependent as we want. About 1-1.25mm toe in per side should be the go for about 1-1.5 degrees neg camber. About 2.5 degrees is the max neg camber I would run on the street. I would also set it up with equal settings on each side.

Fit a single piece one with old style cross uni's. There's too much trouble and cost in these multi piece units.

I think you mean "flaring".

I thought the genuine Ford oil was actually Shell?????

I know that bikes with their CDI ignition don't like Shell's V Power (which I was told is the same as their old formulation...re unchanged, just re-marketed). I went to the bike shop complaining of fouled plugs (NGK's which I know are good), and the first thing they said was "Are you running Shell premium?" I can vouch that since I stopped using it, the problem has not even looked like returning. Apparently it is ok to use on long constant drives, but fouls plugs around town. I believe fuel density is the issue. I have always regarded BP and Caltex to be the best and Mobil as good. Everyone's experience is different though. The varieties of fuel on offer may not be great in actuality though, as there are limited refiners in Australia.

Me x2.

Still LMFAO

What a great find. Just goes to show that when they are fronted about their performance that they have NOTHING but fabrication. Incompetence and cover up personified. They are truly delusional. :roflmbo:

Let the Labor blood letting begin where it belongs...IN OPPOSITION. Even Anna Blier is saying she is only unpopular because of KRudd.....the whole of Labor are DELUSIONAL. They blame everyone but their own performance, even preying on their own. Next they'll be blaming the gravitational pull of the moon or something similar. WHY so many people voted for them is beyond me.

Guys, A couple of sites that will generate a laugh or WTF. That Will Buff Out - Funny Car Photos There, I Fixed It - Redneck Repairs

mattyb, Good write up. I have long thought that these insane diameters are just not practical OR value for money. I would not think that it takes that much more to make the larger diameters, even for the lesser volume sold, but the tyre makers seem to increase the price exponentially for each increase in rim diameter. So the larger diameter has more rubber on the road due to that diameter, but less grip......not value for money. No race cars I know of run diameters in that 19-20"+ range, and big issues even for race cars is compliance and ultimate grip with some tyre longevity and controllability at the limit thrown in. All these are linked. IMO, the bigger diameters do not have enough wall height on the tyres. I would be running them (if I was), at the lowest pressure that would give me an even wear pattern across the tyre to gain some compliance. Particularly important to open up the "window" for what the car will accept as a suitable spring/damper combination. They have next to no "give" in them.....THEY SHOULD BE considered as part of the suspension. The transient of the load placed on the tread by the carcass of the tyre to max grip is much more aggressive. Might be fine for a small, light car but I would not be fitting them to our much heavier cars. If the ride suffers so much due to the lack of give, you can bet your life that this will affect available traction, particularly on non billiard table smooth roads......and how many of those are there around? I would think that breakaway would be much sharper as well. I would not like to drive on those tyres near the limit in the wet anywhere. Stronger (and heavier?) rims are needed to ensure structural integrity due to the sharper loads being transmitted to the rim...not good for unsprung weight. I would consider 18's about the max for practical street cars.