My new R8 Bathurst.
09-02-2009, 04:22 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OLD SOUTH WALES
Posts: 10,680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just got back from a pose.
stuck in trafficmost of the time.
full tank of fuel but according to trip computermabob the range was 120 miles
stuck in trafficmost of the time.
full tank of fuel but according to trip computermabob the range was 120 miles
09-02-2009, 04:25 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leigh-On-Sea
Posts: 5,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-02-2009, 04:29 AM
#23
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OLD SOUTH WALES
Posts: 10,680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Welshman,Sep 2 2009, 10:34 AM
Why does the rear axle need to be run in unless its not up to the job of handling that much torque?
thats what it says in the owners manual.
can still use full power for starts and everything.just seems to be a speed issue.
09-02-2009, 08:02 AM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OLD SOUTH WALES
Posts: 10,680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after some more research,i am sorry to say that,
this car makes me gigle like a little girl.even more than the s does
i am going to drive this one lots then jump in the s2000.i reckon the difference in weight will be awsome.the s is definatly more chuckable.
time for more research.
this car makes me gigle like a little girl.even more than the s does
i am going to drive this one lots then jump in the s2000.i reckon the difference in weight will be awsome.the s is definatly more chuckable.
time for more research.
09-02-2009, 08:28 AM
#26
Banned
Originally Posted by soulcrew,Sep 2 2009, 04:02 PM
i am going to drive this one lots then jump in the s2000.i reckon the difference in weight will be awsome.the s is definatly more chuckable.
time for more research.
time for more research.
but you will almost certainly be travelling faster in the new motor
the refinement strongly influences perceptions of course
will be interesting to hear how you drive the new car
if anything like my beemer, you will see plenty of wear on the outsides of the front tyres
09-02-2009, 09:15 AM
#28
Gad,
You probably need to run a tad more front camber and a tad less caster.
The old M5's not far off 50/50 mass distribution, so you ought to be able to dial out edge wear.
Or Edgware; that's pretty annoying too.
You probably need to run a tad more front camber and a tad less caster.
The old M5's not far off 50/50 mass distribution, so you ought to be able to dial out edge wear.
Or Edgware; that's pretty annoying too.
09-02-2009, 09:27 AM
#29
Banned
Originally Posted by Nick Graves,Sep 2 2009, 05:15 PM
Gad,
You probably need to run a tad more front camber and a tad less caster.
The old M5's not far off 50/50 mass distribution, so you ought to be able to dial out edge wear.
Or Edgware; that's pretty annoying too.
You probably need to run a tad more front camber and a tad less caster.
The old M5's not far off 50/50 mass distribution, so you ought to be able to dial out edge wear.
Or Edgware; that's pretty annoying too.
but waiting until I polybush (?) it all over
although I thought it was mainly down to aggressive late cornering and all that weight hitting the corners.......
(Edgware will eventualy self-combust, so no need to worry about that)
09-02-2009, 09:33 AM
#30
You'll be able to turn-in with more confidence with more camber, since you'll have more rubber in contact through the turn.
The default setting's probably too Autobahn for those twisty roads.
You're not wrong about Edgware. It'll be hard to tell when it has, though...
The default setting's probably too Autobahn for those twisty roads.
You're not wrong about Edgware. It'll be hard to tell when it has, though...