RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
|
The T3 is the coupe/saloon/estate built of beetle architecture isn't it? T34 is a Russian tank :-) The beetlebased coupe/saloon/estate is the Type 3 rather than the T3. The 'T' is an abreviation of 'Transporter' not 'Type', so a T3 is a 3rd generation transporter, which is still a type 2, because it's part of the van range that's designated a type 2. There's an explenation of the Vans designations here: www.brick-yard.co.uk/VehicleSpecific/T3/info/typNos.htmIt's kind of like my Scirocco is a 'Type 53B', but it's an A1 chassis, which is the chassis designation for the 1st generation of watercooled hatchbacks. It's just because the vans share the letter and span such a long time period that things changed, so it all gets confusing!
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,340
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 10:35:39 GMT
|
Learn something every day :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2012 11:35:19 GMT
|
I was going to ask that a while ago, but did some google searching instead. As far as I can glean, they are identical - it was sold as the T25 in the UK, and the T3 everywhere else. I could be wrong though. I will no doubt be corrected, but T3 refers to it being the third transporter (T1=Split, T2=Bay etc.) and T25 refers to one of VWs actual model numbers but is used incorrectly used by most in the UK to cover all 1980-1990 VW Transporters.
|
|
...proper medallion man chest wig motoring.
|
|
|
|
|
I've pulled the fuel pump and swirl pot out of my donor Omega fuel tank to transplant into the Scimitar fuel tank. But I'm confused. The only opening I can see in the swirl pot is a spring-loaded thing at the bottom of the return hose, which I assume lets the returned fuel into the swirl pot. But how does the fuel get into the swirl pot to start with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it not just open inside the tank so its always full? most in tank swirl pots are actually baffles rather than a separate, smaller "pot"
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
tome30
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chamba
Part of things
Posts: 199
|
|
|
What's the purpose/purposes of a plenum chamber??
|
|
|
|
Del
South East
Posts: 1,448
|
|
Apr 12, 2013 16:44:06 GMT
|
If I want to simply lower my car for looks, are shorter springs sufficient? And what exactly is a coilover? It seems to be a spring/shock combo, but is there any reason why they're better than separate springs & shocks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2013 17:30:00 GMT
|
If I want to simply lower my car for looks, are shorter springs sufficient? Yes shorter springs, but to do it properly you need springs of a slightly higher rate ('harder' springs) so that lowering doesn't make it bottom out. That's the engineer's answer. However, you may have read of 'chopping' springs which is cutting a little length off to lower the car. This risks making it so low that it bottoms out on the ground, or at least onto the bump stops. Plenty of folks on here do that and get away with it, but a real engineer will look down his nose at such amatuer attempts at lowering ;D And what exactly is a coilover? It seems to be a spring/shock combo, but is there any reason why they're better than separate springs & shocks?[/quote] Coilover is really ' Coil over damper' and is exactly the spring/shock combo you mean. [However we should say spring/damper combo : the spring IS the shock absorber. a Damper is a damper, NOT a shock absorber. I'm with the Americans on this terminology ] I'm not sure I can say if a coil-over is better than separate spring & damper, but someone more qualified than me can maybe better explain that one. IMO usually a coil-over allows for easier or quicker change-over of springs and dampers to change rates to make suspension harder/softer/tune the suspension for handling and roadholding. That makes them more common fitment on higher-end or modified cars. Maybe that's why there's a perception that coil-overs are 'better'. IMO there's no reason why a properly tuned spring and damper arrangement, as on a MacPherson strut or other arrangement, should not perform as well on the right car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2013 18:47:33 GMT
|
Fluid-filled gauges - what's the thinking behind that?
|
|
|
|
sal
Part of things
Mk2 Cavalier CD
Posts: 240
|
|
Apr 12, 2013 19:24:35 GMT
|
Fluid is to damp any vibrations and give a more stable reading. The gauges on the pumps I use at work are apparantly filled with a glycerine and water mix
|
|
|
|
ToolsnTrack
Posted a lot
Homebrew Raconteur
Posts: 4,117
Club RR Member Number: 134
|
Daft question amnestyToolsnTrack
@overdrive
Club Retro Rides Member 134
|
Apr 12, 2013 19:48:14 GMT
|
A plenum is a chamber allowing a constantly pressured air supply for an intake Venturi to draw from. Depends on the application really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I want to simply lower my car for looks, are shorter springs sufficient? And what exactly is a coilover? It seems to be a spring/shock combo, but is there any reason why they're better than separate springs & shocks? Yes shorter springs, but to do it properly you need springs of a slightly higher rate ('harder' springs) so that lowering doesn't make it bottom out. That's the engineer's answer. However, you may have read of 'chopping' springs which is cutting a little length off to lower the car. This risks making it so low that it bottoms out on the ground, or at least onto the bump stops. Plenty of folks on here do that and get away with it, but a real engineer will look down his nose at such amatuer attempts at lowering ;D I often stay away from the spring discussions here, but come on, if an engineer can't calculate the spring rate and height change in such a manner that the car won't bottom he should call himself an engineer. The race engineer way would be to calculate the needed spring frequency, ride height, spring rate, and everything else and order about 20 sets to try out at the track with that specific driver, tires, weather and track. It is also common to cut springs to get a bit higher spring rate on track cars, and have adjustable spring seats to adjust the height. And as we're on the subject - Depending on the car I would recommend lowering springs, but you usually has to cut those too, as the 40mm which is available for most car is about as much drop as the sagged stock springs have on our cars by now. If your car already is quite stiff I PERSONALLY would just cut the ones you have and go from there, springs are cheap. Coilovers offers adjustable height, and often damping too if you stay away from the £200 ones. You can also order virtually any springs for coilovers, with stock setups you often have to custom order if you want something other than your run-of-the-mill -40mm
|
|
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2013 9:41:11 GMT by dude
|
|
jdmini
Part of things
Posts: 585
|
|
Jun 16, 2013 19:26:27 GMT
|
I'm hoping someone can help with my old mini. I've had it for about 12 years and for the last eight years it's been off the road but now it's roadworthy again . It has an old goodmans cd player which says 4x40. I assume this means it has the power to run 4 speaker with a peak power output of 40w each? I've only got two speaker holes and I'm not overly fussed about fitting more speakers anyway. But I will need to buy speakers. I looked it halfords today and the guy selling speakers couldn't answer my questions. Firstly the modern speakers appear to be 120w peak power. And 60 or 80w RMS. what does rms mean and will these speakers sound rubbish because my stereo can't send them enough power? Secondly my old goodmans has a line out plug on the front panel. I was hoping it would be an aux plug where I could plug my phone in to. When I plugged my 3.5mm headphone jack in to it all that happened was it pretty much cut the sound to the speakers. What does it do? is it for playing headphones through? Lastly (I'm sure these questions are making me sound mental) what size are standard mini rear speakers? Is it 4.5" or 5"? I want something half decent and don't want to cut the parcel shelf area. Thanks :-)
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 16, 2013 19:28:15 GMT by jdmini
|
|
duncanmartin
Club Retro Rides Member
Out of retro ownership
Posts: 1,320
Club RR Member Number: 70
|
Daft question amnestyduncanmartin
@duncanmartin
Club Retro Rides Member 70
|
Jun 16, 2013 21:02:00 GMT
|
Rms is root mean squared. It's a more useful measure of power than peak power. It is a measure of continuous power, rather than a power spike, which is often what the peak power number is... Hopefully someone else can answer the more practical of your questions. :-)
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,713
Club RR Member Number: 34
Member is Online
|
Daft question amnestyDez
@dez
Club Retro Rides Member 34
|
Jun 16, 2013 21:21:56 GMT
|
I'm not sure I can say if a coil-over is better than separate spring & damper, but someone more qualified than me can maybe better explain that one. IMO usually a coil-over allows for easier or quicker change-over of springs and dampers to change rates to make suspension harder/softer/tune the suspension for handling and roadholding. That makes them more common fitment on higher-end or modified cars. Maybe that's why there's a perception that coil-overs are 'better'. IMO there's no reason why a properly tuned spring and damper arrangement, as on a MacPherson strut or other arrangement, should not perform as well on the right car. that is pretty much a load of cobblers. most 'lowering springs' you can buy off the shelf are actually SOFTER than your stock springs. in that htey have a reduced compressed length, but still have the same amout of free coils, ergo softer in engineering terms. a cut spring is stiffer than a stock spring, as it has a shorter compressed length, but also less free coils, meaning its spring rate is actually higher. a 'real engineer' wouldnt look down at such things, as engineers are intelligent people who will work out the simplest, most effective way of doing a job and do it that way. so id wager the majority of engineers would in that given situation (the want for a spring with a shorter compressed length and higher spring rate than the one they already have), would just cut a bit off it rather than making a new one, as they would be intelligent enough to know how to calculate how much to chop off to get the desired effect. what exactly makes a car 'bottom out' is a damper length that is too long for the compressed length of the spring you are using, so an engineer may cut the spring down to lower a car, but he would then specify a shorter damper unit to prevent bottoming out. when people refer to 'coilovers', they are using a totally incorrect terminology really, as they are most likely to be referring to an adjustable suspension unit for a macpherson stut suspension system- all of which are 'coil over' design. coil over purely means the coil goes 'over' (or technically around) the damper unit which runs inside the macpherson strut, nothing more. the true name for 'coilovers' would be a height adjsutable macpherson strut, or adjsutable platform mcpherson strut. they are viewed as 'better' in simple terms, as within certain parameters they allow you to fine tune your ride height, which cannot easily be done with a simple spring/damper combination. generally speaking they are sold to lower cars as well, so the manufacturer will specify them to already have a shorter damper insert/strut length, as they do not expect people to run them at full extension/stock ride height, and the shorter strut length prevents bottoming out as previously mentioned.
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 16, 2013 21:23:11 GMT by Dez
|
|
Clement
Europe
ambitious but rubbish
Posts: 2,095
|
|
Jul 29, 2013 12:39:09 GMT
|
Daft question of the day : how much does a live rear axle move, laterally? It is maintained by traling arms, and an anti-roll bar; it has coil springs and telescopic dampers, but no Panhard rod. Thanks! edit: here's the shop manual where you'll see all the details of the rear suspension, just in case.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 29, 2013 12:41:17 GMT by Clement
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2013 13:52:49 GMT
|
That would depend on how stiff the bushes are, a panhard rod would also force it to move sideways in an arc, a Watts linkage would hold it more central but with any of these if you have rubber/nylon bushes in it it will have some movement.
my 940 has a panhard on it and you can get about an inch of movement on the axle just by leaning on the car and wobbling it, very soft rubber bushes being the main culprit.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
Clement
Europe
ambitious but rubbish
Posts: 2,095
|
|
Jul 29, 2013 14:02:17 GMT
|
Ha! Current bushes are not polyurethane, and they're old. I plan on fitting poly bushes on the body side of the suspension, but not right now.
I'm asking because I want to fit 4x100 wheels on a 4x108 car (Alfa Giulia, see signature), and I have about 4cm between the tyre and the arch on each side. The new wheels and tyres would reduce this clearance by about 1-2cm, is this going to be enough?
|
|
|
|
|