Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[That_Random_Guy]

18 hours ago, Bitter said:

I'll be honest, we haven't had great luck with ATK engines at the shop over the years. We do rarely use them but when we do there's always something. Boss got burned by them about 20 years ago on an expensive caddy big block that came with the wrong head gasket on one side that they refused to warranty even when he yanked the heads and could show them what was up after the initial OK to RDI to verify the problem. About 5 years ago we got an engine that came crated with a bent water pump that they wouldn't warranty either. Maybe we've just had bad luck with them, I know they do a lot of sale. Just make sure you inspect it SUPER thoroughly and document everything and read all the fine print.

noted ill be on the lookout for sure, ended up getting the efi version of the same engine. was hidden and didnt see it on jegs site at original order. but definitely will keep an eye out

[chaozbandit]

So bizarre

 

 

[aDoomGuy]

22 hours ago, Goodman2265 said:

My BMW E39 M5. RK Stage 2 Supercharger baby. 640 whp

 

Sweet man. Sweeeeet. Sure beats our E39 520i in a drag race lol. 

[sub68]

5 hours ago, Bitter said:

Woah the Focus ST at the shop for a dead steering rack has a TOW STRAP, must be a serious racer.

 

Oh yeah, legit.

can I get a slow clap

 

[vetali]

9 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

when is it not "new"

New is subjective. My sister bought a passport that had 50 miles. Whatever reason some salesman was driving it around when we first got it.

[bcredeur97]

1 hour ago, vetali said:

New is subjective. My sister bought a passport that had 50 miles. Whatever reason some salesman was driving it around when we first got it.

I guess it’s “new” until no one wants to buy it for “new” price then? 

[iDeFecZx]

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

I guess it’s “new” until no one wants to buy it for “new” price then? 

we just sold a pair of 2018 built cars as "new"

theyd been sat outside the showroom since late 2018 unregistered 

[vetali]

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

I guess it’s “new” until no one wants to buy it for “new” price then? 

They are new until after first purchase.

[STRMfrmXMN]

Anyone else get irrationally angry when you see someone filling a performance car (that calls for premium octane fuel) with regular? I watch this guy from the local Benz dealer fill up multiple biturbo V8 Mercedes with regular and I wanna say something but I also don't wanna be that guy telling him what to do. I'm sure he doesn't give a shit. I can only assume Mercedes' knock detection is pretty good.

 

Also, the Legacy GT wagon in my signature is due for a new shortblock pretty soon (rings not doing super hot with a tiny bit of smoke coming out of the oil fill cap, plus the thing needs a valve adjustment yesterday so it idles crappy) and I'm pondering my options. Local shops here in Portland want a lot for a rebuild and I don't have the know-how to replace the block myself. I'd kinda like to go forged pistons and rod bearings, but might also stick with a stock EJ255/257 to save some money. 

 

Anybody here put a build motor in their Subie and found it had oil consumption when brand-new? I know that a new EJ257 hypothetically shouldn't burn any oil, which I would love, but I'm pretty certain that the tolerances of forged pistons will allow for some oil burning.

[AlwaysFSX]

8 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Anyone else get irrationally angry when you see someone filling a performance car (that calls for premium octane fuel) with regular?

no

[bcredeur97]

18 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

no

Can confirm, no. 

 

modern ecu’s adjust for this sort of thing. You just get a bit less power *shrug* 

 

dont need all 400 horses if you’re on a road trip 

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

Can confirm, no. 

 

modern ecu’s adjust for this sort of thing. You just get a bit less power *shrug* 

 

dont need all 400 horses if you’re on a road trip 

lemme spend 60% more on gas just to get the same mileage when you're cruising on a highway

[iDeFecZx]

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

lemme spend 60% more on gas just to get the same mileage when you're cruising on a highway

Tbf ive found the mini gets a couple mpg more on "super" over regular unleaded. Not a huge amount more but still

[The1Dickens]

15 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

I guess it’s “new” until no one wants to buy it for “new” price then? 

Used to be can't sell it as 'new' if it has over 200 miles on it, even if all those were test drive miles. Though, you'd have to really question what is wrong with the car to put on 200 test-drive miles, considering even at 5 miles per test drive, that's 40 test drives, and still nobody has bought the car.

[AlwaysFSX]

11 minutes ago, iDeFecZx said:

Tbf ive found the mini gets a couple mpg more on "super" over regular unleaded. Not a huge amount more but still

Almost never worth the cost though.

[Bitter]

4 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

lemme spend 60% more on gas just to get the same mileage when you're cruising on a highway

So I know a Celica from 00-05 isn't super modern but there have been several GTS (11.5:1 CR) owners over the years on the forums that have either inherited a GTS ran on regular for long periods or it's whole life or did so themselves because they didn't know any different. Short term, there's a loss in power that's more noticeable at higher RPM because science. Long term there's a decent drop in fuel economy (about 20%) city and highway but more importantly long term there seems to be a greater occurrence of catalyst failure at lower miles, spark plugs wear faster, and a higher incidence of oil consumption/lowered compression. Seems to be with the pulled back timing and richer fuel mixture to compensate for the lower octane than expected the engine suffers long term. Run the correct minimum octane and just suck it up, it's not a huge cost and you bought the car because it does what they say it does and those things are with the fuel intended.

 

I'm aware that some cars and probably most modern cars have more sophisticated self mapping for octane adjustment but long term it's still running below optimal, if you want a car that takes regular then just buy one.

[iDeFecZx]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Almost never worth the cost though.

Depending what you go for here the cost isnt much different. Unless its shell V power, then its hideously expensive.

[Bitter]

Doing the passenger seat skin on my Celica, think I fixed the weak lumbar support by slightly bending a seat spring.

[bcredeur97]

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

So I know a Celica from 00-05 isn't super modern but there have been several GTS (11.5:1 CR) owners over the years on the forums that have either inherited a GTS ran on regular for long periods or it's whole life or did so themselves because they didn't know any different. Short term, there's a loss in power that's more noticeable at higher RPM because science. Long term there's a decent drop in fuel economy (about 20%) city and highway but more importantly long term there seems to be a greater occurrence of catalyst failure at lower miles, spark plugs wear faster, and a higher incidence of oil consumption/lowered compression. Seems to be with the pulled back timing and richer fuel mixture to compensate for the lower octane than expected the engine suffers long term. Run the correct minimum octane and just suck it up, it's not a huge cost and you bought the car because it does what they say it does and those things are with the fuel intended.

 

I'm aware that some cars and probably most modern cars have more sophisticated self mapping for octane adjustment but long term it's still running below optimal, if you want a car that takes regular then just buy one.

yeah idk if I'd run regular (on the regular lol) on cars from the early 2000's, but modern cars? pfft run regular all day. I'm sure they test for this sort of thing. Anybody not thinking can just dump regular in the tank anyway.

 

I've used regular in my 2002 miata (10.5:1 compression). Does drop fuel mileage a bit. Less noticable if purely highway use so if I had to take a long roadtrip in it for some reason I'd probably do it just for the trip. But most of the time premium is in the tank (especially since I don't drive it all the time now)

[Bitter]

17 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

yeah idk if I'd run regular (on the regular lol) on cars from the early 2000's, but modern cars? pfft run regular all day. I'm sure they test for this sort of thing. Anybody not thinking can just dump regular in the tank anyway.

 

I've used regular in my 2002 miata (10.5:1 compression). Does drop fuel mileage a bit. Less noticable if purely highway use so if I had to take a long roadtrip in it for some reason I'd probably do it just for the trip. But most of the time premium is in the tank (especially since I don't drive it all the time now)

Back when GM rolled out their turbo V6 in one of the Cadillac models an early production press loaner exploded an engine when a magazine put regular fuel in it instead of premium to gauge the effect on gas mileage and performance. It knocked itself right apart, somehow someone at GM screwed up that bad on the tune or the tank of regular they got was that sub par or some combo of the both. Thankfully that journalist found the problem and GM corrected it but jeeze what a fuck up! That being said you have to assume that any used car you get is still running the stock tune if you want to chance running regular in it, if someone did a tune 3 owners ago then you pump a tank of 87 and mash to pass you could be in for a nasty surprise.

[HM-2]

3 hours ago, iDeFecZx said:

Tbf ive found the mini gets a couple mpg more on "super" over regular unleaded. Not a huge amount more but still

Agreed; working it out over ~15k miles it costs me pretty much the same to run my M140i on Super as it does on regular unleaded, given the ~3-4mpg difference i seem to get. Circa 10p a litre difference is less than 10% and I average about 30mpg in mixed driving, so the costs are identical if not slightly favouring super.

[bcredeur97]

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

Back when GM rolled out their turbo V6 in one of the Cadillac models an early production press loaner exploded an engine when a magazine put regular fuel in it instead of premium to gauge the effect on gas mileage and performance. It knocked itself right apart, somehow someone at GM screwed up that bad on the tune or the tank of regular they got was that sub par or some combo of the both. Thankfully that journalist found the problem and GM corrected it but jeeze what a fuck up! That being said you have to assume that any used car you get is still running the stock tune if you want to chance running regular in it, if someone did a tune 3 owners ago then you pump a tank of 87 and mash to pass you could be in for a nasty surprise.

well i have incredibly bad luck buying cars that can't be tuned without swapping ECU's so I'll be fine

[iDeFecZx]

40 minutes ago, HM-2 said:

Agreed; working it out over ~15k miles it costs me pretty much the same to run my M140i on Super as it does on regular unleaded, given the ~3-4mpg difference i seem to get. Circa 10p a litre difference is less than 10% and I average about 30mpg in mixed driving, so the costs are identical if not slightly favouring super.

Whats the 140 like? Might be looking to get one early next year.

[HM-2]

9 hours ago, iDeFecZx said:

Whats the 140 like? Might be looking to get one early next year.

It's great. Flawed but great. The whole driving experience is dominated by the engine; nominally they're 340bhp but frequently dyno between 350-370 which is a lot of shove in a small car. Quite a lot of them are running stage 1 maps which are 420-440bhp which in my opinion is far too much without other modifications.

 

The chassis struggles to keep up, particularly on tight b-roads and over rougher surfaces, rear end damping in particular isn't great which means they can struggle for traction. They fare better on wider, smoother a-roads and to be honest work best as something of a mini-GT when compared to stuff like the RenaultSport Megane. They really should have come from the factory with a limited slip differential instead of an open one. Mine has the OE 3-door rear chassis brace fitted which helps somewhat. Oddly I though the adaptive suspension cars were worse than fixed as none of the modes was quite "right" but YMMV.

 

I've been lucky enough to drive both a Birds B1 kitted M140i and a more heavily tweaked road/track M240i with the M Performance differential. The Birds suspension kit is great for UK roads if a bit on the pricy side for springs and shocks (albeit custom profiles for each). The M240i was on KW V3s with M4 control arms and some other accompanying bits. Sure it would have been great on the track but it was a bit firm for the road. The difference the M Performance differential makes is night and day through. I suspect a decent middle ground would be something like adjustable KW Street Comforts. The M Performance exhaust is great but unvalved and quite antisocial on cold starts, which is a shame as the 340i exhaust is valved.

 

I'll be getting rid of mine next year, likely moving onto a MPPSK kitted F31 340i Touring or G21 M340i depending on how far the latter have dropped by that point 

[iDeFecZx]

3 hours ago, HM-2 said:

It's great. Flawed but great. The whole driving experience is dominated by the engine; nominally they're 340bhp but frequently dyno between 350-370 which is a lot of shove in a small car. Quite a lot of them are running stage 1 maps which are 420-440bhp which in my opinion is far too much without other modifications.

 

The chassis struggles to keep up, particularly on tight b-roads and over rougher surfaces, rear end damping in particular isn't great which means they can struggle for traction. They fare better on wider, smoother a-roads and to be honest work best as something of a mini-GT when compared to stuff like the RenaultSport Megane. They really should have come from the factory with a limited slip differential instead of an open one. Mine has the OE 3-door rear chassis brace fitted which helps somewhat. Oddly I though the adaptive suspension cars were worse than fixed as none of the modes was quite "right" but YMMV.

 

I've been lucky enough to drive both a Birds B1 kitted M140i and a more heavily tweaked road/track M240i with the M Performance differential. The Birds suspension kit is great for UK roads if a bit on the pricy side for springs and shocks (albeit custom profiles for each). The M240i was on KW V3s with M4 control arms and some other accompanying bits. Sure it would have been great on the track but it was a bit firm for the road. The difference the M Performance differential makes is night and day through. I suspect a decent middle ground would be something like adjustable KW Street Comforts. The M Performance exhaust is great but unvalved and quite antisocial on cold starts, which is a shame as the 340i exhaust is valved.

 

I'll be getting rid of mine next year, likely moving onto a MPPSK kitted F31 340i Touring or G21 M340i depending on how far the latter have dropped by that point 

Hmm, I've got a F56 S atm but looking for something a bit more commute friendly and a bit more practical alongside having something a bit different to my previous cars.