|
The texture of her pants hasn't loaded yet so it's just the black and purple checkerboard placeholder, like this:
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Her pants match the seatcovers, and I'm not sure which is the bigger violation to my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
What car is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:What car is that? It's the 1973 Ford Pinto Sportiva Concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:What car is that? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Ford Sportiva Why haven't you used this name already, Ford? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Thanks. They could have at least changed the front end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
After much effort putting the turbocharger into the CD drive, I was able to rip it onto the computer. It would have been a lot easier if PTE would just have sent the drawings to me like I wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:After much effort putting the turbocharger into the CD drive, I was able to rip it onto the computer. That's really cool, what software did you use to model it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Looooooks like SolidWorks, but I can't be sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Solidworks, yea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Solidworks, yea. Now you need to import an apple model for scale. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:
Isn't that PTE's business model? "Sure, trust us, we have specs/compressor maps/drawings/etc you need to do things right, but no you can't have them. Just trust us and give us your money."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
There's something justifying a near $2000 difference between the PTE and nearest Garrett model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Yeah, just... well, you've probably seen all the Precision issues. I'll pass, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Yeah, just... well, you've probably seen all the Precision issues. I'll pass, personally.  if only because of the gangtag.But seriously, what problems do they have?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
iospace posted:
Well, I know what parts of rotaries are failure prone and work around them... mostly...?  Readers digest from research as opposed to being part of the whole thing - Precision started off as a Garrett rebuilder, then started modifying stuff and had a bunch of failures (good luck on determining how many - at the time there was pressure for people not to speak up for risk of being cut off as they were the only class legal turbo) some of which resulted in what's euphemistically referred to as "uncontained turbine failures", at least partially probably due to modifying OEM rotating parts without knowing the design tolerances. Garrett cut them off as a reseller so they moved to their own manufacture on the precision spinny bits (technical term) which they say solved the issues. Some people insist it was overblown, some people say that they had heaps of failures, a lot of time Precision was apparently writing things off as installer error, you know all the typical forum wars crap discussing it. ... personally though, given the speeds, forces and tolerances, I'm hesitant as hell. Garrett, IHI, MHI, BW, Holset, etc have real engineering departments and test labs and validate stuff to OEM reliability levels, and in markets where they give a drat will provide a bunch of data. The aftermarket stuff is pretty much all repurposed OEM stuff but that means that it's had durability validated behind the scenes and performance maps provided. When the smaller turbo makers won't even provide performance data like compressor maps (I'm wary as hell of what boils down to "trust us, this works great") I have about zero confidence there's any work done on durability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Holsett was just as shady on the phone when I talked to them, but they didn't have a loaner program. I'd go with Garrett, but the application I'm using the turbo for is very heavily monitored heat and rpm wise. Any failure would have a mountain of data behind it for diagnosis. I also don't need anything crazy like surge bleeders, ball bearings, or twin scrolls. PTE makes a very simple, but very large turbo with a rediculous 1.5. AR turbine, which is exactly what I need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Yeah, Holset basically don't give a drat about the performance aftermarket - as a subsidiary of Cummins, they really don't care about your business. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all the OEM level turbo companies will give normal people their data - there's a lot of applications past what the aftermarket can get a hold of - but anyway. Huge AR turbine... sounds like a DIY jet sorta application. There's also the BW S500s that are reasonably priced. Sounds like fun though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Big AR, heavily monitored. If you're not building a jet I couldn't guess what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:What is wrong with her .... everything? The '70s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Finally. A RCR for the Ford Ranger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_TQo3yDkVo The intro pretty much loving nails it. Literally the worst (and best) snow vehicle I have ever driven. Oh my GOD!! The 6x8 speakers! The Miata transmission! I'm really starting to miss my Ranger. GnarlyCharlie4u fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Yup, the first 20 seconds hit waaaay too close to home. That said, I didn't find my 2.5L Ranger to be all that hard to work on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Miata transmission? Are Miata transmissions really that... industrial? Agricultural? because those are the words I'd use to describe the transmission on my 05 Ranger (which I love)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Miata transmission? Are Miata transmissions really that... industrial? Agricultural? because those are the words I'd use to describe the transmission on my 05 Ranger (which I love) I think they just share internals?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yup, the first 20 seconds hit waaaay too close to home. Those aren't cold war motors on there forth or fifth redesign. The Vulcan gets a lot of hate. But it's been around because it's hard to kill even if everything is falling apart around it. And most people have only experienced them in a Taurus which was a turd for other reasons. All the 4 cylinder rangers are much better then the v6 rangers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The 4.0 Ranger wasn't as bad. Still rather have an S10 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:The 4.0 Ranger wasn't as bad. Still would rather have a 4 banger yota. Most domestic cars suck. And every s10 I drove in had issues I couldn't ignore. Edit: I did learn most of my driving in a 4 cylinder 88 ranger or 90 Dakota with a 4cylinder/5speed combo . and if I had to pick I would be in a Toyota or Dakota again. clam ache fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
I had 4-cyl Ranger for about seven years, put 80k miles on it during that time. It was as basic as you could get it: nothing powered except the brakes (of course). Not even power steering. 2wd, manual windows, standard cab, vinyl bench seat. I used it to commute and do the occasional truck thing. It was very boring and terrible in the winter. It was gutless with embarrassing performance. Fuel mileage wasn't great despite the puny, gutless engine. But it never gave me a single problem. Except for that one time where a shop didn't fully tighten the caliper bolts and one caliper came loose at 35 mph. That was fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:My 2 year old daughter approves of these hillclimb videos: Your daughter is cooler than the dweebs in this thread who are ignoring greatness... 2:08 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
clam ache posted:Still would rather have a 4 banger yota. Most domestic cars suck. And every s10 I drove in had issues I couldn't ignore. I drove a 2.2 S10 for about 120k, including halfway across the country. Only issue that truck ever had was when the exhaust flex pipe right off the manifold blew up, and I drove around for a week sounding like half a race truck. My Dakota is hilarious to drive, but too many weird Mopar issues for me to want another one. That and parts availability loving blows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
clam ache posted:Those aren't cold war motors on there forth or fifth redesign. The Vulcan gets a lot of hate. But it's been around because it's hard to kill even if everything is falling apart around it. And most people have only experienced them in a Taurus which was a turd for other reasons. All the 4 cylinder rangers are much better then the v6 rangers. The 2.5L I had was the last gasp of the Pinto engine and not the Mazda DOHC 2.3, but yes I'll agree that 4>6 when it comes to Rangers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aoJDpkjmM
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:I drove a 2.2 S10 for about 120k, including halfway across the country. Only issue that truck ever had was when the exhaust flex pipe right off the manifold blew up, and I drove around for a week sounding like half a race truck. We managed to put over 100K miles on my wife's '96 2.2/5-speed ex-cab Sonoma (S-10 in a GMC suit) in 4 years, and I don't think I ever did anything to that truck except lower it, and replace brake pads. Certainly nothing major. I still want a 4.3/5-speed (rare) version of that truck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:I still want a 4.3/5-speed (rare) version of that truck. Build one? That exact combo might be rare but it seems like all the components you'd need are dirt common. Of course, if you're going that route, you might as well just get a 4.8 or 5.3 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Finally. A RCR for the Ford Ranger. Pennsylvania doesn't allow any other headlights when your high beams are on? What the gently caress? What sense does that make? When you have the high beams on, you want all the light you can get... My Cutlass runs all four headlights on high from the factory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Build one? That exact combo might be rare but it seems like all the components you'd need are dirt common. True. Though, that body style only goes back to '94, so not exempt in TX yet. Would have to keep all the LSx emissions, not that it's that difficult. I'm also getting kind of old, so I'd probably be relatively happy with a 4L60, especially if I want to use it as a truck rather than a lowered sports thing. The 4.3/auto combo is easy to find. The really hard S10/Sonoma to find is the four door. For one thing, every one I've seen is a 4x4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:The really hard S10/Sonoma to find is the four door. For one thing, every one I've seen is a 4x4. I saw one of those for the first time not too long ago. My first thought was "what in the world did they do to that Blazer?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Build one? That exact combo might be rare but it seems like all the components you'd need are dirt common. I have always lusted for a sbc small truck. My dad worked with a guy who has a Toyota little truck with a 383 in it. Man the power to weight in that truck was insane. So much so that if he pulled the weights out of the back it couldn't make traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Finally. A RCR for the Ford Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:49
|
|
