Metrosexual...
- Thread starter penski
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 963
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,349
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I'd rather have this one 
170bhp in something that small has to be good
170bhp in something that small has to be good
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
that's an old old car as they were only badged minimetro for about the first 8 and a half minutes of production, then the "mini" part of the badge was dropped.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 1,704
- Location
- In ** bottom drawer...
Mr_Sukebe said:
Heh a silver MG non turbo was lowererd by that fluid removal method, made for an interesting drive especially when it tramlined at any thing over 30 mph!
The garage that refilled it made it look like a cross roads mutant it was so high!
penski said:
Not so sure about that, tbh.
You must, to give a fair comparison, always remember to factor in labour charges to compare projects, so if we do that, then how can you say an on the road Talon 100rt is more expensive than a diy project.
Can you do a spec like this
Re-Welded Floor Pans and Sills
Fully Welded 6-Point Roll-Cage with Door Bars and Diagonal
160BHP 1.8 VVC Engine with PG1 Gearbox (Type C Gearset)
Quaife Torque Biasing Limited Slip Differential
Aluminium Undertray with Rear Diffuser
Fibreglass Bonnet
Fibreglass Tailgate
Perspex Windows (Except front screen)
New Clutch and Release Bearing
2 Core High Capacity Radiator
Front and Rear Anti-Rollbars
GTi Vented Front Discs and Calipers
14" Alloy Wheels with Toyo Proxes T1R Tyres
Individualised and modified hydragas units
New Custom Designed Exhaust
Rear Wheelarch Repair and Cover Trims
Paintwork Re-Done and Colour Coded
12 Months MOT
for £6k on the road taxed and tested????
If you include however many hours it has taken you to build it DIY charged at (as an average figure) £40 an hour, surely that would be much more expensive???
Mr_Sukebe said:
The offical figure at launch was 9.5 seconds IIRC. The MG Metro (non-turbo) was ~10.5 seconds.
They had to severely limit boost in the mid range (only 4 PSI) for a couple reasons:
1) The torque would have crucified the gearbox very quickly (they didn't last long even with the lower boost)
2) The engine had a high compression for a turbo of ~9.5:1, to give better fuel economy and improved off-boost performance. Also helped to overcome the lag induced by a rather oversized T3 turbo.
Also the final drive ratio was reduced from 3.4:1 of the normaly aspiarted metro to 3.2:1 to give better cruising ability and economy.
For all it's faults the Metro Turbo had excellent handling, and they are (or were, not many around now) good fun to drive.
Mr_Sukebe said:
Is it through ignorance or idiocy that you have made that statement?
How it was when he got it:
Those four bolts held the whole rear of the car on...
How it looks now:
I'd already told you that all the grot had been removed and replaced with fresh metal (and posted pictures proving it) so I fear it must be the latter.
*n
Dup said:I have a J reg Metro waiting for something like this. I just need the girlfriend to get a new car. It's only got 22k on it... shame we'll have to get rid of that engine too!
If it's the 1.4k, its a very nice base for a cheap fun car.
If it's a-series powered, either get a Turbo lump or speak to the 16v mini guys about Honda/Vauxhall power...
*n