charlie_pank

I have literally lost count of the number of times I have explained that the starter click symptoms are caused by one or more of a number of issues. Because there are so many things that can contribute or cause it, even after you fix it, it may recur because something else pushes the system's resistance over the limit. Also just because one thing fixes it in one car doesn't mean it'll fix yours.

If it does turn out to be a loose connection, I don't think it will be as bad as all that to find, you just need to work through it methodically...

It's a cumulative problem of resistance. So there's rarely 1 permanent source of this problem or a 1 stop fix. Have you thought about how to diagnose which of the many factors may be to blame? eg. When you get the dreaded 'click' can you get the starter to spin by shorting the terminals? - what does this tell you? Where does the 'click' come from is it from the relay or the solenoid? - what does this tell you? etc... - Replace ALL the cabling to the starter - Rebuild (and clean) the starter NB The push button feeds the relay. If you hear the relay or the solenoid clicking, then the button is doing its job, there's no point in replacing it.

What makes you sure it's the immobiliser causing the problem? ISTR that the fuel pump should prime regardless of immobiliser, although it has been a while...

Take ecu & immob to Rover or find an online company to post them to.

I've got a spare immobiliser and 2 fobs for it. You'd have to get it paired with your ECU, but if you want it, let me know...

There are unique number generators available online...

How much do you stand to lose on the transaction? Could you put the money to better (automotive) use? What could you upgrade for the same price? - I'm inclined to agree about the idea of upgrading your current car to a sequential box. Do you care about resale value? What's the servicing like on a R500D? Does it need the same 10,000 'refresh' as the R500K?

That's great news - just imagine how much faster you'll be on track now that you can stop properly!

Quoting rynicolson: When you say drill a hole in the thermostat - I assume you mean in the header tank expansion tank's cap (which acts as a PRV)? Or am I misssing another thermostat... NOOOOOO! Thermostat is in a housing on the forward, starboard side of the engine. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DRILL A HOLE IN THE HEADER TANK CAP!

There's no magic to brakes. If the pedal is spongy there is one or more of a number of things happening: 1. Fluid has air in it somewhere and the air is compressing 2. Fluid is boiling 3. Fluid is being lost 4. One or more of the seals in the system are allowing fluid past them Cures/tests: 1. Bleed, bleed and bleed again. Bleed with the rear calipers off the wheels so that the bleed nipple is uppermost. 2. You might have a sticky piston. Check the temp of each hub (carefully) with your hand after a session. If one's much hotter than the others, there's a clue. If this is your problem proper feel should return after it has cooled down 3. Find the leak, it must be coming out somewhere. Most likely candidates are the piston seals or any pipe unions. 4. If it's none of the above, then the only seal that can allow fluid past without causing a leak is the master cylinder. Replace it and try again. I had persistent problems with a clutch master cylinder in a rally car a while ago. I replaced the seals on the master piston a couple of times but it kept failing. Only cured by replacing the whole cylinder assembly. When I took apart the failing M/C I couldn't see anything wrong with it at all. I concluded that you only needed a tiny tiny tiny bit of scoring to allow enough fluid past the seal to cause a problem...

I'm sure that the race-setup makes a difference to your car. But I've never found it to be super-hard work to lock up the wheels in mine.

In Autocar's 0-100-0 test: Caterham CSR260 0-30 1.57 0-60 3.50 0-100 7.72 Reaction Time 0.37 100-0 3.86 Overall 11.95 Lamborghini Gallardo 4.20 Porsche 911 Turbo 4.25 Lotus Exige S 4.23 'quite quick' would be an understatement. Edited by - charlie_pank on 12 Jul 2013 14:01:58

My 7 stops faster than anything else I've ever seen on the road. I have some Pagid things in the rears and Mintex 1144s in the front. Standard calipers, no bias valve. If you can't lock up the wheels, and/or you feel like an emergency stop is impossible, then there's something seriously wrong with your setup. I strongly advise you to investigate it thoroughly before you drive it again.

Hi Jon, From what you've described, I'd be looking at either the TPS (best test is to swap in another one from a friend) or the ECU coolant temp sensor - they are very cheap, you could probably just buy another one to try it. If the coolant sensor is giving duff information, then it's probably telling the ECU that the engine is cooler than it is, and as a result you're getting bogged down by too much fuel - how's your MPG? Does the exhaust stink of petrol? In terms of logical diagnostic tests, I always start from the basic premise that the engine needs 3 things (in the right proportions, at the right time) to run: fuel air spark Now it sounds like you can reproduce the problem whenever you want, so presumably you can reproduce it once the engine is warm with the bonnet off by rotating the throttle spindle with your hand. Test #1: reproduce the problem as described above, then try doing it again while spraying Easistart into the air-intake (remove air-filter). Does the problem disappear? If the problem disappears then you have too-little fuel going in (or too much air - air leak?), if it doesn't then the problem is either caused by too much fuel, or lack of spark... if you report back the results, we can try and devise the next test...

I'm going to be controversial slightly deliberately Save your money, buy a low-spec kit/car and learn to drive it. Upgrade over time as your spannering and driving skills improve...

I've had to take wheels back 3 times to get them correctly balanced before.

I've never dynoed anything, but I will get you a 0-60 time at some point. I'm in no hurry though, too busy with 'project Roo'

Or increase your wheel circumference by a factor of 1.6? Run the car gearbox backwards? Seriously though, faced with all these issues, might it be cheaper to ditch the car gearbox all together (it's not doing anything anyway in your application) and get a CW&P made up for your axle? Edited by - charlie_pank on 28 Jun 2013 13:47:52

agreed, so new topic started - not PM as a man publically accused of being either deliberately[sic] obtuse, or stupid has a right to defend himself. New thread: here

offshoot of Honda s800 thread ... genuinely don't understand, not being deliberately obtuse. Here's a plot of wheel torque against road speed: here There's a different curve for each gear - so you just need to be geared right to achieve the torque you want, so long as you've got the rev-range to allow it. Can you actually show us a plot for a CEC and a similar BEC?

You have to keep the engine buzzing in a narrower region of engine speed which is what the gears are for. All other things being equal (which they're not), my 1000cc engine will make the same power at 7000rpm as your 2000cc one will at 3500. My advantage here is that I've got another 7000 to go :)

This may be a silly question, but how do you know you're losing coolant? My assumption is because the level in the expansion tank is different from how it was when you checked it last. Did you check it when the engine had been cooling for the same amount of time as last time? Maybe you had an airlock before, that has now been filled? Are there any telltale signs of leaking (normally a white residue). The most common spot to leak is at the point where the water-rail meets the block on the exhaust side...

Looking at it another way, why is my 675cc (69nm) motorbike faster over the quarter mile than my diesel estate (340nm)? When the former is roughly 1/5 the mass of the latter? Edited by - charlie_pank on 28 Jun 2013 07:17:27

The force is the expansion of the gasses in the cylinder pushing the piston down. The mass is the car. The resultant acceleration *per cycle* is lower with lower cc, but there are many more cycles per unit of time. Your equation of course also ignores any frictional or air resistance. Without them you'd be able to just keep accelerating forever... On a speed against time graph, the area under the graph shows distance travelled (speed x time). What does the area under a speed against torque graph show, I genuinely don't know. If you convert both to SI units you get m/s and nm. Multiplying them gives nm^2/s, what's that a measure of?