Jump to content
Impact Bumpers

SilverWT

Gruppe IB
  • Content Count

    2,999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SilverWT

  • Rank
    IB Glitterati

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    London

Previous Fields

  • Current 911
    1984 3.2 - Lightened & Tweaked + 1983 SC - Stock-ish

Recent Profile Visitors

1,319 profile views
  1. No, not in this aspect. Instructions apply to all IBs. I have had a SW chip in for 8+ years without any negative effects, from memory I also set the fuel adjustment to max. Mark
  2. Identical. I have an '83 SC and an '84 3.2, neither have standard setups now, but the one with the much much heavier steering (at lower speed) is the SC. No discernible difference in weight at road speed, but the 3.2 has much better turn in when you go for it. The SCs PO had it set up by a very well known specialist for "fast road" and I have just left it as it is, as its great for a road car. I set up the 3.2 myself for road and track. I'm sure with 20 minutes of work I could swap the characteristics over if I wanted. Mark
  3. The 3.2 is a 1987/8 UK RHD car and so it is almost 100% certain it came with 16" wheels as appears to be shown in the pictures. We all know the big difference options/maintenance/alignment can make to the feel of how the same type of 911 drives. All else being equal there is little difference in feel between an SC and 915 3.2, a little bit more difference between both of them and a G50 3.2, good or bad is subjective. The only way to do this would be to put all four cars into the same garage and get them checked for factory alignment, originality, option differences, etc. before the test. Mark
  4. Not so sure, I thought it helps stabilises tick over, on a cold engine.
  5. Only ascetically acceptable on a wide body IMHO, never offered by Porsche on a narrow body car either.
  6. Seems unlikely they would have used different top coat systems underneath and on top, so most likely 1K solvent system originally with a 2K system respray at some point. You can always give it a light coat of the final colour top coat to just make the primer moisture proof. Will then act as a guide coat when you prep for final finish. Mark
  7. I'm not able to do this, even if there were spaces left. Clashes with other commitments, as it did last year
  8. Try a small area with solvent thinners on a cloth. If colour comes off it would have been a solvent based solid system (i.e. it hardens by evaporation of the solvent carrier and redissolves in solvent). If no colour comes off it is either a solvent clear coat, or a clear, or solid chemically cured system. Continued rubbing and careful observation will tell you which.
  9. Inter-coat adhesion is critical for a quality finish. Solvent systems like cellulose melt/dissolve together at the interface of each coat giving a very strong physical bond. They do not have a lot of adhesion and/or chemical bonding. This obviously can't happen on the first coat, hence etch primer which chemically bonds to the metal, together with some adhesion. Subsequent coats "melt" together. So the whole thing is a proven system. Chemically cured products (epoxy, 2K, etc.) Are designed to stick to each other by mainly chemical bonding with some adhesion. I get away with solvent based clear coat over water base because the solvent does melt the dry water based coating. The water based coating is also designed to both chemically and physically bond with any primer type so it can be used in patch repairs on all cars as well as full resprays. I would stick to proven systems. Mark
  10. Good to see you and have a chat, car looking mega sharp as usual. Underlines we should use them more, my recalcitrant Autoheat, full on on the way down (cleared the windows great, but melted my socks!), cured itself on the way home. Behaved just as designed, so if 140 miles can cure Autoheat woes imagine what a 1K run will do. Drive on a long enough run and it will cure you rusty bits Mark
  11. Just an extra bit of into, it is not just the "lip" on the original design that holds the rubber bush in place, there is also an "olive" on the inner bush to locate the rubber in place.
  12. If you look at the angles these go through, washers large enough to do the job will foul the metal housing restricting movement of the drop link. If you remember some time back I tried recasting the bush in poly, which worked, but the material did not have enough flex (elasticity) to survive the movement for more than a few thousand miles. It seems like rubber is the only material with enough elasticity to work in this application. Others who have tried various rose joints have found they do not last long due to road dirt contamination, even when using rubber boots. Possibly a track only solution. So we seem we are a bit stuck with making sure we source new ones with the original design, unless someone can think of another solution. Mark
  13. The autoheat wiring diagrams for pre 3.2 cars shows ground connection via the heater relay module in the engine bay. For 3.2 cars there is a direct ground connection with the extra connections for the footwell blowers. Mark
  14. One is power from the front fuse box, one is power from the instrument light circuit to light the indicator light when the lights are on and one goes back to the heater blower relay in the engine compartment. What is working slowly? The solenoid motor and linkage that opens/closes the valves in the flapper box by ? If so they always move relatively slowly, but maybe the cables and flapper mechanism needs attention/lubrication. Mark
×
×
  • Create New...