Jump to content
Impact Bumpers


Gruppe IB
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SilverWT

  • Rank
    IB Glitterati

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,162 profile views
  1. Just seen this, so sorry for you, but glad you are OK. Good luck getting it back and getting the best outcome. Mark
  2. Around 98dB, but they all seem to vary, as do the test results depending on operator and weather etc. Under rev a bit and clutch in should get a std IB through, but intake and mechanical noise are all additive being rear engined. I have baffles in the twin tail pipes and a spare set of bolt on extra baffles if needed (not needed to use them yet). I will also put a standard air filter cover back on. Mark
  3. Come on you old farts, less banter, more track time Mark
  4. Open Pit Lane track evening for road cars, Brands Indi, next Thursday May 23. https://www.msvtrackdays.com/car/calendar/2019/may/23-bh-eve/?utm_campaign=Car+Trackday+30.04.2019+EDM+NEW+LAYOUT&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content= I have just booked at £119, weather forecast looks OK, anyone else? Mark
  5. +100 I've been using one for about three years, works perfectly and with more options/modes than you would ever need. Used every track day, on the road and taken on every holiday. Works a treat underwater, loads of turtle and fish action! Mark
  6. 3.2 does not have an accumulator. The primary purpose of the regulator on a 3.2 is to keep the pressure within spec when the pump is running Mark
  7. I was avoiding chipping in and sounding like a doom monger, but... ...the metal was originally galvanised and over enthusiastic striping to bare metal/rust treatment can do much more harm than good. Also 14 years is a long time if it was not done to at least as good as factory. If it was mine, I would not fret too much, keep driving it in all weathers (except salty roads) and do a local strip back on the edge to see what was going on in that area. +1, it looks like it has body filler under the paint from the pictures. Mark
  8. Good price! Same as my one except for the terminal configuration, obviously the last letter in the battery type designates the type of terminals it has. Mark
  9. Still going strong. When in the garage I put it on a tender, but I've recently left the car in the drive for a couple of weeks with alarm on etc. and it started fine after that. So £40 pound well spent! I only ever use Yuasa batteries now, I put a smaller than std Yuasa in the SC and even the house alarm backup is now a Yuasa Mark
  10. There should always be an audible buzzing from the engine bay of all 930s, and all SCs, from their CDI box when the ignition is on, so a buzzing may be a "red herring". I would go with Jevvy's dodgy starter and heat soak as a starting point. One added point, a std CDI box will not work if the voltage drops too low as it could do cranking a dodgy starter. @Jonny Hart is the expert on this aspect. Mark
  11. Apples v Apples, what I disagreed with was the claim that a 3.2 cooler was heavier and less efficient than other coolers. No argument with you re air flow and efficiency of location/relocation. I would also argue that a Mocal cooler (on which the Setrab design is based) was a perfectly reasonable example of a quality aftermarket cooler to use as a comparison. Mark
  12. +1 on both these comments. Sorry, don't agree with this and this is the reason... 3.2 matrix cooler = 2.6kg, 3.6 matrix cooler = 3.0Kg, Mocal matrix cooler ((14 x 23 cm, other sizes available, just happen to have this in the shed) = 1.5kg. They all have a matrix depth of 5cm and so simply using the surface area of the exposed face of the matrix it gives areas as follows; 3.2 = 595cm2, 3.6 = 661.5cm2, Mocal 320cm2. This translates as the following g/cm2; 3.2 = 4.37, 3.6 = 4.54, Mocal 4.68. My conclusion therefore is there is nothing in the weight aspect on the basis of like for like cooling area. Furthermore, if you wanted to make a cooler lighter you would either have to make it more flimsy by using less material, or go for some exotic (costly) material. Now, to further throw the cat among the pigeons. I have an RSR type cooler allegedly off a Ruf race car, it does have to 30x1.5M Porsche thread outlets and is made by Behr, so some provenance. It is just about as big as you could fit behind the RSR type opening and is very sturdy in construction. It has the same 5cm depth and so a comparable cooling area of 848cm2 and it weighs in at a hefty 5.5kg giving it a 6.49g/cm2 rating. I assume that it more robust due to the potential vulnerability of it intended location. Here is a pic of the four coolers together.. Even though it is very hot typing all this with an Anorak on, for completeness, the % comparison of areas is as follows: 3.6 = 11.2% bigger than a 3.2, "Ruf" = 42.5% bigger than a 3.2 and this particular Mocal cooler is 46.2% smaller than a 3.2. I shall now go an lie down in a darkened room. Mark
  13. pics... In the opening part I cut out of my bumper, Out, showing the return on all four sides that locates it and takes screws to hold it in place, You are welcome to have it Mark. If it fits it's an easy job, if not it may be a bit of a fiddle. Looking at the size of the hole, without blocking it the front would have much less "spoiling" effect that a std valence and rubber lip and a lot of air would be directed under the car. Mark
  14. The size of the grill originally from a GT mouldings bumper is 15 cm x 49 cm. Pics to follow. If you are not putting a cooler in I would seriously consider blanking off the hole (even if behind a grill due to aesthetics considerations), otherwise you are just going to get unnecessary lift at the front. Mark
  • Create New...