iulirx

ideea acestui topic este sa vedem cam care ar putea fi evolutiile motoarelor, sa stim si noi la ce sa ne asteptam si, probabil ce-o sa ne luam.

consola de cristal...pentru serii limitate de contul in banca. se gindesc ca apar noi milionari ? daca pe s60 pun asa ceva, pe s80 ce s-or gindi sa puna ?

ok, le vindem.... si ce propui sa luam in loc ??

daca da vre-unul peste mine, o sa ma vedeti la stirile de la ora 5.

vezi ca motorina cfr este distilata altfel (are fractii mai usoare, se apropie mai mult de benzina) motorul merge mai cald, dar are forta mai mare. pentru viata motorului nu e bine. (e ca si cum ai pune izo-octan pur in loc de benzina. masina scirtie rotile si la relanti dar motorul merge in afara parametrilor. nu se unge.)

din surse sigure iti spun ca omv si rompetrol dau la poarta fabricii EXACT ce scrie la pompa. ce e nasol, e ca la statii sau pe drum, se umbla la calitate. exista totusi o mare diferenta intre combustibilii fabricati la noi si in vest : calitatea aditivilor. sint aceeasi,in aceeasi proportie dar cu un ordin de marime mai "slabi" acesti aditivi se simt la benzina la cantitatea de oxigen consumata / grad iar la motorina la viteza de ardere (implicit la randamentul turbo)

vezi aici : http://www.tirerack.com/tires/CompareTires.jsp?sortValue=1&displayResults=4&compare=true&compareList=0%2C1%2C2%2C3&goWhere=%252Ftires%252FCompare1.jsp&sortCode=&width=235%2F&ratio=60&diameter=18&performance=W&startIndex=0 io zic sa te uiti la ce-au mai zis altii si, deasemenea, sa tii cont de ce zic specialistii de pe site. dunlop e alegerea corecta.

si motorizari noi ? se aude ceva ?

daca bmw nu se atinge de designul , eleganta si confortul volvo, in schimb aduce dieselurile si suspensiile, atunci e ok. pentru mine ar fi un vis un s60 cu motorul de 3 L diesel de la bmw (si cu suspensiile si "4c" -ul lor) de concurat cred ca volvo ar umple golurile dintre seriile bmw. s40 intre 1 si 3, s60 intre 3 si 5, s80 intre 5 si 7. nu stiu suv-urile ce se va intimpla cu ele..... oricum, ar fi cea mai buna alegere .

The Car Bibles - Separating the fact from the fiction about speeding and speedtraps. http://www.carbibles.com I am in no way affiliated with any branch of the motor industry. I am just a pro-car, pro-motorbike petrolhead who is into basic car maintenance. The information on these pages is the result of information-gathering, research and hands-on experience. By reading these pages, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless me (Christopher J Longhurst), any sponsors and/or site providers against any and all claims, damages, costs or other expenses that arise directly or indirectly from you fiddling with your car or motorbike as a result of what you read here. In short : the advice here is worth as much as you are paying for it. Why this page? So why talk about speeding in a site dedicated to information about car maintenance. Well predominantly to illustrate a point about anti-lock brakes in the Brake Bible but also to show how car maintenance overall plays into accidents in surprising ways. Speeding - the emotive issue. A long time ago, I ran a site called the Speedtrap Bible; its purpose was to educate the public about the technology invoked by the police to catch and prosecute people for speeding. Some thought the site was the saviour of drivers, whilst others pretty much directly accused me of single-handedly promoting child murder. Speeding - it's an emotive issue and one which the police and government always use as leverage whenever they get a chance. Constable Tim NiceButDim, when interviewed next to a smouldering pile of twisted metal on the side of the M25 will say "This accident was caused by people speeding, plain and simple." Similarly, Highway Patrol Officer Chad SteroidAbuse, when interviewed next to a smouldering pile of twisted metal on the side of Interstate 15, will say "This accident was caused by excessive speed and nuthin' more." It's the same the world over, but separating actual fact from emotive fiction is always difficult. As part of my research when authoring the Speedtrap Bible, I spent a day at the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne, in England. It's the government's vehicular research centre, with high speed test tracks, crash rooms, drag strips, banked curves and all manner of other test areas set in the lush forests around Bracknell in England. They test everything there from the effectiveness of seatbelts inside a car to the effectiveness of road surfaces and crash barriers outside the car. I was particularly interested in their studies on speed in relation to the cause of accidents. The library at the TRL has copies of all their reports, and the two I spoke to their technicians about (and ended up buying) were TRL323 entitled "A new system for recording contributary factors in road accidents" and TRL325 - "The factors that influence a driver's choice of speed." Is speed a contributing factor in most road accidents? TRL323 The short and politically incorrect answer is no, and here's why. TRL Report 323 entitled "A new system for recording contributary factors in road accidents" was a joint project between the TRL and the DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and Regions). It was designed to give true figures for the real causes of accidents taken across 8 representative police forces over 6 months in the summer of 1996. They devised a system based on two main categories: what went wrong, and why? Each of those is divided into subcategories such as failures of the driver or rider, failures of pedestrians etc. The report is a fascinating read for someone like me who has a website to maintain, but could be incredibly dull to most people. So to cut to the chase, there's two sections of information we need to look at. 1. Overall incidence of contributary factors This is a categorised list of all the factors in the report which could contribute to but not necessarily cause an accident. I've reproduced the top 5 items from the report here: All factors involved in accident Definite factors involved in accident Description Number % Number % Failure to judge other person's path or speed 623 10.7% 218 10.3% Behaviour - carelessness / thoughtlessness / recklessness 513 8.8% 210 10% Inattention 465 8% 130 6.2% Looked but did not see 436 7.5% 149 7.1% Excessive speed 424 7.3% 126 6% What this means is that in 7.3% of the accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor. Look at the top 4 factors and you'll see that they can generally be categorised as the old police adage of "driving without due care and attention." More to the point, if you take into account "loss of control" accidents (which covers a multitude of sins including wheels coming off the vehicle, black ice, etc) then according to the report, only 4% of all accidents are caused by loss of control of the vehicle with excessive speed as the primary contributing factor. 2. Incidence of commonest precipitating factors, by type of accident. This is perhaps a more telling chunk of information which aims to show the most common factors involved in different types of accident, such as vehicle-pedestrian, single-vehicle etc. Excessive speed doesn't feature directly in this information because it is considered to be a subcategory of "loss of control" (see above). The government and road safety campaigners will always tell us that pedestrians are killed because of speeding motorists. This simply is not the case. Would you believe a staggering 84% of pedestrians involved in accidents are killed or seriously injured due to their own incompetance? In the TRL report, the prime factors involved in pedestrian fatalities are listed as: Pedestrian entered carriageway without due care (84%) Vehicle unable to avoid pedestrian in carriageway (12%) "Other" (4%) So in the real world, it's not motorists tearing up and down town centre roads at speed that is to blame for pedestrian fatalities, but the pedestrians themselves for stepping in front of moving vehicles without bothering to look where they're going. This simple fact alone explains the push in current car design to make more pedestrian-friendly front ends for vehicle. If you can't stop the idiots from blindly wandering into the road, then you need to try to damage them as little as possible when you inevitably run them down. An amusing little sub-note for you here - another report further subcategorises "entering the carriageway without due care", and shows that after dark, 77% of all adult pedestrian fatalities are caused when the pedestrian is above the legal drink-drive limit - ie. is technically classified as drunk - and staggered into the path of an oncoming vehicle. For other types of accidents, the "loss of control" figures were as follows: single vehicle, built-up area - 77% single vehicle, non built-up area - 85% multi-vehicle, built-up area - 15% multi-vehicle, non built-up area - 22% Remember that "loss of control" covers a wide variety of factors. Excessive speed contributes to only 4.04% of all "loss of control" accidents. On a side note, there's one other grouping of figures which makes for a good read too. It's not technically to do with speeding, but I'm going to include it here so you can see the other sorts of statistics that TRL323 assembles. This one particular section is headed "Attribution of precipitating factors in accidents which involved one car and either a pedestrian or one other vehicle." In other words, where a car was involved, what percentage of those accidents were actually attributable to, or caused by the car? Car collides with pedestrian - 12% Car collides with bicycle - 79% Car collides with motorcycle - 90% If you've read my bikes page then you'll know I also own a motorbike and enjoy riding it. I just thought it was an interesting figure that 90% of all motorbike-to-car accidents were caused by the car. And I bet the most common excuse was "didn't see you mate"..... Will reduced speed limits reduce accidents? TRL325 TRL325 - "The factors that influence a driver's choice of speed." This is another TRL report which I bought and had a good old look through. It's a survey of 5080 drivers in an effort to find out what factors contributed to them speeding in the first place. More importantly it also looked at the correlation between speed and accidents and asked the question: if you drop the speed limit, does the accident rate go down? During this study, TRL determined that there were many causes of "speed variation". These included: demographics (age, sex, driving experience, exposure to driving) visual ability driving skill (hazard perception, car handling, judgemental skills) psychological factors (risk tolerance, social deviance, thrill-seeking) temporary states (mood, fatigue, impairment due to drink or drugs, illness) trip characteristics (length, purpose, urgency) car characteristics (performance, comfort, noise levels) road environment (road type, design, speed limit, enforcement levels, maintenance) environmental factors (passengers, pedestrians, time of day, signs, local knowledge, weather) By grouping these factors and arranging them in order of importance, these become: Site effects. This includes things such as people's estimation of their speed based on the geometry of their surroundings. ie. you might be used to associating a certain frequency of seeing lamp posts with a certain speed. In a new area, the lamp posts might be further apart, but you're trying to maintain the frequency of site geometry that you're accustomed to, thus driving faster without realising it. Driver effects: age, sex and exposure. This includes things such as how often you drive, and how far you drive. Psychological variables. This includes things such as modern cars being quieter and more comfortable than older cars, thus making it more difficult to determine the speed you are going without glueing your eyes to the speedometer. It also includes factors such as "do you own the car?" - people are more inclined to speed in company cars because the psychological factors tell them the vehicle isn't their responsibility. So what does all this mean? Well, it means that there's not one single feature that causes people to speed. You cannot arbitrarily drop the speed limit, bung up a camera and expect people to slow down. It simply does not work. More to the point, the last paragraph of the report sums up the entire study of why people speed, and how speed is related to accidents: By using predicted speeds as an explanatory variable in the model of accident involvement it is possible to obtain an apparent relationship between speed and accidents. This relationship suggested that a 1% change in an individual driver's choice of speed is associated with a 7.75% change in that individual's accident liability. This 'elasticity' is much greater than that observed between changes in mean speed and accident change on a specific section of road. Of course, the fact that there is an apparent strong "cross-sectional" association between between speed and accidents does not necessarily imply a causal link between the two, and it cannot be assumed that reductions in speed by a particular driver will result in any accident reductions of a size predicted by this association. The association arises from the fact that both speed and accidents are related in similar ways to the same variables - particularly age, experience and exposure. Speed Cameras Save Lives - the other great lie. TRL595 As a side note, it's worth talking here about another TRL report that was commisioned by the UK government and then quietly hushed up when it too failed to support the 'speed kills' mantra. TRL595 makes for some jolly interesting reading. It is a motorway safety performance study carried out on behalf of the Highways Agency between November 2001 and July 2003. The phrase most often touted about this study is this: "The study showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of Personal Injury Accidents when road works were present." That is in fact entirely true, but one of the things this report also looked at was the presence of speed cameras and their effect on accidents. And this is where it gets interesing. In England, for as long as I can remember, the government have insisted that speed cameras reduce accidents. They insist that cameras are only put in at accident blackspots. Driving groups and individuals like me have always argued that speed cameras are only ever installed to make money, and this belief has always put us at odds with the government's hard line. I was once served with a cease and desist order against my old website (The Speedtrap Bible) by the department of transport, West Sussex police and Thames Valley police. They claimed that by giving out technical information on the operation of different speed monitoring devices, as well as their locations and how to fight speeding tickets, I was essentially putting drivers in danger because (and here's the mantra again) "speed kills and you are condoning speeding." So TRL595 and speed cameras - what's the big deal? I'll give you the executive summary first: At 29 major motorway and road works sites, recording Personal Injury Accident details for an exposure of 4,176 million vehicle kilometres: GATSO-style wet-film speed cameras increase the accident rate at road works by 55% GATSO-style wet-film speed cameras increase the accident rate on open motorways by 32% SPECS-style digital speed cameras increase the accident rate at road works by 4.5% SPECS-style digital speed cameras increase the accident rate on open motorways by 6.7% There is little statistical error in those numbers - 18 months and 4,176,000,000 vehicle km is, in statistical terms, a bloody huge sample set. The conclusion of this particular section of the report was "The non-works with speed camera PIA rate is significantly greater than the without speed camera rate." For the anal-retentives amongst you, here is table 3.18 from TRL595 reproduced in all its glory. PIA's Million vehicle km PIAs Without speed camera With speed cameras Without speed camera With speed cameras Without speed camera With speed cameras Ratio Works Non-works  Works Non-works Works Non-works Works Non-works Works Non-works Works Non-works Without speed cameras With speed cameras 6.42 6.17 Aggregate 20.35 19.12 71.80 69.03 194.96 189.70 0.089 0.089 0.104 0.101 1.0 1.036  Digital 39.60 39.97   428.05 420.31   0.093 0.095  0.973  Analogue 13.60 11.12   98.89 94.73   0.138 0.117  1.172  Other 6.00 7.00   92.59 88.03   0.065 0.080  0.815 How do you get the increase in accident rate out of that table? It's pretty easy. Take a look at the PIA figures for analogue type cameras on open motorway (highlighted in bold). According to the report the accident rate difference in 'non works' areas between those without cameras and those with is 0.089 to 0.117. Some elementary maths to calculate a percentage difference between those two figures gives you 0.117 / 0.089 which is 1.3146, or a 31.46% increase. Speed cameras vs. drivers - the escalating arms war. Reports like TRL323, TRL325 and TRL595 do put a bit of a fly in the ointment when it comes to the official line that "speeding causes accidents" Despite the facts, the police and local governments continue to try to strengthen this myth, and use it as their excuse for installing speed cameras. The simple truth of the matter is that speed cameras don't reduce accident numbers. They're simply a method of earning more revenue from unwary drivers. So as new technologies come out to trap motorists, so too do new technologies come out to help them evade the traps. First the police had radar guns, so the motorists got radar detectors. Then the police got laser guns, so the motorists got combined laser and radar detectors. Then the police got speed cameras which were hard to detect with radar detectors, so the motorists got GPS devices with built-in locations for all the cameras. This ridiculous and escalating arms race is all because those in power refuse to admit that they're wrong, and for as long as this situation exists, we, the drivers, will be forced to deal with more and more so-called safety aids in our cars. The ultimate outcome of this is that drivers are dumbing down because they're now expecting their vehicles to be responsible for avoiding accidents, because we're all being fed a constant lie about traffic accident causes. It's a sad cause-and-effect but to quote Al Gore, it's an inconvenient truth. Conclusion : Speeding isn't the problem. So speed doesn't kill. Well - it does - but in nowhere near the numbers we're told and not in the way the authorities would like you to believe. It's common sense that higher speed will make any accident more violent, but higher speed does not cause the accident in the first place. The police and governments should be spending more time on educating people to drive properly and pay attention - less loss-of-control or inattention accidents would be the result of that. They should spend more time making pedestrians responsible for their own actions instead of blaming drivers. That would reduce the pedestrian culling. They should spend more time and resources banning cellphones and arresting drivers for drunk and drugged driving - all major causes of accidents as supported by dozens of reports. But speeding remains the lowest fruit in the tree and consequently the easiest one to pick, even though it's the single least responsible line item for the cause of accidents. All interesting reports then. I'm not saying they're gospel, but I am far more prepared to believe this type of study than I am prepared to believe politicians. According to these reports, speed is neither a contributing nor definite factor in the majority of road traffic accidents. Nor will reducing vehicle speeds necessarily lead to any reduction in accident rates. Thanks to the TRL for an interesting day out, and the TRL's library and publication services for helping me to find and purchase TRL323 and TRL325 reports.

fa-i consumul plin la plin (la pompa) asta e consumul real. trebe sa faci cam 300-400 km in traficul obisnuit. daca iese tot asa, felicitari !

or face astia si upgrade profesional la d5 ? ca daca fac, incep sa pun de-o parte....

si ce rau imi pare ca n-am fost si io p-aproape ....

bine ai sosit ! s-o conduci sanatos ! lucrezi cumva in petrol, afara ?

io sint tatic de 25 de ani..... si tare mi-as mai dori sa prinda masina 450 km/h !

cum se semnalizeaza intentia de nu fi oprit de politie ? **** daca cineva vine la tine cind esti oprit la stop cu o bita de oina cum semnalizez intentia de-a spala putina ? ******

asa cum am mai spus, si cum stiti cu totii, masina e ca femeia. deci n-are... (aoleo, vine...) are suflet.

ca sa-ti faci o idee.... "daca nu mergi mai incet, io ma dau jos" "data viitoare ma duc cu fii-tu si tu ai voie sa bei " "-tati , cit mai avem pina la pitesti ? (asta in drum de la ploiesti la intrunirea nationala de la cheile butii) - 100 km scumpici, dar asta doar daca ne intoarcem..." "-tati, aia alba cu ceva albastru , era politia ? - nu stiu scumpete, ca eram atent la drum - la 220 nu mai am timp si de altceva..." deci, cred ca e : FRINAAAAA.....

pe-al meu il cheama ...FRINA !!! asa il alinta toti cind merg cu mine (la volan) bine, ii mai zic si " mai incet " dar parca frina e mai romantic, nu ?

ce as vrea : un motor D6R biturbo undeva la 280 cp si 600nm (cu buton "R" si cu posibilitatea de a putea dezactiva absolut orice control electronic al tractiunii , stabilitatii si frinarii - desi  cred ca ,daca ma gindesc la cine se poate sui la volan, mai bine nu...) suspensie reglabila tractiune integrala 50-50 permanenta cutie 7 trepte manuala mai precisa (rapida) cruise control adaptiv raza de bracaj mai mica 5 cm in plus la locurile din spate sa ramina o forta eleganta si confortabila (inconfundabila - in afara "chiciului") sa aiba serviciu buy-back ce n-as vrea : sa se schimbe semnificativ designul sa devina un bmw sau altceva

1. filtrul s-a infundat FARA sa folosesc 1 sec. power boxul. 2. de acord 3. atunci trebe sa gasesc ceva care se potriveste. (poate la fabrica) 4. vreau putere diesel nu benzina, doar ma stii, imi place cuplu mare.(visele mele-desarte,de altfel- se indreapta catre audi r8 v12 tdi-care inca e in stadiu avansat de proiect-, nu catre m5 -cu care am mers- si nici catre motociclete) power boxul, asa cum zici pacaleste cpu, schimind regimul termic al motorului. este conceput (asta al meu) de ingineri volvo. practic reproduce un regim deja testat in laboratoarele volvo. nu debitul de gaze arse infunda filtrul, asa cum s-ar crede, ci compozitia chimica a funinginii. si oricum debitul creste cu 10-15 % d5-ul la o viata estimata de 250.000 km poate produce, indeplinind euro3, 250cp si 550nm. asa cum am zis, daca ma tin buzunarele, o sa fac tunningul chiar in belgia , la fabrica.

oricum cind voi iesi din garantie il suspend. ii pun evacuare mare , admisie profesionala, frine, cauciucuri, stage 2 (250 cp si 580nm) si daca o merge si o turbina mai mare, dar nu stiu daca exista pentru s60 asa ceva. si, sa nu uit, ambreiaj (cred ca de s60r daca s-o potrivi si o fi bine) si poate , daca ma duce buzunarul suspensii si stage 3 (280/620) oricum admisia, evacuarea si frinele le pun direct pentru stage 3 probabil ca in 2010 voi contata fabrica sa-mi faca tunnigul, nu stiu daca aici se calculeaza toate chestiile importante. (asta daca nu apare pina atunci un alt motor mai performant si daca tunningul nu ma costa mai mult de15.000 eurasi)

filtrul s-a infundat definitiv. a fost schimbat si cel defect trimis in belgia din cauza asta imi spargea furtunele de la cititorul de presiune diferential. motorina pun doar euro5 omv si am toate bonurile parerea mea este ca filtrul de particule nu rezista la un condus sportiv de lunga durata din cauza subdimensionarii. cind cpu simte ca e cazul sa faca regenerare este prea tirziu. cred ca e o omisiune a lor cind au pastrat acelasi filtru, marind in schimb puterea motorului de la 163 la 185 cp. e doar o parere. poate voi aveti alta, le astept.

asa e romania, poate va fi mai bine , mai tirziu, poate... dar sa incercam sa ne bucuram de ce e bun la noi. @betty io am muncit in romania din 85 in 00 si am fost si in situatia sa n-am ce minca. si mie mi-e frica de incompetenta si intoleranta....si de prostie si saracie. am ales sa cistig bani la ei si sa-i cheltui aci. (am apartament 3 bedrooms in london-canada de la firma, gratis pe timpul angajarii daca ma mut acolo. si nu ma mut, e urit in state si canada, pentru mine, in schimb banii lor au un "gust" excelent, ti-i recomand) ps cetatenia canadiana am refuzat-o acu 2-3 ani.

sint in garantie, binenteles... si azi a aparut/disparut ca o fantoma...... a inceput sa apara dupa ce am luat-o din service de la bucuresti (primus) cind am luat-o am avut placuta surpriza s-o gasesc si spalata. sa fie cumva de la spalatul acela? sau de la faptul ca au dat si prin interior cu aspiratorul ? ps am stat in service 16 zile pina a venit filtrul de particule.....