Oh I’m very sure of the torque settings, having used torque wrenches since I was 15, but it doesn’t hurt to double check these things and I am a careful sort of person. Verifying in real time removes any doubt and shows your original premise to be absolute and utter RUBBISH as usual. The FAI bolts are the same pattern as OE and 58-60 is a comfortable torque for them.
If there is anyone I know who deserves abuse it is you because you are a scurrilous liar who denigrates but doesnt have the balls to come out and admit it when you get caught out.
Clearly you are malicious little toady who likes to stir the sh*t in the hope that some will stick, we’ve seen it all before and you inevitably end up backtracking and running away.
It is far and away short of the abuse you have hurled at others, ‘Fcking Cnt’ was one, ‘F*cking primadonna’ was another and both those to respected indviduals who you though had done you some imagined disservice. And you didnt have the balls to admit it.
Dave
more personal abuse, and hypocrasy - the norm from dva
The internet has a long memory - we all know abou you personal abuse, tantrums and downright lies. They are preserved for ever - do a search on “simon erland”, the world knows exactly what sort of person you are.
So now after 12 pages of squirming we finally have the truth, none of the engines in that photo were built by me, a fact that I knew anyway.
The dead engines, the bad practice are all yours dva
So this is just another plain blatant lie like so many others in the past. Now we can all see how low you have stooped.
Now wonder people dont take you seriously, for all your rhetoric, all your posturing all your fey ‘n’est pas’ and ‘capiches’ you are just a plain liar who will say and do anything to push your warped agenda.
The world and his dog knows that graphs was copied from Uldis’ own spreadsheet - its been discussed on this forum before. If you don’t like it then sue me, it was a publically downloadable spreadsheet.
As said at the time - if you have others happy for them to be posted up on Dyno-Plot. The stats show thouasands of views of that graph - so unless you want people to come to the conclusion you are all mouth and no trousers you had better come up with some better ones.
You make all sorts of claims about it being better now but thats very different from that graph being forged which its not.
You think Uldis now has better results then post them.
Are you not getting it yet? Everyt time you try and rubbish people in public you get your ass handed back to you and you are shown up for the liar you are. google comes along and nicely indexes and caches it all, the simplest of searches then gives the game away.
So now after 12 pages of squirming we finally have the truth, none of the engines in that photo were built by me, a fact that I knew anyway.
The dead engines, the bad practice are all yours dva
So this is just another plain blatant lie like so many others in the past. Now we can all see how low you have stooped.
Now wonder people dont take you seriously, you are just a plain liar who will say and do anything to push your warped agenda.
How utterly pathetic.
Dave
No dva one of the engines in that photo was built by you ground up, I rebuilt another with chromoduro liners, I suspect 2 other scholars I have were built by you, but do not know for certain
All the engines in that photo had your heads on them, - all the heads of yours bar one were scrap
Aii the engines in that photo were machined in the same way as all the scholar engines , built by you, scholar or anyone with the same mindbogglingly bad practice.
Oh thats hysterical - now its turns out one of the scrap engines was in fact one of your failures.
So if one of those engines was built from the ground up were is the proof - whats the serial number from it at the very least.
But not too bad since it had a really soft ignition curve mapped in at the time, which has not been changed and no drysump.
Yada, yada, excuse no 437 (436 have been used already).
Isn’t it a little strange that an engine with a mind-bogginlgy badly machined block, equally terribly put together with incompetent assembly practices, by someone who knows nothing about the engine, with bent valves, rubbish valve seats, poor porting, massive blowby and oil pissing down the guides is making 28BHP and 7lb/ft more than your ‘perfect engine’?
Kind of stretches credulity a bit?.. n’est pas?
so have you beaten 265bhp with a 1.8L yet then dva?
but you’ll have to learn to read and write first!!!
Coming from the ‘man’ who cannot spell or conjugate correctly that is a hoot…
Care to type hypocrasy a few more times…
Just one of the many many howlers from the gbshte
Isn’t it a little strange that an engine with a mind-boggingly badly machined block, equally terribly put together with incompetent assembly practices, by someone who knows nothing about the engine, with bent valves, rubbish valve seats, poor porting, massive blowby and oil pissing down the guides is making 28BHP and 7lb/ft more than your ‘perfect engine’?
No dva one of the engines in that photo was built by you ground up, I rebuilt another with chromoduro liners, I suspect 2 other scholars I have were built by you, but do not know for certain
All the engines in that photo had your heads on them, - all the heads of yours bar one were scrap
Aii the engines in that photo were machined in the same way as all the scholar engines , built by you, scholar or anyone with the same mindbogglingly bad practice.
Oh thats hysterical - now its turns out one of the scrap engines was in fact one of your failures.
So if one of those engines was built from the ground up were is the proof - whats the serial number from it at the very least.
You need reading lessons
Mark Bowles’s engine blew after dva’s hopeless attentions after 500 miles running in
It had a soft head supplied on exchange by dva which caused the failure, dodgy indian liners that moved all over the place , ruining the liners and pistons, and he managed to machine the rod little ends for fully floating pins - 5x out of OE tolerence for parrallel with the bigends. The dva supplied rods were also of 3 balancing grades, which meant they could not be balanced, such was the weight margin.
I rebuilt that engine with a new head , rods , pistons, liners, valves etc etc etc using the original block
That block is THEREFORE NOT in the photo, in fact it has been running around for nearly 3 years now
Anyone wanting to know more about that from Mark can read it here;-
And his is far from being the only one, in fact I have just stripped a Scholar 1800 engine today after three years / seasons, compressions were tip top and oil consumption negligible, no oil leaks whatsoever.
The rods were machined in the same way as Mark’s by the same company, absolutely pristine internally, pistons squeaky clean under the top ring, no signs of any blowby, complete carbon ring around the top of the cylinder and bores rings and bearings in near perfect condition.
Seats, valves and guides all pretty much perfect.
The refrsh should be relatively straightforward, except he is trading up to 1444 cams and bigger valves.
…Mark Bowles’s engine blew after dva’s hopeless attentions after 500 miles running in
It had a soft head supplied on exchange by dva which caused the failure, dodgy indian liners that moved all over the place , ruining the liners and pistons, and he managed to machine the rod little ends for fully floating pins - 5x out of OE tolerence for parrallel with the bigends. The dva supplied rods were also of 3 balancing grades, which meant they could not be balanced, such was the weight margin…
Hey Simon, don’t you get fed up with typing the same old stuff in a slightly different order each time ? Why don’t you start numbering system ? You would save yourself no end of time.