Random Car Facts

  • Thread starter Slash
  • 822 comments
  • 55,535 views
The Ford (oh no he didn't) Sierra was build with a 302 V8 engine, in South Africa, and was called the XR8.
The 'XR' trademark is common down under. Our Falcon has the XR6, XR6 Turbo, XR8 (recently dropped). Then what Europe would call an ST Focus, we call it an XR5 Turbo and the ST Fiesta is known as the XR4.

That's not over-engineered at all. All engineering is done with a safety margin. If everything is engineered to just the limit, then as soon as the limit is crossed ever so slightly, the product will fail. You wouldn't want to just touch 253.1mph and have the tires suddenly explode, would you?

In this case, a 10% testing safety margin, albeit on top of designed existing factor of safety, is hardly anything at all.
Firstly, I'm just going off what was said on Mega Factories cause I posted this whilst I was watching the epsiode where they talked about the Bugatti Veyron and the narrator stated that the tyres were over engineered.

Secondly, I didn't want to bore everyone reading my post to death.

Thirdly, 25 and a bit mph is a consiederable margin. Fair enough for your case but if these are the same tyres used on the Veyron SS; as well all know can achieve 267mph, it would still be deemed safe enough at those speeds and you could consider it to be over engineered, but delibreately.

Thankfully the tyres have been designed to withstand speeds of more than 253mph. Thankfully they took that precaution cause this an important factor of not just all cars but particulary this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 'XR' trademark is common down under. Our Falcon has the XR6, XR6 Turbo, XR8 (recently dropped). Then what Europe would call an ST Focus, we call it an XR5 Turbo and the ST Fiesta is known as the XR4.

Ford Europe also used the XR mark. XR2 was a Fiesta, XR3 an Escort and the XR4 was also a Sierra. But that was in the 80's and early 90's.
 
Which is what Australia is still in, is it not?


:sly:

m4ta.jpg
 
None of these cars have Ford V8s anymore. Only the CC8S & CCR had Ford V8s. The CCX & onwards use a Koenigsegg-developed V8 now to run a higher octane fuel for the power & to make the car legal for US buyers.

Sure as hell looks like a Modular to me

big_Koenigsegg_Agera_R_Salone_di_Ginevra_2012_11.jpg


2005-Ford-GT-Engine-1024x768.jpg


Note the location of the Cam cover bolts and shape of the Cam cover. I love those CF cam covers they are nice looking.
 
Firstly, I'm just going off what was said on Mega Factories cause I posted this whilst I was watching the epsiode where they talked about the Bugatti Veyron and the narrator stated that the tyres were over engineered.

Cool story. That show then is at best, misleading, and at worst, wrong.

Thirdly, 25 and a bit mph is a consiederable margin.

Absolute numbers don't mean much without context. "25 and a bit mph" may be significant if it was only designed to go 25mph, but at the other extreme, 25mph is a negligible difference for a Atlas V rocket reaching 35,800 mph. In this case, 25mph remains a fairly small fraction of the overall top speed that the Veyron is designed to achieve.

Fair enough for your case but if these are the same tyres used on the Veyron SS; as well all know can achieve 267mph, it would still be deemed safe enough at those speeds and you could consider it to be over engineered, but delibreately.

Assuming those tires do fail beyond 279mph (hence why they were only tested up to that speed), I certainly hope they don't use the same tires for the Veyron SS. Only a 5% margin of safety? That's incredibly risky and irresponsible.


Sure as hell looks like a Modular to me

Note the location of the Cam cover bolts and shape of the Cam cover. I love those CF cam covers they are nice looking.

Perhaps that's a coincidence? I'm more inclined to believe Koenigsegg than mere speculation.
 
I assume you mean 4.6%. A jeep, Hummer or Unimog could not drive up a 46% grade. Godd info though.

Not as in a dirt track or anything like that, just a normal tarmac road that would be at an angle of 41.4 Degrees.
 
The Audi name was first reintroduced by Volkswagen in the 1960s to mark their recently acquired Auto Union's move from the two stroke engines used in older HKWs to newer four stroke engines.
 
The name Audi coming from the Latin for hear, in reference to founder, August Horsch, where Horsch is one way of expressing 'listen' in German.
 
Cool story. That show then is at best, misleading, and at worst, wrong.



Absolute numbers don't mean much without context. "25 and a bit mph" may be significant if it was only designed to go 25mph, but at the other extreme, 25mph is a negligible difference for a Atlas V rocket reaching 35,800 mph. In this case, 25mph remains a fairly small fraction of the overall top speed that the Veyron is designed to achieve.



Assuming those tires do fail beyond 279mph (hence why they were only tested up to that speed), I certainly hope they don't use the same tires for the Veyron SS. Only a 5% margin of safety? That's incredibly risky and irresponsible.




Perhaps that's a coincidence? I'm more inclined to believe Koenigsegg than mere speculation.
You being the only one responding to my posts with your conjecture sounding response makes me think you're Shledon from Big Bang Theory. But with all that aside could you just acknowledge that the tyre of a Veyron was tested at 279mph over the 253mph top speed like everybody else and move on?
 
Sure as hell looks like a Modular to me

Note the location of the Cam cover bolts and shape of the Cam cover. I love those CF cam covers they are nice looking.
They probably just took the design & changed the intervals of it for reasons I already listed. But, the fact is their engines are built in house instead of from Ford.
 
You being the only one responding to my posts with your conjecture sounding response makes me think you're Shledon from Big Bang Theory. But with all that aside could you just acknowledge that the tyre of a Veyron was tested at 279mph over the 253mph top speed like everybody else and move on?

Busting out the insults now, are we? I've never disputed that the tire was tested at 279mph, I disputed your wrong assertion that that makes it over engineered.

But with all that aside, could you just acknowledge that you were wrong and move on?
 
Busting out the insults now, are we? I've never disputed that the tire was tested at 279mph, I disputed your wrong assertion that that makes it over engineered.

But with all that aside, could you just acknowledge that you were wrong and move on?
Seriously Crash stop, just stop. This is just going to keep going around in circles and no prgress will be made and I'm going to let you decide where we stand.

You can either believe what you believe and win the argument. And I'll acknowledge that I was wrong. And we both move on.

Or you can either continue the current arguement with no clear idea when or if it'll end. Either way it'll be pointless and with any luck it'll get abusive.

Your call.
 
I thought I'd heard somewhere that flamethrowers were actually legal in the U.S. The reason is one of man's most formidable enemies: killer bees. They're a perfect storm of too aggressive to lose easily, too numerous to ride out an attack by, and too small to shoot.

Of course, I read that in a Cracked article a long time ago, so you should probably take it with a grain of salt.
 
I should stress I think at this point that these are fame throwers that you could pay as an extra.

Rules about flame throwers in the US, I don't know about that.
 
Back