brumster

I think practically speaking, no - there's no such thing as a temporary registration (that I'm aware of anyway). The most you can do is book it for an IVA and then drive to that IVA without it being registered. That's not really to be used for "road testing" though; just going straight to the test and straight home again. And even then, if it's found to be unroadworthy after the test, you could be in trouble getting it back home legally as they'd demand it was trailered. I think, assuming you just want to safety-check that the car is functioning ok, there are two practical suggestions. One is to find some private road/land on which you can drive it; friendly business park or your mate the Earl of West Bottomsby's main drive, or hire somewhere like Curborough if you wanted to do something extensive. The other depends greatly on where you live and the roads nearby, and would not be legal, but let's be honest - a lot of people would be lying if they said they'd never considered driving it down the cul-de-sac and back again. Now that's totally on your head of course, if the brakes fail and you plough straight through a group of 6-year-olds at the ice cream van and end up in someone's front room, they will lock you up and throw away the key, and rightly so. Some pragmatism is needed :). Easier to just trailer it to some private facility. A good suggestion is find a local garage that will do an MOT on it for you; trailer it down and get them to check it over. A sort of "pre-IVA" test. Most friendly local garages would do it, I suspect, it wouldn't be a formal MOT but they can certainly test it to the required standards which would give you a good feeling for how the car is.

Aye, best o'luck

My honest answer is I don't think they go to that level of detail, since the car "is what it is" there's not really much you can do about it anyway. Obviously there's an inference that the car design is 'right' or the manufacturer has done lots of crash testing to mitigate failure to meet the design suggestion but... yeah, like that's happened :). I was always told "make sure you fit a collapsable column from the Sierra donor" and that was it; requirements met. I'm not saying that's the hard-line truth as far as the IVA guidelines go, but from a practical perspective, I doubt there's really much else you can do about it. I suspect the testers just see a car that's done to a common design, check that the builder hasn't gone and done something away-from-the-norm in terms of the steering column (ie. it's as GBS intended), includes the collapsable section from the Sierra and that's it - they're most likely happy.

Maybe. Probably all revs-related. If you're happy to keep the limit sensible, assuming you don't need the revs to chase the numbers. I should probably clarify, I'm only talking naturally aspirated here - you turbo nutters, I know what you're like

That is odd, a contact I once had in the engine rebuilding business said they were relatively bullet-proof bottom ends. Maybe it was only the 2.3 or 2.5 that had the better bottom end and I am confused/mixed up...? Either that or a lot of the rally guys are not letting on to the fact they've done more work on their engines than they care to admit which, to be honest, could very well be the truth!! edit: you got me googling. Now I know people spout some *bleep* on the internet so you have to take everything with a pinch of salt, but SBD I do respect, and they suggest 240 should be about the limit on stock internals : http://www.sbdev.co.uk/History_files/History_DuratecTuning.htm Most people I've spoken to in rally circles do pistons and rods to those sort of numbers (as per my post above), so this surprises me a little, I don't think I'd risk 240 on standard rods. But the crank and design of the crank support I was told was very good for a production car engine.

Yours doesn't look significantly different to mine, to be honest, but not entirely sure what they'd be looking for short of the fact that it's safe and structurally sound

Not really. FWIW all he did with mine was check it wasn't fouling anything. No talk about angles, lengths or anything like that

The Duratecs will make 180-200 just by dropping bodies on. A bit of cam work and pocketed pistons will see you north of 200 (say 220), and with rods/pistons there are rally boys using them up to 250ish bhp on standard bottom ends (although some swear by keying the cranks and doing something with the timing chain) - but essentially I understand the bottom ends are pretty strong up to 250. After that you're spending the big money, though. Most of them use the 2.3 or 2.5 spec lumps anyway; "go big or go home" but then they have money to burn! In the grand scheme of Ford engines, even Duratec is approaching end-of-life now, which tells you something about the way things are going. It's all going Ecoboost now. Kit manufacturers are scrabbing up what Duratec engines they can now because Zetec is almost dried up and Pinto is effectively gone, and Duratec won't be much longer (I think new crate engines are probably all US-spec where they're still using them, maybe UK/EU it's now discontinued?)... 2.5 Millington anyone ?! Bargain at £25-30k....

The Zetec isn't a *straight* swap, no. One major difference is that the inlet/exhausts are on opposite sides of the engine between Zetec and Duratec. I'm fairly sure the bellhousing won't be a straight swap either.

The problem I see with a tyre choice is that people offer what they honestly believe is good advice but until you've tried a wide range of tyres, from budget to high-end, in a multitude of uses, then a lot of people don't realise how "average" their "amazing" tyre is, or are coloured by a driving style that doesn't really apply to someone else (track focused versus road, don't consider wet weather performance, or how progressive the tyres are on the limit, or their needs in terms of temperature, etc). It's impossible to try a multitude of tyres out on your car and figure what suits you, but likewise other people's opinions are subjective (and we all know the phrase, "opinions are like arseholes..." ). One thing I will say, I suspect Nankang have come a long way since the 90's :). I'm not speaking from experience though, I too have always considered them a budget brand aka "Ditchfinder"!

I was referring more to the engine code names, rather than how Ford brand them. So by "Zetec" I mean the 1800 or 2000cc I believe, in cast iron block/alu head, exhaust ports on LHS (for a longitudinal config). From my limited understanding the VVT variants are seldom worth the effort for the top-end head/power, although they have slightly better bottom ends, so I'd read your more cost effective going for a non-VVT engine and just working the head accordingly with new cams. Or I guess if you have a VVT engine, drop the variable timing aspect of it as you swap the cams, if that's possible. You specifically only mentioned those two lumps but, as Longboarder said, if I was going for a simple 200bhp lump I would just go Duratec anyway. Far superior engine.

If 200bhp is your only concern, drop the Sigma lump, go Zetec. It is the common sense way forward, easier in every way. If you want to be different, prefer the character of the Sigma lump and want a little screamer, stick with the original plan. I speak as the weirdo who put a 1600 K-Series in a Zero WTF would anyone do that?!

Ooo, I just went and dug out my receipt - it was from alltyres365.co.uk last year but you're right, no-one is showing them listed now. Seems they dropped it, and it's now TR-1 as Alvin says, or R888. Now the R888's are awesome track day/dry tyres but I am glad I moved off them in the Zero for road use. I wouldn't be recommending them for road (and yes, I've used them hard in the past!). If there is no replacement for the R10R then that's a shame. A mate used the T1-Rs on his track car briefly and said they were *bleep*ing awful, a cheap liability. On that basis, I'd maybe go with a decent Michelin PS3 or else take a punt on these Nankang track day tyres (NS2R might be a bit too much, like an R888, but I think they do a lesser model NS2?)... maybe play it safe and go with the rainsport/pilotsport suggestion, most people seem happy enough with them.

T1-R, no. R1-R, yes.

The only possible reason for this that I can think of, assuming it's manual, is that by lifting it up at the front you cause oil in the transmission to run to the back of the gearbox and reduce the lubrication on the layshaft. If the gearbox was low on oil I guess this is possible but if it's got the appropriate amount of oil in it, I doubt you'll be lifting it to sufficient an angle to really cause that much of an issue, to be honest...!? Unless someone knows for definite otherwise?