whart

yeah, i really like wil. he is a straight shooter. and, very much of the we'll figure it out school, meticulous, and thoughtful, but not afraid to dive in.

ECnal: As you know, i had Wil install the same head in my 6.0, but i don't use the audio at all. I suspect that the stock amp is pretty lame. I am not really a car audio guy, since i find most systems to be unmusical, but i do have alot of experience with serious home audio. So, i'm pretty picky.... You might look into the McIntosh car amp, it's multi-channel, don't know if you can bridge 2 of the channels for more power to a sub. The trick isn't just raw power- although, like hp and torque, that helps, but also how the amp sounds. I use a variant of the Mac as a backup amp in a serious home video system, and at least for those purposes, which aren't hypercritical, it holds it's own with Audio Research monoblock tube amps that cost more, for one channel, that the entire Mac multichannel chassis. On speakers, I have no idea what will fit but can recommend that you research the following brands: Dynaudio, Focal, MB Quart. Here's a site that carries all three, not recommending them as a supplier, but simply as a source of info. http://www.woofersetc.com/store.asp As to woofers, part of the trick is a rigid, properly configured enclosure. It might be worth researching whether you can find a self-contained unit that will fit and will avoid cutting altogether. Another possibility is a speaker made by a Danish company called Jamo. I bought several sets for background music in our downstairs living area at home, the speakers are very thin, planar types that are entirely enclosed in an unobtrusive cabinet. I'm suprised at how musical they are. This company makes a variety of products including an "in-wall" woofer which might be worth exploring, even though i think all their products are for home indoor/outdoor use. See http://www.jamo.com/Default.asp?ID=1711 Let us know what you come up with.

My recollection- i don't have the book in front of me, i am in the office right now- is that 1 is the softest, and 4 the stiffest. So, 3 is pretty stiff. At least when i was driving it in that mode, it felt like it.

OK, here's the diagnosis, per Wil DeGroot- one of the left rear shocks has an electronics problem- the shock itself is not bad; but the message sent to the ECU is putting the suspension into the "3" setting by default, which as those of you with these cars know, is pretty stiff for your average NY road. So, while i could continue to drive the car in this condition, i think that's asking for more pummelling than the suspension deserves, and may (this is my intepretation, not attributed to Wil), only exacerbate the failure of that, or another shock. I'm told while he and others have been mightily striving for alternatives, it's virtually impossible to rebuild these things, taking into account the electronics. So, another shock is on it's way-

I'd trade the lift capability and the adjustability for road conditions for reliability even if it meant swapping out all of them for a nonadjustable system. The car went to De Groot's yesterday. Let's see what he says...

So, i think i have a shock problem, but suprisingly, i don't think its the front one, which, anecdotally, seem to be more prone because of the lift system. Last time i drove, there were some groaning creaks, when i got the car home i noticed that the ride setting was on 2/3, rather than on 1, where it defaults. I read up in John Monahan's site about the diagnostic system for the shocks- he mentioned a switch- on the 6.0 there are 3 in a box, but one is marked Koni Diagnostic. Went thru the steps on the first procedure and after i hit the 'Auto' button, the error lite just kept blinking repeatedly- not in grouped pulses that would indicate which corner was problematic. I do not want to screw around with it, so the good Mr. De Groot will pick up the car monday morning, and go over it. Any thoughts, or similar experiences on this? (I have not used the front lift system, per the advice of many). Also, reading Monahan's site, including the message from the Koni representative, it looks like an unfinished story, ie are there replacements that are less problematic/do away with the adjustable feature for more reliability? I guess my concern isn't replacing one or several shocks this first time round, but i'd like to know that the problem is not a design flaw that will recur simply because the shocks cannot withstand the weight of the car!@#?

MIne had 1284 miles when i bought it in January. I couldn't really start driving it in earnest until about five or six weeks ago, given the weather, road conditions (salt) etc. and have put an additional 2,000 miles on the car in that time, pure recreational driving, in addition to racking up a few miles on the bikes.

Craig's point about disclosure is right on. JRV is obviously crazy.

Here are some pics of the GT2 i had:

Ah, who said the good old days at F-Chat are over? They aren't, they are just being replayed here! Allan, i have a fair idea who Jota is, and he doesn't own "nothing." In all fairness, Jota, you know as well as I do that there are deals to be had, at least among folks with connections. As to whether the Ferrari 360/430 is more popular than the Gallardo here in the States, that may be. That does not necessarily make it the better car, though, nor does Lambo's lack of a racing heritage mean that its production cars suck. While you may be right to take Ralph to task about the lack of real racing parts on a production Lambo, it does give a visceral drive; my GT-2 was closer to a race car than the 360/430, or the Lambos, but it was Germanic (read: uneventful) to drive on the street. So, I'm not sure what axe we are grinding here. To me, yes, the Ferrari 8 cyl. cars are more popular, but that doesn't mean the Gallardo is a lesser car. (I do think a couple things about the G car could be improved without alot of trouble- including making the interior a little more sexy, but that has nothing to do with performance, as such).

Thanks, both. As indicated, a 6.0. And, M, thanks for that reply on the mirrors, I saw your blurb before posting but you call it concave. Is it ? I See other thread.

I know. But monahan, above, is the author of that site, right? I saw it too. Yep camera's in, replaced the Alpine unit with the new Pioneer, made the camera install much easier, because the Alpine had this weird brake pedal switch sequence to activate the AV input. The Pioneer easily allows constant camera display in a split screen with the nav, and has screen, touch sensitive controls, to boot. The Alpine is boxed up, and will go with the car, if and when i sell it. The biggest complaint- optics again- is that in order for the camera to provide a bird's eye view, it creates the appearance that things are much further away than they really are. So, is that more like a concave, or convex mirror? M: that is your site, right? IT's GREAT! Still, is it concave, as you mention? BTW, i agree that everybody ogling the car in motion tries to hang back in that blind spot. The camera system i installed really doesn't catch them unless they are far enough behind. The only way i now deal with it is to tromp on the throttle heartily before checking the mirror again and moving over. Thanks, both.

Still getting the feel for my car and wanted to see where the tire pressures were; the driver's door sticker says 3.1 bar F/R which seems absurd; the manual says 2.6 F/ 2.5/R which still seems a little high. I tend to inflate so that the tires barely exceed whatever is recommended when they are warm; this may be underinflated for the track, but i'm not driving the car there. What are folks running at for "normal" (ie, not constant high speed, or track ) use? Thanks.

YOu mean Convex, yes? (Frank!) YOu know, now that i poked around a little on the net about the properties of concave and convex mirrors for this purpose, ie passenger side in particular, i am thoroughly confused. So, in addition to answering Franks' query, could someone explain the optical properties of both types for this purpose?