Quote from: m1tch on June 18, 2019, 07:55I think I might look to put the carpet back in, it only weighs around 3kg - for me I have pulled all the weight out the car for free, I haven't spent anything on making the car lighter. I will look to put up a full list of everything I have removed and the weights so others can work out what they feel is ok to remove.

Also, anything which is not there anymore, will give no problems ;-)

Quote from: m1tch on June 17, 2019, 13:42I therefore so far am finding in terms of performance:

1/4 mile time is improved by 0.1s with every 10kg removed

Interestingly, I theorised the same gain for 0 to 60 times. I don't see much of  contradiction, as I would expect that most of the acceleration gain from shedding weight  (over a 1/4 mile) will happen below 60mph, as I think it is fair to say that at higher speeds it's pretty much all about having enough power to overcome the wind resistance.

Quote from: K T M Rider on March  3, 2019, 19:16

Quote from: jvanzyl on February 28, 2019, 15:36Hi folks,
Just thought I'd start a new thread instead of landing on a reader's ride..
Does anyone have any kind of data on the acceleration increase per kg of weight that is lost?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

From my ageing back copy of Evo:

PFL MR2 Weight 975kgs, 0 to 60mph in 7.6 seconds.

Lotus Elise 111S Weight 770kgs, 0 to 60mph in 5.4 seconds.

The Elise makes a fraction more power and torque (5bhp & 3 lb ft) and er, it's a Lotus but essentially (at least where 0 to 60 times are concerned) the Elise is pretty much just an MR2 that's been on a fairly serious diet.

So, I reckon the answer to your question may be somewhere around a 0.1 second reduction in 0 to 60 time per 10kg weight reduction (assuming the sort of weight reductions realistically achievable by mere mortals, not Toyota race teams)

Quote from: m1tch on June 17, 2019, 16:28There is obviously a finite weight you can remove from the car coupled with the most power you can get with the stock engine just from NA tuning on an unopened engine.

As a best case scenario, removing around 83kg of weight, plus running low on fuel (I ran at 1/2 tank so could run 10kg less fuel) giving a 95kg or there abouts saving from stock weight. Looking around at a few dyno graphs on this site, the  engine might make around 160bhp.

I am basing my weight from stock weight of 1030kg (facelift) and with 140bhp it seems to calculate to 15.8s which seems about right.

With the least weight and most power at 160bhp and 935kg its up at 174 bhp per ton and should run a 14.4.

I am now in the process of bolting back a fair few stock items into the car so that its more of a road car now that I have my test results - basically from stock to fully modded there is probably a 1.5 second improvement in 1/4 mile time.

Looking at the list of weights, I have worked out that in 'road trim' - that is with some weight taken out but still having things like a sound system its around a 30kg saving over stock so for my facelift car it would be at around 1 ton. I still need to find a weighbridge to actually work out how much the car weighs but can reverse engineer the weight once I do as I know how much has been removed at each point...............

The place that aligned my 2003 FL last year (recommended by Patrick) popped it on some weigh scales and as I recall it was 986kg, I was certainly pleasantly surprised at the figure, expecting something nearer the often quoted 1030kg.

Still, I believe the 1030 figure is a kerb weight and have since discovered will therefore include a 90% full fuel tank. My fuel light was on so that's roughly 30kg right there and I was also missing both nappies, precats, the main precat heat shield the frunk trim panel and frunk lid.

Jack and spare wheel were present.

Quote from: K T M Rider on June 22, 2019, 13:34Still, I believe the 1030 figure is a kerb weight and have since discovered will therefore include a 90% full fuel tank.

The specs. of my car´s road license state 1060 kg. and this includes a full fuel tank.
With a quarter indicated mine showed 920 kg. on the weigh bridge.

I have just installed a full set of Meister R coilovers, coupled with Whiteline rear camber bolts and Whiteline rear ARB, I still have the front to fit at some point but I know thats slightly harder to fit.

Out the box the Meister R coilovers sit about the same height as the Tein springs, damping is slightly firmer (23/32 settings), having tried full soft and full hard I have set it to half way so 16 all round. I would say that this is probably about the same as the Teins.

Next on the list is to get it all aligned, have also installed a mechnless head unit and stock speakers initially.

One other upgrade has been to remove the MAF completly (not used with my setup) and have simply run a 45 degree elbow from 70mm to 76mm and refitted the cone. Need to look to remap slightly for the extra flow, the ECU has a closed loop option using the wideband so adjusts fueling compared to the AFR table.

I have now replaced the Whiteline camber bolts with the stock non adjustable ones, I am looking for a -1 degree rear camber, I have a feeling with the car lowered (to the same as the Tein height), I might be there already.

I have a camber gauge on the way so I can check to see what its currently at - looking at perhaps -2 degrees on the front with -1 degree on the rear.

My car is really coming together and handles really well with the coilovers, at setting of 16 all round its about the same as the Teins but everything feels stiffer - probably due to the upgraded rear ARB.

Quote from: m1tch on June 25, 2019, 21:24I am looking for a -1 degree rear camber,

What is your reasoning behind that?

Quote from: Petrus on June 25, 2019, 22:31

Quote from: m1tch on June 25, 2019, 21:24I am looking for a -1 degree rear camber,

What is your reasoning behind that?

I am going with the below settings as a baseline, I believe standard its at -1 degree on the rear with only a slight front camber. I will be looking to keep the rear at the suggested -1 as its a road car and I don't need to run massive camber, most of the camber will be on the front. I believe the Whiteline camber bolts allow for + or - 1.5 degrees so will see where I am at and can easily dial more in if needed. I guess that's why most coilover/suspension kits you get have adjustability on the front but not the rear as although some rear camber is ok, you don't need to run as much as you might want to at the front and simply lowering the car will increase the negative camber anyway.

https://www.comeanddriveit.com/suspension/camber-caster-toe

Thank you for the explanation.

Negative camber is set to compensate for tyre distortion; for the slip angle of the tyre.
As a rule of thumb; the greater the centrifual force (grip, corner speed, weight), the more flexible the sidewall, the more negative camber is needed to reduce slip angle.
Because the MR has a rearward weight bias it is more usual to have a bit more negative camber at that end. Hence my question.
This observed, there are as you write several more factors for oversteer/understeer. Even tyre pressure!

Have fun!!

Quote from: Petrus on June 26, 2019, 08:03Thank you for the explanation.

Negative camber is set to compensate for tyre distortion; for the slip angle of the tyre.
As a rule of thumb; the greater the centrifual force (grip, corner speed, weight), the more flexible the sidewall, the more negative camber is needed to reduce slip angle.
Because the MR has a rearward weight bias it is more usual to have a bit more negative camber at that end. Hence my question.
This observed, there are as you write several more factors for oversteer/understeer. Even tyre pressure!

Have fun!!

I think for me I just need to get it dialed in to be balanced as a starting point, it won't be 100% optimised, I can already tell that the car is far more stable, I will be looking to refresh other suspension components as well as I get to them.

From a project progression point of view, I am looking at perhaps swapping to a PFL front bumper as I like the styling slightly more, alternatively I might look to run brake ducts instead of the front fogs as I have never used them, might even convert them to some DRLs or something.

From an engine management side, I am wiring in a few additional switches that I can set to various things, one of them is an anti theft option which cuts all fueling so the car won't start, will be hiding this anti theft button/switch somewhere in the car.

I also need to adjust/mod the hard top latches as they are not 100% tight but are on max adjust, will look to mod them to allow extra travel soon as I can see that the passenger side does get slightly wet so its not perfectly sealing.

Also need to cut the frunk plastics around the tops of the suspension owing to the Meister R adjustments.

With a bit of fettling the car has passed the MOT for an other year, same issues as last year, handbrake and emissions (lambda).

The rear calipers are new but it looks like the hand brake cables are just getting slightly stuck at the very ends but still move freely - the rubber boots have perished an the car doesn't do many miles so they seize up.

My issue with the emissions is due to the closed loop lambda, the actual CO% and HC are very low, but its the lambda of 1 that is the issue for me.

With the Link Xtreme ECU and the wideband O2 sensor the car does run at exactly 1 Lambda (14.7:1 AFR), however this is measured at the engine, whereas the MOT is measured at the tailpipe.

I have now looked at the MOT emissions Lambda reading and have found the following:

Lambda of 1 at the engine = between 1.088 to 1.077 at the exhaust tip (eg leaner)

I then bumped the fueling my 8% and the test was re-run:

Lambda of 1.08 at the engine = between 0.99 and 0.947 at the exhaust tip

Comparing these figures and trending them it shows that for an average of 1 lambda at the exhaust tip, the engine should be running at around 0.94 or 13.8:1 - the CAT leans out the reading by around 5.6%.

I am planning to get the car booked in again to see if I can adjust the fueling to 13.8 for the test next time will work, the O2 reading is from the pre cat manifold. The other option is to move the wideband sensor to the post cat O2 location for the MOT.

I will only be looking to measure the AFR at the engine as its as it should be, reading at the exhaust tip meaning that the fueling is around 5.6% too rich which is why I wouldn't be happy with any dyno using those tail pipe O2 sensors for tuning as the cat messes with the AFR figure.

Anyway, the car is now past its MOT with no advisories at 178k miles, plans for the car next would be to get an alignment sorted and new wheels and tyres, might also look at seats at some point as well coupled with some maintenance items such as one of the side hardtop clamps are out of adjustment and I need to change the lower UJ.

I also plan to get some more engine parts ordered and also need to send the gearbox off for a rebuild, hopefully will be able to get all the parts I need together this year to build up most of the engine over the next couple of months - taking my time over this build as everything needs to be correct.

I have now upgraded wheels and tyres on the car, they are Silverstone Performance 17s, specs I am running are:

7.5 x 17 ET45 front 205/40/17
8.0 x 17 ET50 rear 245/40/17

Was slightly concerned about the speed reading but they seem to read slightly under at 30mph and basically spot on the GPS reading at above 50 it would seem.

The 8" rear should allow me to run a wide range of tyres as they fit a wide range of OEM tyres for Audi/VW/Merc/BMW etc meaning I should be able to get some decent performance tyres.

The wheel and tyre combo are slightly heavier than stock but they are Team Dynamic 1.2 wheel so as light as you can really go on a 17 without spending £££s.

I might look to run a set of 15s all round at some point, the couple of miles I have done with the SP wheels and tyres basically mean there is never an issue with grip levels - quite different to the stock setup.

Quote from: m1tch on August 22, 2019, 12:51I have now upgraded wheels and tyres on the car, they are Silverstone Performance 17s, specs I am running are:

7.5 x 17 ET45 front 205/40/17
8.0 x 17 ET50 rear 245/40/17

Was slightly concerned about the speed reading but they seem to read slightly under at 30mph and basically spot on the GPS reading at above 50 it would seem.

The 8" rear should allow me to run a wide range of tyres as they fit a wide range of OEM tyres for Audi/VW/Merc/BMW etc meaning I should be able to get some decent performance tyres.

The wheel and tyre combo are slightly heavier than stock but they are Team Dynamic 1.2 wheel so as light as you can really go on a 17 without spending £££s.

I might look to run a set of 15s all round at some point, the couple of miles I have done with the SP wheels and tyres basically mean there is never an issue with grip levels - quite different to the stock setup.

What issues have you had with stock setup?
What tyres are you using?
I know you are going big power in the future but aren't you on stock power level atm?

Quote from: 1979scotte on August 22, 2019, 20:52

Quote from: m1tch on August 22, 2019, 12:51I have now upgraded wheels and tyres on the car, they are Silverstone Performance 17s, specs I am running are:

7.5 x 17 ET45 front 205/40/17
8.0 x 17 ET50 rear 245/40/17

Was slightly concerned about the speed reading but they seem to read slightly under at 30mph and basically spot on the GPS reading at above 50 it would seem.

The 8" rear should allow me to run a wide range of tyres as they fit a wide range of OEM tyres for Audi/VW/Merc/BMW etc meaning I should be able to get some decent performance tyres.

The wheel and tyre combo are slightly heavier than stock but they are Team Dynamic 1.2 wheel so as light as you can really go on a 17 without spending £££s.

I might look to run a set of 15s all round at some point, the couple of miles I have done with the SP wheels and tyres basically mean there is never an issue with grip levels - quite different to the stock setup.

What issues have you had with stock setup?
What tyres are you using?
I know you are going big power in the future but aren't you on stock power level atm?

The stock wheels were in bad shape with the tyres being 'ok', no real issue with the stock setup but wanted something different, always found it odd to have 2 different size wheels (understand staggered tyre widths).

I will be looking to upgrade the tyres on the 17s to Yoko AD08R (or the new RS) which is why I have been checking the tyre sizes that I can get with the Yokos to make sure I can run them.

I am going to look to get another set of wheels soon as I am indeed at around stock power - will be looking to get a set of 15x7 wheels and stagger the tyres, probably 195 front 205 rear as I know I can get a lot of tyre options in that range, especially for 195/50/15s.

I have swapped over to the 17s at the moment to see how the car handles and to check out fitment and if there are any issue with rubbing. Might do a DIY refurb on the stock rims this weekend if I can get a chance to neaten them up, will probably then refit the stock setup and put the 17s in the garage for when I am ready for them. Wasn't really meant to get new wheels at this point but as some came up I just went for it.

I believe I have now almost ordered all of the parts to build up my forged engine - will be running this engine initially NA and then simply swap over injectors and bolt on a turbo etc at a later date.

Full spec of the build is:

• 1zz block
• 79.5mm bore (0.5mm overbore)
• CSS (cylinder support system) - 1zz is now a semi closed deck and rated to around 600bhp
• Molnar rods
• ARP block studs
• ARP head studs
• ARP flywheel bolts
• Stock crank (has been shown to hold up fine well over 500bhp
• Custom Traum pistons - 9.5:1 compression
• Custom Piper forced induction camshafts
• Stock 1zz head, might clean up any obvious cast marks (can do more harm than good if trying to port)
• King bearings - went with Bimetal bearings as no race bearings exist for the 1zz
• Full master valvetrain kit from Supertech - stainless steel valves, dual valve springs, titanium retainers, rated to 8,500rpm
• Clutch master lightened flywheel
• Stock 6 speed gearbox (with LSD) but with upgraded JUBU gears for 3rd and 4th - rated to 295 ft/lbs but should hold higher
• Moroso oil pan
• Stock head gasket
• Stock oil pump (brand new OEM) - might look to see if I can fit the uprated 2zz gears)
• All OEM gaskets, chains and sprockets

I still need to order a dividerless 1zz intake manifold and sort out a clutch to hold the future torque level but can still assemble the short block in the mean time.

There will be a seperate list of parts when looking to turbo the engine including fuelling upgrades, an accusump as well as the charge cooler etc, but can easily bolt on/add them when the time comes, will probably also switch to a return system with an FPR when I change the engine over.

I am unsure as to what power the engine will make, will be more concerned about the torque through the gearbox so will be limiting peak torque with boost by gear and retarding the timing slightly via the mapping. Will be aiming to run the car at around 21psi of boost, will be looking at getting a Borg EFR 6758. Looking at the Borg EFR turbos, they are neatly packaged together with no need for an additional external wastegate (they are fitted with a 50mm internal wastegate) so exhaust routing should be simple.

As a guess (using the Borg turbo matcher), at 21 psi at top RPM the engine should hopefully be making around 420bhp - so triple stock power. The good thing is that I can easily dial down the boost for the road and the EFR turbo is still ok at lower boost (as its ball bearing and low inertia wheel). Will mean that I can have it mapped for full power to use on the drag strip a couple of times, then dial it back when driving it normally.

I know that the engine build isn't the cheapest but I still think it will be cheaper than a stock used Lotus Elise all in. The car should weigh around 1000kg to 1100kg I think so would be at around 380-420 bhp per ton, looking a bhp per ton list of various cars, here are some examples of the sorts of cars are similar:

Lamborghini Gallardo LP570-4 Super Trofeo Stradale - 419.4 bhp per ton, £209,811
Bugatti EB110 Supersport - 417.4 bhp per ton, £627,200
McLaren MP4-12C V8 TT - 412.8 bhp per ton, £187,482
Lamborghini Reventon - 384.9 bhp per ton, £1,227,000
Lexus LFA Nurburgring - 380.4 bhp per ton, £380,700

The R35 GTR is listed at 313.2 bhp per ton with the Nismo version at 340.7bhp as a comparison, the new BMW Supra has a bhp per ton of just 220.4 as its about half a ton heavier than the MR2 Roadster.

Glad you are pushing forward.
I am sure it will be mental fast.

If my experience of driving around with porsches is anything to go buy the mr2 just isn't stable enough at high speed to compete especially on poor or bumpy road surfaces.
I can carry plenty of speed through the corners and I don't fear 987 cayman S on smooth straights but the combination of high speed and road poor surface means my bottle goes.

Just don't think there is a quality suspension available to solve that problem.

Quote from: 1979scotte on August 29, 2019, 11:45Glad you are pushing forward.
I am sure it will be mental fast.

If my experience of driving around with porsches is anything to go buy the mr2 just isn't stable enough at high speed to compete especially on poor or bumpy road surfaces.
I can carry plenty of speed through the corners and I don't fear 987 cayman S on smooth straights but the combination of high speed and road poor surface means my bottle goes.

Just don't think there is a quality suspension available to solve that problem.

aero maybe? And obviously quality suspension. Unfortunately BC/MeisterR don't count as "quality" when it comes to cars rated at power outputs like what you're seeing. But a good set of springs, Bilstein or Koni dampers. 

Lowered, skirts, splitters and flat bottom with diffuser out back. And then, contrary to what we usually try...add compliance and flex to the car. You don't want to bounce off a little stone when shoving 250+ lb/ft torque through the wheels.

Looking forward to seeing this build finally take off. I suspect it'll run lik ean absolule dog without the turbo though   But all good fun

@shnazzle
@m1tch


Agreed with compression lowered it won't be too clever without FI.
Mine with 8.5:1 and the rotrex is OK at low rpm but that's with 3L and a boat load of torque helping.

Looking forward to this one taking shape, will be following with interest!

Quote from: 1979scotte on August 29, 2019, 12:31@shnazzle
@m1tch


Agreed with compression lowered it won't be too clever without FI.
Mine with 8.5:1 and the rotrex is OK at low rpm but that's with 3L and a boat load of torque helping.

The Monkey Wrench racing store has the Wiseco pistons for sale with a compression ratio of 8.8:1 which is great if you want to run high boost and would have been the preferred route to avoid detonation if the car was built in the 90s or early 2000s. Very low compression ratios aren't needed anymore due to the better fuel injectors and ECUs that are on the market at the moment. The current Ford Ecoboost engines run at 10:1 compression so are responsive on boost as well as off boost.

The stock 1zz has a compression ratio of 10:1, I was looking to go slightly lower (I could choose my CR as they are custom) but went with 9.5:1 as this would give me slightly more knock resistance but also allow for quicker spool, better drive ability off boost and overall higher power. The cylinder head might need a slight skim coupled with the slight deck when the CSS was put in place will probably bump the CR by a few 0.1 CR points so will probably end up at around 9.7:1 so close to stock. Might also look to run some meth injection as well for any high boost runs to help with knock prevention and the Link also has knock control that can retard the ignition if it start to detect any knock.

Worth noting that I will only be looking to run the car at the 'Ludicrous' setting, eg full boost, full revs at the drag strip. The rest of the time I will be running lower power by dropping the boost so would be running more like 1 bar of boost so would be more manageable on the road (coupled with traction control etc).

This is also why I am doing everything in stages, going from stock power to remapped stock engine to the forged engine that can take slightly more RPM through to boosted. I was looking at superchargers but I like the ability to easily adjust the boost levels and how aggressively the boost builds up etc.

I do currently have a set of Meister R coilovers fitted, I am currently looking into aero options as well as bracing and weight distribution. My initial driving impressions of the new wheels currently fitted is that its far more planted than the stock wheels and tyres - although as mentioned before I might look to swap to a smaller set of wheels to match the lower power levels.

I am sure there will be several iterations of suspension setup and I might end up with adjustable dampers and springs in the end. The damper adjustment on the Meister R coilovers are fairly good in terms of soft vs hard, currently running at I think 14 out of 32 settings and its about the same as the Teins. I did run them fully soft which was really soft compared to the Teins and stock dampers.

I have meister r and like them very much. However you'll never get an mr2 to handle like an elise or cope with speed like a porsche.

Ive mid brace and front strut brace and FL front under brace.

Ive bosch ev14 injectors and ecumaster classic.

Bigger wheels and tyres may make the car more stable at high speed but ruin the way the car feels to me.

Ford and other manufacturers do run very high compression ratios these days but the engine was designed from the outset to run that way and has had millions in R&D spent on it.

May have to pick the brains of Chris gb because his car handled really well with more than double stock bhp.


At the end of the day none of this really matters you'll have something different built to your taste that puts a smile on your face.

Assume you'll be taking plenty of photo's of the build?

Interested in the CSS vs Sleeving, as that's where I'm at at the moment.

Quote from: Gaz2405 on August 29, 2019, 20:35Assume you'll be taking plenty of photo's of the build?

Interested in the CSS vs Sleeving, as that's where I'm at at the moment.

I will be taking many photos soon, its all in bits at the moment without much installed, all I have done so far is check the oil clearances for the main bearings, still need to double check the conrod bearings but the stock crank seems to be fairly new/lightly used.

I think I am probably the first in the UK to get CSS on a 1zz, the way to look at it is that all of the support is needed at the top of the cylinder (and all of the pressure of combustion happens right at the top of the cylinder). With the CSS installed the stock cylinder sleeves can't move around so won't crack and are supported right where the combustion pressures are highest.

With sleeving the sleeves are much stronger but still aren't being supported at all at the top so could still move around under higher loads. There is also the added issues around installing the sleeves, they must be machined and fitted perfectly - not just almost perfectly, perfectly. And there is also the possibility of them dropping as they are inserts unless you upgrade to the Darton MID sleeves.

I had my CSS done at Future motorsport, its usually done on Honda engines - please note that a CSS is NOT a block guard, they have slightly beefier CSS setups that are rated to around 1000bhp on stock sleeves.

The added benefit of running a 1zz is that the bore walls are thicker than on the 2zz, I am also going with stock displacement (well 0.5mm over) meaning I am keeping the vast majority of the cylinder wall thickness vs boring out to 82mm for example.

CSS is also better value than the sleeves, considering the engine is only going to be making around 350-400 I am only going with the CSS, not planning on high boost or nitrous. One of the reasons I went down the 1zz route is the fact that I can still run stock sleeves and the engine can be slightly overbored to fit aftermarket pistons, whereas the 2zz has to be sleeved as the cylinders can't be rebored owing to the MMC coating.

Quote from: 1979scotte on August 29, 2019, 14:17I have meister r and like them very much. However you'll never get an mr2 to handle like an elise or cope with speed like a porsche.

Ive mid brace and front strut brace and FL front under brace.

Ive bosch ev14 injectors and ecumaster classic.

Bigger wheels and tyres may make the car more stable at high speed but ruin the way the car feels to me.

Ford and other manufacturers do run very high compression ratios these days but the engine was designed from the outset to run that way and has had millions in R&D spent on it.

May have to pick the brains of Chris gb because his car handled really well with more than double stock bhp.


At the end of the day none of this really matters you'll have something different built to your taste that puts a smile on your face.

I agree that I won't be able to get the car to handle like a Lotus (which is lighter and has a better suspension design) and it probably won't handle high speed like a Porsche but basically the car will only need to get to 70mph on the road, and up to around 130mph or so on the smooth clean dry prepped drag strip.

I still need to add bracing to various parts of the car, I am gradually working through to chassis in terms of cleaning and protecting parts and making sure that everything is well maintained and sound.

Agree with the bigger wheels and tyres, will only really be running the larger wheels and tyres when I have the power dialled up, will look to run lightweight 15s normally at lower boost for handling and then swap to the wider tyres when I run higher boost for stability and grip.

I agree with the large amount of R&D Ford has put into the engines, I did speak with the owner of Future motorsports who builds and dynos various high power cars, mainly Toyota and Honda. A lot of the Honda engines being built are boosted with a higher compression ratio and have had no issues as long as its tuned correctly.

I am going down the 'built not bought' route, I am doing as much of the work I can myself with parts I feel work well, currently looking at what can be done on the rear of the car as the hard top has a steep rear window angle so spoilers won't really work at the moment.

On the exterior, apart from the wheels and probably front lip and some aero on the back the car will probably be basically stock so more like a sleeper sort of look. I am gradually working on the interior, currently modding OEM parts so I can add in additional switches for functions in the Link ECU such as traction control and launch control.

Will be a fairly long project, will get some photos up soon once I find a way to host them now photobucket doesn't work anymore.

Quick aero update, I have now added a line of vortex generators just above the rear window on the hard top, these were added whilst doing some tuft tests on the rear window. Without them I could see that there was a large separation bubble across the entire window (owing to the steepness of the window). I then added 10 vortex generators across the top of the rear window at 10cm intervals in stages and noted that the flow is now going down the rear window with only a minor separation bubble in the centre - the rest is showing good flow.

I have also reinstalled the carpet and will be looking to get some new OEM floor mats, bring the car back to road trim rather than race trim. I have also fitted my AFR gauge in the ashtray, might look to move it at some point but it means that I can now run basically a stock dash.

I believe the car's weight reduction is probably at around half of the maximum I managed to get out of the car - will calculate the different soon. This will hurt performance slightly but wouldn't be noticable as a road car, considering the increase in power in the future, this shouldn't make much difference but at least I will know how much of a difference it might make if needed.