Title: 202 4 186 Post by: michaels57 on July 30, 2002, 05:09:09 AM I was wondering if it is possible to change over a 202 if the car already has a 186 without getting a engineers cert. If the car has already had one for the 186. Also i was told that if the car has been registered in the past with the modified motor ie, a 186 then u don't need to get another engineers cert. is that true and how do i find out the registration history of the car?
REGARDS Michael 8) 8) 8) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: brads59 on July 31, 2002, 05:37:39 AM Michael,i dont think it matters cause they are both red motors.Dont quote me on this though,but it may also depend on what state your in.I'm in SA,but we get away with murder almost.Hope this helps. Cheers Brad...
Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: gree on July 31, 2002, 06:31:35 AM in nsw it's a different story.
you are allowed to upgrade engineswithout an engineer's certificate, but not more than a certain percentage increase in capacity. it is a pretty meagre increase too, cause the 202 from a 186 is outside the limits. my fc used to have a 186 before its 202 transplant, and it had to get re-engineered (a 3/4 chassis and fuel injection system was put in at the same time though). if you are in nsw, you can go to the rta website and look at the code for light vehicle modifications. this has the exact percentage info. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/ Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: michaels57 on July 31, 2002, 08:21:07 AM does anyone know the website for vicroads ??? ???
thanx Michael 8) 8) 8) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: normd on July 31, 2002, 09:52:40 AM Michael
Would it be easier just to bore out the 186 to 192, put in a warm cam . In the racing scene , we found a 192 is much more reliable ,pull heaps of revs and has heaps of HP. 202's had a habit of "going BANG" My 192 was putting out 245 HP when last dyno'd (but it has triples and 40/80 cam, red-lined at 8500 rpm). As for the legal side of it , it's a 186 (hehehe). Norm Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: FCwagon on July 31, 2002, 08:30:13 PM Michael
In Vic you're allowed a 10% power increase before engineers certs are needed. so the 202 would be ok. Unless you're going to tow stuff a stock 186 is a better motor to have though and not as thirsty. Cheer, Leigh Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: RET on August 01, 2002, 12:03:53 AM I'd have to agree with Leigh - there's no benefit in going to a 202 over a 186 unless the 186 you have is completely cactus and the 202 is a bolt in and drive away proposition.
And VicRoads is http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/. That took less than a minute to find ::) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: michaels57 on August 01, 2002, 07:19:56 AM Thanx for the help fella's i was just curios as for the 192 option i might consider something like that once the car is on the road.
Thankyou for the website RET (i didn't type in .vic when i tried to find it) im sorry for taking your one minute :'( if it bothers you so much to answer a simple question however, then i will search else where ;) REGARDS Michael 8) 8) 8) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: mcl1959 on August 01, 2002, 09:23:19 AM Michael, I would suggest that you consider carefully your resonses in future. Really, asking for vic roads web address on a chat line is fairly lazy.
Richard found the address for you and yet you still abuse him. I suggest that unless you improve your attitude that you should in fact take your own suggestion and search for your answers elsewhere. Richard puts a lot of work into moderating this site and doesn't need to be abused for the effort Ken Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: Michael Eather on August 06, 2002, 07:57:07 AM I do appreciate the time and effort RET must spend on this site. I do apologise for my remarks however i feel it is unreasonable to answer what i believed to be a reasonable in such a hostile manner.
REGARDS Michael 8) 8) 8) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: RET on August 07, 2002, 12:57:04 AM I wasn't going to respond to this, but I'm irritated now. Geez Michael, if you think that was hostile you really need to get out more. Trust me, if I was going to treat you with hostility you would know about it.
Your backhanded apologies are not required. After all, this is not the first time you've asked for someone on this site to give you the URL of a website that's not really that hard to find. Given that this is not 'live' chat or ICQ, you can expect to wait a couple of hours or a day for someone to get back to you. Surely in that time you could try a little harder to find it yourself, like looking at some rego papers, or the yellow pages, or trying a couple of search engines. That is the only reason I gently dinged you. (Well, I thought it was pretty gentle, anyway. If I had said "find it yourself, you lazy ..." then that would be different.) Remember that it's easy to develop a reputation in this sort of on-line community. Do you think yours is improved by abusing people who help you? I reckon that asking those sorts of questions here makes you look either: a) lazy, or b) completely helpless, or c) completely clueless As a general rule, it's a good idea to re-read whatever one has written and consider whether the effect it will have will be positive or negative on one's reputation before one hits the Post button. And I appreciate that I'm breaking my own rule of "Never Post When Angry" :-/ Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: FEHOLDEN on August 07, 2002, 05:09:15 AM correct me if i am wrong but isnt michael the bozo who tried to flog the hq parts on this site? and didnt we have some trouble with his attitude then?
if this is the case then why are we still bothering with him? a fair go is a fair go and i feel that maybe if my recollections are correct [i could have gone back to check myself but i had an attack of the micheal57's] then perhaps michael has had his but of course i feel it is not my place to call for any disciplinary action as i have too much respect for ret and his position as moderator. in finishing my diatribe i would just like to say that i am not so much angry as basically in agreement with ken and a small breach of your own rules ret is in this case i feel justified. keep up the good work. denis ps: i think the 186 is a better motor. Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: craiga on August 07, 2002, 09:13:35 AM Hey Michaels57,
I think its great that you are working on your ute and use the chat site to get the assistance of others. However I agree with the RET and FEHolden when they indicate you would be better off taking your attitude elsewhere. Ever heard of a Skoda? I hear their club has a great chatsite (http://hjem.get2net.dk/petermad/anigif3/human/handanim.gif) Cheers, Craig. Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: FEHOLDEN on August 08, 2002, 12:47:06 AM gidday craig
well said but i thought that maybe the morris minor 1000 or the austin a40 club might be more in his league. denis Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: air-chief on August 08, 2002, 12:58:03 PM G'day Michael
How did you go with your choice of motor? You wrote in your first post about already having an engineers cert for the 186, ring the engineer who wrote out the report and have a chat with him. You'll find that he'll be more than happy to help with your questions and should be able to answer all of them. Regards a-c. Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: Michaels_57 on August 15, 2002, 04:45:41 AM Thanks for asking Airchief ;)
Ah i don't have the engineers cert. that's why i was wondering how i could find out how i could find out if one existed or the car has been registered with the 186 in the past. Thus my question of vicroads. REGARDS MICHAEL 8) 8) 8) Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: air-chief on August 15, 2002, 08:46:25 AM Hey Michael
An easy way to check if the car was rego'd with the 186 is to find an old rego label to the car. It should have a copy of the engine number on it. If it matches your engine then yes it was rego'd with the 186. If you can't find one check with vic-roads. Give them a call, I don't have the number but if you ring 12456 they can connect you to them directly. Let me know how you go! Regards a-c Title: Re: 202 4 186 Post by: Michaels_57 on August 27, 2002, 05:01:34 AM :) :)
Thanks for that AC ill give it a shot REGARDS Michael 8) 8) 8) |