Boost demand is influenced by the torque model, so the target moves with operating conditions. That makes Boost Target Error the useful measure: how closely actual pressure follows what the ECU is requesting.

A steady target makes diagnosis easier, but the car needs to track changing demand properly too.

How the target is built, and the PID tables as they stood before this work, are in Boost Control on the Emtron KV12: Where the Target Really Comes From. That post describes refining the initial position table by no more than 3 percent at a time. The changes here are much larger, and they are provisional.

What the original logs showed

The earlier logs contained periods where boost remained around 10–25 kPa below target, alongside substantial changes in wastegate duty.

Three features of the original calibration stood out:

• An isolated 10.00 proportional-gain cell, at −25 kPa error with manifold pressure rising at 5 %/second, compared with 0.50 in every other cell at that error.
• Integral gain dropping to zero at ±10 kPa error, limiting its ability to correct a sustained deficit outside the narrow near-target region.
• Derivative output making sizeable contributions to duty during some transients.

Those observations justified investigating the tables, but they didn’t establish a complete replacement calibration. Some logs also had gaps exceeding a second and channels updating at different rates. That limits how confidently individual output changes can be tied to events happening a few hundredths of a second apart.

The first PID revision

The first revision removed the isolated proportional-gain spike, extended modest integral action further from target and reduced the positive-error derivative gains.

These were trial values, not a finished calibration.

Proportional gain

The only change from the original was the 10.00 cell. With it gone, proportional gain no longer depends on how fast pressure is rising.

That made the gain surface consistent. It did not establish that overshoot would improve. That cell was the overboost catch: boost well above target and still climbing was the one situation where the controller was allowed to hit hard. Removing it removes that correction too.

The table is also asymmetric, which was inherited rather than introduced. Gain is 0.20 at −5 and −10 kPa, against 0.50 at +5 and +10 kPa. Proportional correction is weaker when boost is above target than when it is below.

Integral gain

The near-target values stayed unchanged. Adding 0.010 at ±10 kPa allowed integral action to extend beyond the original narrow region, tapering towards zero at ±50 kPa.

The integral limits remained ±5 duty percentage points.

Derivative gain

The gains at +10, +20 and +25 kPa were halved from 3.00 to 1.50. The negative-error end was retained.

The output limits remained 5–80% duty, and the initial-position table was initially left unchanged.

That last decision became important.

Why boost status mattered

Some of the earlier duty changes coincided with changes between Emtron boost status 15: ON–Mass Flow Limit and 1: ON.

Those transitions could change both the final boost target and the initial duty selected from the table. A sharp duty change therefore wasn’t automatically evidence of a PID problem.

The distinction matters on this car because the final boost request is influenced by the torque model. Looking only at the base target, or only at the PID outputs, misses part of the control sequence.

Boost system status and boost PID status are also separate channels. Their numbers cannot be interpreted interchangeably.

Status names are from Emtron’s Boost Status reference.

The sixth-gear log below shows how large those transitions are. Between about 3,000 and 3,100 rpm, the status flipped between 1: ON and 15: ON–Mass Flow Limit four times. Each flip moved the target between 290 kPa and roughly 190–200 kPa, and moved commanded duty between 80% and about 31%. None of that was the PID.

At a target near 190 kPa the initial position also read zero, because the table holds zero at 200 kPa and below. From about 3,100 rpm the status stayed at 15 for the rest of the pull, so the whole overshoot happened with the mass flow limit setting the target.

The run that exposed the overshoot

The next useful log contained a sixth-gear pull from approximately 3,000 to 4,300 rpm, with no shift recorded during the pull.

It showed a clear overshoot:

Positive error means actual pressure is below target. Negative error means it is above target.

This wasn’t simply an apparent overshoot caused by the target suddenly falling. During the initial pressure rise above target, the target itself increased from approximately 261 to 271 kPa absolute.

Actual pressure climbed much faster.

The maximum logged error and maximum manifold pressure occurred at slightly different timestamps. With independently updating channels, those figures should not be forced into an exact same-row calculation.

The initial-duty table explained much of it

At approximately 3,680 rpm, boost was almost on target:

• Boost Target Error: +3.3 kPa
• Initial duty: 75.5%
• Final commanded duty: 74.6%

The engine was already reaching the requested pressure while the controller was still commanding substantial spool duty.

The original initial-position table held 100% duty through 3,500 rpm for target rows from 220 to 340 kPa. It then dropped sharply towards the values at 4,000 rpm.

For the 260 kPa target row, interpolation produced this curve:

The table tapered spool assistance according to engine speed, without directly accounting for how close actual boost had come to target.

In this sixth-gear pull, boost reached target before RPM had advanced far enough through that taper. Feedback then had to remove a large amount of duty while pressure was already rising rapidly.

Between target crossing and the pressure peak, about half a second, the taper itself took initial duty from 75.5% to about 51%, and P removed roughly another 26 points. Pressure kept rising anyway.

That strongly implicated the feedforward transition. It did not prove that every aspect of the overshoot came from that table.

What P, I and D were doing

The individual outputs helped separate the causes.

P was correcting the overshoot. It eventually removed approximately 27 duty percentage points. That correction arrived as negative error developed, but it did not prevent the pressure peak.

It was also starting from its weakest settings. Between −2 and −10 kPa the gain was 0.10 to 0.20, reaching 0.50 only at −25 kPa. This overshoot passed −25 kPa with pressure still rising, which is the region the removed 10.00 cell used to cover. The log can’t show what that cell would have done, but this run went through the conditions it was there for.

I was not winding up and driving the event. Integral output was approximately zero at target crossing and slightly negative at the peak. Increasing integral correction would not address the main cause shown here.

D had a gap around target crossing. The revised table had zero derivative gain from +5 to −40 kPa error, as the original did.

As error approached zero from the positive side, derivative gain tapered away. It then remained zero through the first 40 kPa of overboost, approximately 5.8 psi. Gain only returns beyond −40 kPa, reaching 3.00 at −50. With a worst logged error of −57.6 kPa, derivative gain was available only over the last 18 kPa or so of the overshoot.

The log shows what that did. Above target, derivative output was zero from about −13 kPa to beyond −50 kPa. Its only negative contribution there was −2.1 points, at the peak. As pressure began to fall it switched to +6 and then +12 points, with boost still 30 to 50 kPa over target.

That is derivative doing its job, resisting the rate of change. Here, though, it was adding duty to an engine that was still overboosting, and final commanded duty briefly climbed from 17% back to 46% in that window. On this run, the −50 kPa end of the D table added more duty during recovery than it removed at the peak.

The combination was the problem: high initial duty approaching target, with weak proportional and no derivative correction through target crossing.

The first D revision had retained that gap. The later log showed why it could not be treated as a validated overshoot-control calibration.

Adding resolution where the problem occurred

Seven engine-speed breakpoints were added to the initial-position table: 3,250, 3,600, 3,700, 3,800, 3,900, 4,100 and 4,250 rpm.

The existing 3,500 and 4,000 rpm breakpoints were kept. The 4,000 rpm values stayed as they were. The 3,500 rpm values did not: for the 220–280 kPa rows they came down from 100% to between 50 and 57%.

Adding columns alone changes nothing if the new values simply reproduce the old interpolation. The purpose was to create enough resolution to reshape the transition deliberately.

The revision reduced duty earlier and brought it closer to the existing 4,000 rpm values before the previous target-crossing point. It covers the 220–280 kPa rows from 3,250 to 3,900 rpm.

These are provisional trial values, chosen to reduce the excessive duty carried into target crossing. They were not calculated from measured equilibrium wastegate requirements.

At 3,700 rpm and a 260 kPa target, initial duty falls from approximately 72% to 38%. That is a substantial change, with a possible cost in spool response.

The 80% at 3,250 rpm changes less than it looks. It matches the 80% output limit, so while boost is still below target the commanded duty there is the same as before. The real reduction starts at 3,500 rpm.

The 4,100 and 4,250 rpm columns are there for later shaping. For now they hold interpolated values only.

Checking the entries mattered

The first screenshot of the edited table showed that the 280 kPa row had been missed.

That would have affected operation below 280 kPa too, because the ECU interpolates between target rows. EMtune had filled the new 3,700 rpm cell in that row with 72.5%, the original interpolation rounded to the nearest 0.5. At 270 kPa and 3,700 rpm, that would have produced approximately 55.25% initial duty, rather than the intended 39%.

The row was corrected before considering the revision complete.

A separate limitation remains above it. The 300–340 kPa rows retain the original aggressive spool profile, and the step into them is steepest at 3,500 rpm:

That matters in sixth gear. With the 10 kPa sixth-gear target offset, 290 kPa is the full-demand target in that gear, and this log requested exactly that whenever the status returned to 1: ON. The revised 220–280 kPa region does not establish that the rest of the table is suitable.

Where the calibration stands

The revised initial-position values have been checked in the calibration screenshots. There is not yet a subsequent log demonstrating their effect.

P, I and D are being held unchanged for the first comparison so the effect of the feedforward change can be assessed separately. Three closed-loop issues remain open: the derivative gap from +5 to −40 kPa, the weaker proportional gain above target now that the 10.00 cell has gone, and a −50 kPa derivative gain that adds duty during recovery from overboost.

The next assessment centres on Boost Target Error:

• Peak negative error during boost arrival.
• Time spent above target.
• Recovery after the peak.
• Any additional positive error or slower spool introduced by the reduced duty.
• Behaviour when the torque model changes the target or boost-control state.

The useful result will be a smaller, shorter overshoot without creating an excessive boost deficit elsewhere. Until that is demonstrated, this remains a calibration under development.

The lesson from this stage is specific: before asking PID to correct a boost error, examine the initial duty it is correcting around. In this run, boost was arriving on target with roughly three-quarters duty still commanded. That was the first problem to address.

More to come.

The post Tuning the Supra’s Boost Control: PID Gains Were Only Part of the Problem first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Tuning the Supra’s Boost Control: PID Gains Were Only Part of the Problem appeared first on BlownByTwins.

Then I logged it properly. The logs showed that the tyre produced its best acceleration at less slip than some of my more permissive modes allowed, the speed offsets could drive the final target below zero, and the integral term was storing positive torque while the car was below target. When wheelspin arrived, part of the PID was briefly helping it.

This is the latest iteration: what changed, what the evidence actually supports, and what still needs a warm, dry road before I call it finished.

The starting point

Status: Verified – Rear tyres are 295/30/19 Continental SportContact 7s.

The strategy has always had two halves. Feedforward predicts the engine torque the tyre should accept. Closed loop PID then corrects whatever the prediction could not know about: temperature, damp patches, surface changes, load transfer and bumps.

The torque model is normalised to third gear. The traction strategy itself is not normalised until the final gear scaler is applied. That distinction matters because a torque value in the base table is not the engine torque the car will necessarily receive in second, fourth or fifth.

The tyre peak moved the targets

Status: Working conclusion

The useful result from the earlier dry data was a tractive force peak around 9,500 to 9,800 N at roughly 5 to 6 percent slip. Once slip moved into the 6 to 8 percent band, median tractive force fell to about 8,860 N. More wheelspin felt more dramatic, but it accelerated the car less.

That immediately made two settings look wrong. Mode 7 allowed 7.9 percent straight line slip and Mode 9 allowed 12 percent. Both sat beyond the measured force peak. They were permissive, but they were not the fastest settings.

The later road test complicated the picture. It was cooler and the road was not completely dry. Maximum logged tractive force was about 7,982 N rather than 9,500 N. The road rose by only about 0.17 percent over the measured section, worth roughly 30 N on a 1,750 kg car, so gradient could not explain the difference. Tyre and road condition could.

That means 9,500 N remains a dry baseline, not a universal grip limit. The system still needs slip feedback because no fixed torque table can know whether the tyre is warm, cold, dry or sitting on a damp seam.

Rebuilding the rotary modes

Status Calibration loaded for validation

The rotary still selects the character of the car, but the straight line targets now have a cleaner progression. Mode 3 remains the chilled setting. Mode 4 is the normal fast road setting. Mode 5 is for a known dry road on warm tyres. Mode 6 allows movement, but no longer asks the SC7 to live well beyond its measured force peak.

The lateral G shapes were rebuilt at the same time. Both sides are now symmetrical because there was no evidence supporting different left and right targets. Every active road mode tapers as lateral acceleration increases, because the tyre has less longitudinal capacity available while it is also producing cornering force.

The speed offset was doing too much

Status: Calibration loaded for validation

The final target is the lateral G table plus a speed offset. The old high speed offsets were large enough to make the combined target negative in the conservative modes. Unless that is correcting a measured wheel speed bias, a negative slip target has no useful meaning.

The revised table keeps the low speed launch allowance, but reduces the 25 km/h addition from nine percentage points to five. The target now blends down towards the normal table by 45 km/h instead of falling off a cliff. Above 180 km/h the negative offsets remain, but they are smaller and cannot erase the underlying target.

That gives the same rotary a consistent meaning at every speed. Mode 3 remains conservative rather than becoming impossible at high speed, and Mode 7 remains the quickest dry road target rather than turning into an arbitrary number once the car passes 180 km/h.

A feedforward table built around tractive force

Status Current baseline

The largest architectural change is the main feedforward surface. Instead of treating slip error as the only description of available grip, the new table is indexed by modelled tractive force and engine torque before reductions.

The surface rises towards 9,500 N, then deliberately falls away. At a 950 Nm unrestricted torque input, the table returns 594.9 Nm at 8,000 N, 652.7 Nm at 9,500 N and 597.1 Nm at 10,500 N.

Apply the fourth gear normalisation factor of 1.263 and those become approximately 751, 825 and 754 Nm at the engine. The peak is therefore almost exactly where the warm, dry SC7 data said it should be. Above the peak, the table asks for less torque because the tyre has already moved onto the wrong side of its force curve.

This is still a model. Emtron tractive force is largely derived from engine torque and gearing; it is not a strain gauge measuring the contact patch. The table provides a gear aware first estimate. Slip feedback remains the part that discovers the road is wet.

The integrator was adding torque

Status: Verified defect

The most important log finding was not a lack of negative integral authority. It was positive windup.

With slip below target, the original controller allowed the integral output to climb to its positive 50 Nm clamp. One run held it there for about 1.3 seconds. Another retained the full 50 Nm across approximately 2.75 seconds. The tyre was not slipping too much, so the controller stored permission to add torque.

When overslip arrived, the proportional and derivative terms reacted immediately, but the integral term had to unwind before it could help. At the worst point in one event the contributions were minus 7.6 Nm proportional, plus 37.6 Nm integral and minus 0.9 Nm derivative. The combined PID contribution was still plus 29.1 Nm while the tyre was already beyond target.

The controller remained stable because the feedforward model, throttle reduction and ignition retard were doing the real work. That does not make the integral behaviour acceptable. A stable result can still contain two control terms fighting each other.

The fix was removing positive authority

Status: Changed awaiting full dry validation

The positive integral clamp is now zero. The negative clamp remains minus 50 Nm.

Below target slip, the integral term now sits at zero. Once the tyre exceeds target it can accumulate negative correction, up to 50 Nm. There is no positive value left to unwind and no stored torque waiting to oppose the first intervention.

I initially considered extending the negative clamp to minus 75 Nm. The logs killed that idea. In the later full throttle events the negative integrator reached only minus 4.3 Nm in one run and zero in the other. More negative authority would have solved a problem that was not happening while increasing the risk of a torque hole after the tyre recovered.

The proportional, integral gain and derivative tables therefore stay unchanged for the next test. Changing several control terms at once would make the result impossible to attribute. The positive clamp was the proven defect, so that is the change being isolated.

What the road logs now say

Status Verified for the logged conditions

Both runs used the conservative Mode 3 target. Neither needed ignition or fuel cuts. The car controlled the tyre with modest timing reduction and without the controller cycling torque up and down.

The lower 7,982 N tractive force result from the cooler, imperfectly dry run should not be used to rewrite the dry table. It is evidence that the available grip changed. That is exactly why the feedforward and feedback halves both exist.

The same session produced a roughly 4.8 second 100 to 200 km/h run without full boost at 100 km/h. The performance matters, but the cleaner result is the behaviour: a 914 whp pump fuel car remained controlled on a cool road without cuts or abrupt throttle closure.

Power mode and traction mode are separate decisions

Status: Verified

The torque request rotary decides how much engine performance is available. The traction rotary decides how much of that performance the tyre may use. Treating them as one setting hides useful control.

The high torque modes already allow enough demand to exceed the rear tyre in second and third, while effectively releasing full engine output from fourth upwards. Increasing those torque tables would not make the car faster. It would only give the traction strategy a larger error to remove.

For a dry road the useful combination is a high torque request with Mode 5 or Mode 6 traction control. Mode 3 is deliberately conservative. Mode 7 is now a permissive track setting rather than a 12 percent wheelspin setting dressed up as performance.

The current configuration (Emtron specific)

What still needs proving

The next valid test is on the same dry road, in both directions, with warm tyres. Running in both directions removes most of the gradient and steady wind error. Mode 4 should be tested first, followed by Mode 5, with full pedal held through the shift long enough to see the integrator unwind and torque recover.

The stop condition is simple. If slip rises beyond about 6.5 percent and tractive force does not increase, the tyre has crossed the peak. If force continues to rise at 5.5 percent slip, Mode 6 is doing its job. If the controller oscillates or leaves a torque hole after intervention, the PID still needs work.

Until that test is complete, the new force peak and the revised permissive modes remain evidence based working settings rather than finished calibration.

The lesson from this iteration

The first version was designed to prevent wheelspin. This version is being calibrated to maximise acceleration without making the car unpleasant.

That distinction changed the questions. How much slip is allowed is less useful than where the tyre produces maximum force. A larger integral clamp is less useful than checking whether the integrator is acting in the correct direction. More available engine torque is irrelevant when the tyre is already the limit.

The car already had enough power. The latest changes are about making the control system stop wasting it, whether that waste comes from excessive wheelspin, an over-conservative target or two parts of the PID fighting each other.

That is the point of logging it properly. The calibration stops being a table that looks sensible and becomes a system that can explain what the car actually did.

Huge thanks to Adrian at Emtron Australia for the pointers in this. It’s been invaluable.

The post What the Logs Changed in My Supra Traction Control first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post What the Logs Changed in My Supra Traction Control appeared first on BlownByTwins.

The day started, as ever, at my local Shell garage, topping up the tank and driving as slowly to the port as possible, conserving as much as fuel as I could for the few days over there. The Isle of Man Steampacket takes around 2h 45m from Liverpool to Douglas and it’s about what you’d expect, but sailing past the front of my house is a nice touch!

We stayed at the Comis Hotel just outside Douglas, a lovely spot but on the expensive side; it was Manx TT build up week, so they’ve got you…

The first morning as a little misty, but what can you do. You can’t control the weather, so we set off for some exploratory runs on the roads, but it was too misty to really put your foot down until later in the afternoon. So, coffee it was.

In the afternoon it cleared and boy, was it worth the wait! The mountain road was still a bit misty at height, but the other roads, lower done. They. Were. Awesome. The Emtron KV12 Traction Control was .. epic! You can just hear it pulling some timing back in the video below. It was relentless. And the CANTCU controlled ZF8HP70 was superb up and down the gears, it made the pace effortless.

On the last runs of Thursday, up the north west side of the island, the bottom part of the rear wing decided to leave the chat at north of 140mph, and the bottom part decided it still liked me, but it was flapping too much for comfort! Off to the hotel, some hand tools I’d brought and off it came. It left the rear of the looking a little odd!

Fair play to Rival Worx, though. The issue was reported and a fresh wing, under warranty was made and sent out. They stand by their product. It was just one of those things. At least it never caused any other damage, other than to my sphincter.

This brings us on to the main issue with the Isle of Man. Fuel! Weak 97 RON and no E85. Nightmare. And considering the 3.4 at 2.1bar does love to consume fuel, it wasn’t ideal. Especially around 7-8000rpm. The full tank I brought from home lasted a day and a bit. So you’ll either need a standard car, or something that has the secondary maps for 97RON. There’s a resonable supply of fuel on the island, the bigger stations are near Ramsey and Douglas, but you will find them sporadically placed around the island and the price is comparable to home.

I think I’ll be bringing some octane booster with me next time. Given the VP Racing Octanium Unleaded will treat 38 litres of fuel per bottle, and improves by 7 points, I’ll probably end up putting 1.5 bottles in per tank full.

It’ll probably cost £100 extra over the course of a 3-4 day trip, but I don’t get to have 914whp on pump let loose than often! And on an engine build like this, protection is something you absolutely want.

Also, I’d just want to point out the new wheels, with Continental Sport Contact 7 tyres. Not as much outright grip as the A052, but it meant I wasn’t finding religion every time we found a little piece of damp or wet roads. A brilliant all round tyre, and ideal for extended trips where you might encounter some inclement weather.

The final morning was a couple of runs through the Mountains, and going back for the final one as a passenger in Eddie’s 718 Cayman GTS4.0 in Jewish Racing Gold, we found the road was closed. We waited for 35 mins before it was time to go back to the hotel, get our bags and head to the ferry to come home.

Isle of Man, we’ll be seeing you again. Soon. Very soon.

The post Mk4 Supra | Isle of Man 2026 first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Mk4 Supra | Isle of Man 2026 appeared first on BlownByTwins.

13/11/2024: Current Specs for Supra VVTi

Overview & Quick Specs @ 13th November, 2024

• Engine: 2.6l I6, single turbo
• Horsepower (bhp) and Torque (Nm): 355bhp& 338lb/ft.
• Top Speed: 160mph
• 0-60 mph: 6s.
• Weight: 1530kg
• Transmission: A340- 4 speed

Detailed Specifications & Modifications

• Engine & Performance:
  • Intake: Stock
  • Exhaust: 3″ decat
  • Forced Induction: Stock twin turbos.
  • Fuel System: Stock.
  • ECU: Stock
  • Other: Stock
• Drivetrain & Transmission:
  • A343E tiptronic
  • Stock A02B differential.
• Suspension & Brakes:
  • Suspension: Lowering springs on OEM shocks -20mm
  • Brakes: OEM.
• Wheels & Tyres:
  • Volk GT7 – 19″
  • Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. 265/35/19 all round.
• Aero & Body:
  • Stock with rear wiper delete
• Interior & Tech:
  • JC Clubsport Rear Seat Delete
  • Stock interior and trim

The post Supra VVTi | Latest Specs first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Supra VVTi | Latest Specs appeared first on BlownByTwins.

I went down to JC Clubsport in Herefordshire to have my car templated as the first MkIV Supra that they’ve built a rear seat delete package for. Straight away, it was a doddle to deal with them. James, the founder and owner, was very commuicative. We set a time, and I went down (early start from the shores of the River Mersey) to their HQ, and thankfully it was a lovely sunny day once the morning fog had burned off.

The trim and carpet was removed to reveal the bare metal and boot surrounding trim in the car, and this is where the massive amounts of measuring started. Everything was measured, checked, trimmed and checked again before a cut was made – and at each point I was kept in the loop and given options and choices regarding how it could work based off their previous experiences in templating over 300 other makes, models and variations of cars.

Once the measurements were completed and the first cuts were made, each again was double checked and iterated on.

With the cuts all being in place, it was off for trimmings. I chose the OEM carpet match, despite wanting to be different, I don’t want to be THAT different. For the netting and the bar, I chose the carbon and the blue netting. Unfortunately, JC didn’t have a carbon bar in stock, so that’s coming up to me in the next few days, but suffice to say, it still looks great with the black temporary bar.

Another nice touch is the bungee fasteners on the netting, which gives me a nice little secure cargo space for anything that could go flying around the car!

I’m very, very happy with how this turned out, and it was great to meet James and his team and see their tireless measuring and iterating around to make sure things are perfect.

The post Mk4 Supra – Rear Seat Delete first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Mk4 Supra – Rear Seat Delete appeared first on BlownByTwins.

Saturday, 27th July 2024, what a long day, but totally worth it. I had to drop the R34 GTR at The Exhibition Centre in Liverpool for The Ultimate Show, then my mate Big Paul (ironic name) came to collect me and take me down to Nottingham to collect the Supra. We arranged a collection time of 4pm, and then I head south to Watford Gap to meet an old friend for a coffee and give the car a run before heading home for 10pm. 220 miles of blissful driving in my new toy. I forgot just how good they are, and how much stronger it pulls above 4000rpm. I can’t wait to start the modification route with SRD Tuning.

When I arrived at the previous owners house, I was immediately greeted with the extensive history, and the receipts for pretty much anything that has been done to the car in the UK ownership. We went through this when I went to view it anyway, but it’s reassuring to see. Although the sight of a certain “respected” tuners name in the file sent a shudder – although it was from the import and not for work. And it was a long time ago. Even though, their name is on the license plate. Suffice to say, a new plate was ordered immediately and is in the post as we speak. Wye aye, I’d not let that place tune my piano, pet. And I don’t have a piano.

Once we’d done the paperwork, and had a look around the old owners new car, it was time to leave. Or was it? No. Battery. He’d had it on trickle charge and forgot to turn the plug on! Mortified, but we got a laugh out of it. Jump leads to the rescue. 5 mins and it started first time. We left it running, shook hands and both agreed it was a pleasure to deal with each other – see, I can be nice!

I head off to Watford Gap to meet Peter, and found a Shell petrol station around 30 miles away. Plenty of distance to put a good charge in it. The fuel was low when I arrived at the Shell, and I totally forgot about the 70 litre tank. That was an expensive, but equally brilliant stop.

The 56000th mile clicked over on this journey and all was going well until the traffic built up just before the Watford Gap services turn off. That gave me 5 mins to play with the stereo. Yep. Definitely upgrading that.

After leaving Watford Gap, leaving the car there for just under 2 hours, chewing the fat, it was time to go home. Two words: very smooth. The car is only a 4 speed auto for now, with 390bhp. But it can delivery it nicely and it makes it a really nice motorway car, albeit quick and relatively thirsty. But it drives well, no noises, very few squeaks and rattles – nothing that some soundproofing won’t cure.

As night fell, the lights came on, I think. The stock bulbs in the Supra are ferociously crap. That’s already been remedied, with LED bulbs on order all around – thanks to Auto Bulbs Direct for relieving me of £295. But, I remember from my last car, just how much better night time driving became. And this will be the same – but it says a lot when I ordered the license plates first!

I got home and I was still giddy.

Isn’t she lovely. Side view, no license plate!

The post Mk4 Supra – It’s Home! first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Mk4 Supra – It’s Home! appeared first on BlownByTwins.

I’m not sure what the initial plans are, or when, but it’s going to be a journey and make a car for life for me. The Supra is one of the cars I regret selling the most, so now I’ve got another, I’m so happy to restart that journey. Not sure where the destination is though.

One thing I do know is that I’m not making a “race car”. I’m making a fast, sensible, comfortable long distance GT car.

It will get more power, though.

Arriving here on the 27th July, so watch this space!

The post I did a thing … first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post I did a thing … appeared first on BlownByTwins.