Re: To 16V or not to 16V, that is the question

[trnsfrma@ix.netcom.com (Shawn C. Meze)]

At 10:32 PM 3/23/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I agree with all but a few points (but facts and opinions are what makes this
>list fun, right?):

Yup!


>1) "low end sucks bu-ku weener" assumes that weener has trouble keeping motor
>between peak torque at 4,250 rpm and redline at   2)  7,250 rpm.  That's a
>pretty broad range, and having both an 8v and a 16v, I can live without the
>2,000 rpm "grunt"...that's what I like about 5.0 mustangs.  


You lost me there, but I think your saying.....uh, Im not sure exactly.    :)

I dunno if this is related to what you just said but: if you look at the 
numbers in the HP/TQ, the 16V is pretty close to the 8V in torque. I think its 
just a write protection fault thingie that makes people think that the low end 
is horrid compared to what the 16V has to offer up top. No? I personally dont 
think the bottom end is that bad in the 16V. Its just got a bad rep. (Even tho 
I can kill most any 16V off the line in a bad way in my 8V.)


Shawn 
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@privateI.com,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.