Guess who joined the 2L club?

[roccit_53 at hotmail.com (C Boyko)]

I know we love to argue, but nobody is in favour of the 1.8 going back in 
are they? After all, "there is no replacement", well, unless you shove extra 
air in there. And Jason will know, if you transpose the torque curves for 
both, is there any point at which the 2L curve lies below the 1.8's, 
anywhere in the rpm range?
Cathy


>From: "L F" <rocco16v@netzero.net>
>To: "T. Reed" <treed2@u.washington.edu>,"Jason" <jason@scirocco.org>
>CC: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>Subject: Re: Guess who joined the 2L club?
>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:55:28 -0700
>
>HP is not the same as torque...
>Also, he didn't specify just HOW FAR off idle....(I suppose 3500rpm could 
>be considered "off idle", since it's not idling..)
>:)
>
>Larry
>sandiego16v
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: T. Reed
>   To: Jason
>   Cc: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>   Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:35 PM
>   Subject: Re: Guess who joined the 2L club?
>
>
>   > Remember that the 2.0 makes more torque off idle than the 1.8 does at 
>its
>   > peak.  There is a huge difference in drivability... the 2L is just a 
>much
>
>   Eh-whaaa?? Are you sure about this? Last time I checked the 2l torque 
>peak
>   was ~132hp at ~4000 rpm while the 1.8l torque peak was ~123hp at ~4250
>   rpm. Yes, the powerband of the 2l is much broader but I can't see it
>   making 123hp at idle!! That would kick ass, though!
>
>   -Toby
>
>   >
>   > Congrats!
>   > Jason
>   >
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   Scirocco-l mailing list
>   Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>   http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>Scirocco-l mailing list
>Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail