What's better than 66.6?

[roccit_53 at scirocco.cs.uoguelph.ca (C Boyko)]

On 7:13 am 11/13/06 "Dan Bubb" <jdbubb@verizon.net> wrote:
> Yeah, I'd say that's right at expectation or perhaps a little better.
> That translates to ~ 117 crank Hp, which is a good ways up on a stock
> 1.8 GTI engine.
> 54 Hp/L is right at what some of the MD local 2L 8V's are getting
> (except Brian who didn't manage 90 Hp! Sorry Dude!) most of which are
> running a G grind + exhaust, but also have had some cylinder head
> porting. So considering the lack of porting, which the 2.0L really
> needs to make decent power, Klaus is doing pretty good!
> I really don't think you could expect much more without some head
> work and a lot more cam.
> I presume the 67 Hp was the old original 1.6? When you did your "cam
> swap" it must have been quite a nice surprise.
> So, what's next? ;^)
> Dan
>
I was hoping for 100hp, that's what the butt dyno put it at, and my butt
was exactly right last time around. 2.3hp less is still within jeans
thickness error! (I'd guessed half what the 16V has with the 1.6, and 66.6
is pretty close to half of 133.1! ) Yeah, it was what I expected. What's
next? Winter, of course ;P ! (All manner of evil arises from snowbound
Canadains!) And also lots of laughing at the kid for blowing all his shit
up. I'm such a good mom...

Off topic, how the hell scary must this sled be that my kid wants? 150 hp,
yikes!
Cathy