![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
I would avoid the crawford power blocks and get uels and a tune, it's a much better bang for buck and has proven gains and doesn't decrease as mods are added. If manual get 4.56 If auto get 4.88 This is all assuming you stay N/A |
Quote:
Why pick and choose when you can have all the above together though! |
Quote:
|
more torque would be nice. but there are two school of thought with engines like this.. some will say 'awesome I get to rev it out!' , and others will say 'ugh, i have to rev it out' . Neither one is right, you just have to see what you like.
Stock car is fine for me. I'd rather have better brakes (they run out pretty quick) or a weight loss of 200 lbs rather than +50hp. |
Quote:
Sadly power figures have these day's become a dumbed down basic point of comparison between one car and another when they should really be used to help measure what change a single (or series of) mod(s) had brought to a car to help validate a change. |
Right or wrong ... the people who appreciate low weight and adequate power make up a minority. Especially in the USA. It's all about MORE. Trucks with more Tq to tow. Sports passenger sedans with more Hp. American muscle cars with more Hp. Exotic/Supercars with more Hp. Hell ... even electric cars like Tesla is building cars with more juice.
I don't see this pattern changing much, but eventually it will have to change. |
Would continue to drive it exactly the same way I currently do. The only difference is I'd get up to speed a bit quicker.
Cool man, exactly what this car needs! Even if I had FI levels of power, it would literally only mean I could get up to speed that much quicker. I don't get the need for more power. If they want to eliminate the tq dip, I'm all for that, but again, hardly noticeable in day to day driving. |
Quote:
Pushing HP numbers is an easy sell because it gives something that any person can compare in a common scale. The fact that those HP numbers are used differently by the rest of the drive train and overall car design is not so obvious. 1947 the "only" car to give you a 100HP V8 (more like 80 if measured using today's methods) https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...2e7300a7b0.jpg How about meeting the ultimate goal of "1 HP per cubic inch"? (again old measurement method) http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/membe...hevy_1HP_1.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Obviously I meant from the factory, and not aftermarket options. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d8065e55fe.jpg |
Rather have more HP and not need it, than have a need for it and not have it
|
I'm not sure it would appease the critics. 50 hp NA would put the power-to-weight slightly above the S2000 and plenty of people complained that car was slow. It's all about where the power is made in the RPM band.
As humdizzle mentioned, some people enjoy being able to rev the engine out. Others want the power early with a low redline. The critics generally fall in the latter camp and are really looking for more mid-range torque, either through displacement or FI. Look at the number of people who think the Fiesta ST is more fun to drive than the Twins even though it's slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Fun = midrange torque (to them). |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.