Quote:
Originally Posted by Allch Chcar
More like 140BHP minimum, 7k peak minimum. I ask very little  , except for RWD, manual tranny, an efficient 4 cylinder, cheap, and compact 2+2. Too little HP is easier to rectify than bad MPG especially if it lowers the base price. And while 2.0l is not a guzzling large displacement, a 1.6liter can be 50-75lbs lighter in the front, get better MPG or rev higher, and be more compact. 200BHP would put it into the same performance category as the RX-8 albeit $10k cheaper and there is no guarantee that it will be any better on the corners. The Mustang/Camaro is faster either way for only a couple thousand more $$$ but it's a vastly different car. If it takes a low output turbo to achieve 200+BHP it doesn't bother me. E85 means more boost for less. |
The Civic Si is fuel efficient enough @ 2880lbs curb weight, and without direct injection (21/29mpg). The MX5 is similar. I think the FT-86 would do just fine with direct injection and whatever VVT technology chooses to implement, and a ~2600lb curbweight. Seriously, If you are looking for a 35mpg combined car, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman
140 bhp at 7000rpm would be a 'FAIL' in my book if they can't get 140 until that high rpm, the motor would suck donkey balls. (unless you are talking about 140 bhp peak and a 7000rpm redline)
However this thing will have standards (other cars) that it will me measured against, and the smart money has it in the 180 to 200 bhp range.
|
^ I'm with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allch Chcar
 . You guys are crazy. 140BHP at 7k, that is all I want. 0-60mph in less than 8seconds would be just fine by me. If you want more go turbo or rev it over 9k. |
Feel free to disconnect one or two of your plugs and injectors if you want.