View Single Post
Old 04-29-2013, 07:41 AM   #15
pothole
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar View Post
The gear ratios in the 2.5 had to be higher than ideal as the engine just didn't pull very well at low RPM's. The increased stroke and improved fuel injection addressed those issues.

Brad
Ratios in the 2.5 higher than ideal? How do you work that out? The 2.5 has nearly 10% lower ratios 1-3. They changed the ratios for the 2.7. So both had ratios to suit the engine, though I'd actually say a 2.7 with the 2.5's ratios would be ideal.

All these cars are great drives and the reality is that there's really not that much in 2.5 through 2.7 and 2.9.

Take 2.5 v 2.7. it's only another 200c and 20-odd hp. Plus the 2.7 has a little more weight to drag around and taller ratios. I'm not saying the 2.7 isn't any faster. But I've driven one and it's not a dramatic difference. How could it be?

I've also compared a 2.5 with a late 2.9, side by side with a rolling start from about 2,00rpm in second through to about 90 or 100mph ish. Think you lot would be surprised at the modest difference in performance. The 2.9 is quicker, but the gap wasn't huge, maybe a car's length by the top of fourth.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote