Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap
Sure I indicated earlier that the 3.2 and E46 were similar on the time sheets.
But I don't think I would say that a lowered powered 986 is a yawner.
It's down to the power/weight. The 2.5 for instance has the least power of all but can stick in the mirrors of a base 987 built as many as 12 years later.
With a few weight savings mods, legal in some AX classes, and some sticky tires and you're at ~2,600 lbs. -- striking distance of a 2,550 lb. SpecBoxster that no one thinks is boring.
Obviously these weights are not possible with a tip. But less power alone does not make for a boring ride. For a weekend car, I think a 2.5 can be tricked out to be an extremely fast car.
Street legal R-comps, LSD, some worthwhile mods, and the possibility of dropping as many as 150-200 lbs., I'll take that over a newer (by year) E46 all day.
|
My BHP per liter analysis was strictly intended to demonstrate the low relative output of our cars for the considerable potential input of maintenance.
104 per liter in a N/A engine is indeed quite a feat. (my wife's Abarth has 114BHP per Liter, but is turboed).
The 78.1BHP per liter of the 3.2 or the 83BHP per litre of the 2.7 or the 80BHP per liter of the 2.5 is downright sad for such a fragile engine. With such "low strung" numbers, it should be more robust.
Threaded Mode
