Re: Thought I'd seen it all...

[Bill Hussey <vfrboy@home.net>]

Mike VanAmburgh wrote:

> > 172 horses out a 2.8L six cylinder is pretty pathetic,
>
> Can you think of another 2.8 litre 12V motor that puts out 172 hp?  172
> hp is respectable for the VR6, especially since it dates back to 92.

12Valve ... no.  But plenty of 2.8L 24 Valve engines are crushing the 172
mark, not to mention also providing more torque.

> GM was lucky to get 155-160 hp out of their 3.1 in 92.  :-)

GM was, is, and always will be an American engine maker, torque means a
whole lot more to them than peak horsepower, so it's not really a fair
comparison.  What about Audi's 190HP 2.8?  Or BMW's 190HP 2.8?  They both
make more torque and get better mileage in heavier cars.  So what's the
deal?

Bill
'98 GLX