10-05-2012, 05:27 PM
That's like saying it's a good engine because you can get 250bhp with low boost charger. They didn't come with a charger from the factory, ergo insufficient.
They have a hugely interfering design with regards to valve size and head design. They have no MAF sensor so respond poorly to breathing mods. They're very heavy. They have a poor cambelt design. The exhaust mani is a compromise because of the lack of space.
As I said, good for 1996. But this is 16 years later. Yes they made 167bhp, quite often more. And peak torque is relatively low for a tuned NA engine, although not amazing levels of torque. But without serious work they don't make much more and for that reason, i'm out.
You seem to forget I spent years working on this exact engine, trying to fiddle with it every way possible, and was never happy. Without spending £3k or more I never WOULD be happy.
They have a hugely interfering design with regards to valve size and head design. They have no MAF sensor so respond poorly to breathing mods. They're very heavy. They have a poor cambelt design. The exhaust mani is a compromise because of the lack of space.
As I said, good for 1996. But this is 16 years later. Yes they made 167bhp, quite often more. And peak torque is relatively low for a tuned NA engine, although not amazing levels of torque. But without serious work they don't make much more and for that reason, i'm out.
You seem to forget I spent years working on this exact engine, trying to fiddle with it every way possible, and was never happy. Without spending £3k or more I never WOULD be happy.
![[Image: signature_zps1a02ba79.jpg]](http://s1128.photobucket.com/user/martypellowe/media/signature_zps1a02ba79.jpg.html)