MC-1 MC-2 - Block any difference?

[Jim Green]

--- JShadzi at aol.com wrote:
> Ben, just to be real clear on this issue (cause its
> close to my heart), *and I'm not saying you implied
> this*, but... I don't tune for big dyno #'s, big
> dyno #'s are the result of a powerful, well tuned
> car.  Any advice you get from me will be in the
> context of reliable, smooth, everyday power, and as
> much of it as you like (ie: the intended application
> or result of the project).
> 
> I commuted 60 miles a day in my 80tq for 3 years,
> 400hp and all, and got near 30mpg, never left me
> stranted once.
> 
> Again, not saying you accused me of tuning for
> "sloppy power", but making a 400hp 10v run smooth
> everyday isn't too difficult with the right
> management system (ie: not 3B Motronic, in a 10v
> anyway) and some attention to detail.
> 
> With that said, it doesn't sound like you're
> shooting for the moon wrt power, so I'd recommend
> the MC2 for you, because it will perform better in
> the range of power/use you're looking for.  A
> pinging motor is "sloppy" to me, so if you wanted to
> run 20+psi boost, then the MC2 may become more and
> more "sloppy", esp. w/o the right octange fuel or
> engine management system.  
> 
> And, IME, water injection will only take you so far,
> there is nothing like the proper octane fuel for the
> application.
> 
> 3B - 9.3:1
> MC2 - 8.4:1

Yea, in addition to all that, you can't compare the
10v head to a 20v head.  Part of the reason you need
the lower CR so much in the 10v is because the CC
design just isn't as good as the 20v.

Ben, I'd go for the MC-2 since you have the option.  I
know this isn't PC, but I've been running the stacked
headgaskets for a while now with no problems, so if
you ever do need a quick fix for lower CR it's always
an option.

=====
Jim Green
'89 90tq
'89 80q
http://www.mswanson.com/~jgreen/car_home.html

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools