Re: 2.5 L I-5 Ok, WHO's done it...

[JShadzi@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/12/99 6:59:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbigelow@sprint.ca writes:

<< a: Not everyone wants the added complexity of a turbo motor.
 b: There isn't any BTDT's on this, is there?
 
 btw, it's hardly esoteric at all. The c/l of the crank (well, ok, the
 bearings actually) is the fulcrum, and the distance from the rod journal to
 the crank c/l is the "arm length" of the lever.
  >>

    Wow, I've have recieved some serious mail back to a couple of my 
responses to this thread, some to them VERY insulting and deconstructive.  In 
voicing my OPINION, I never implied that the 2.5 would not produce ANY 
torque.  All I was stating was that if it is torque you are looking for, a 
turbo motor would produce much more overall- 200+ from a chipped MC, much 
higher than that of the 2.5, albeit the 2.5 producing more at lower revs.  
Some of you guys come on a little strong...I am simply making one side of a 
topic with many opinions.  How about, "hey thats true, but how about this" 
instead of "You must not know anything about performance engines, your 
nothin" (a quote from someone on the list!)  
Just trying to enjoy myself in this environment!
Javad Shadzi
88 80Q