sup guys i thought id throw this in here, my buddie has like a 1996 or 1997 mx6, with the 2.0, and last night on our way back from boston (hooters baby) we were rippin on the high way, slowly but surely i was pulling on him, i dunno why being that i have a 1.6, but i was. any thoughts????
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
barley beat a mx6
Collapse
X
-
barley beat a mx6
.....HELLO MY NAME IS BEN...
186.08whp
225.94wtq
torque monster!!!!
dyno graph 8-10-and 12psi
http://www.msprotege.com/members/THE...no%20graph.jpg
http://videos.streetfire.net/player....0-C19CA06AF01E dyno vid
blahblahblahblahblahblahTags: None
-
your car is probably a good 300-400 lbs lighter if not more. And the earlier FS motors were even more underpowered than they are now"Never run out of real estate, traction & ideas at the same time"
-93 MR2, 129 ES
ClubProtege.com Tech Articles
Originally posted by WTFRemember low compression makes more space for AIR, HEEELLOOOO!
-
hmmmmm true, but i thought the early fs was atleast rated like 130 hp or something. while mine is like 90hp. but i dunno......HELLO MY NAME IS BEN...
186.08whp
225.94wtq
torque monster!!!!
dyno graph 8-10-and 12psi
http://www.msprotege.com/members/THE...no%20graph.jpg
http://videos.streetfire.net/player....0-C19CA06AF01E dyno vid
blahblahblahblahblahblah
Comment
-
115 hp from the early FS motors.
just use msnauto.com to find simple info like this..."Never run out of real estate, traction & ideas at the same time"
-93 MR2, 129 ES
ClubProtege.com Tech Articles
Originally posted by WTFRemember low compression makes more space for AIR, HEEELLOOOO!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JesseSays
115 hp from the early FS motors.
just use msnauto.com to find simple info like this........HELLO MY NAME IS BEN...
186.08whp
225.94wtq
torque monster!!!!
dyno graph 8-10-and 12psi
http://www.msprotege.com/members/THE...no%20graph.jpg
http://videos.streetfire.net/player....0-C19CA06AF01E dyno vid
blahblahblahblahblahblah
Comment
Comment