Page 1 of 1
2.6 Widebody Environmentally Friendly
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 2:05 pm
by kit
Show Image:
This is the only way Mitsubishi UK could justify their 2.6 starion as it was slower than the 2 Liter it replaced
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:25 pm
by iXNAY
LOL
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:12 pm
by MrBishi
It may be as slow as shit, but getting 4-500 miles (yes miles!) out of a tank, I think I can live with it for a while!
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:04 pm
by merlin
I better get my eyes checked, looks a bit red to me...
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:08 pm
by kit
MrBishi wrote:It may be as slow as shit, but getting 4-500 miles (yes miles!) out of a tank, I think I can live with it for a while!
What do you mean anthony i once got 912 km in one tank of feul in my last Ja remember Feul=Power
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:16 pm
by toysrus
remember Feul=Power
rofl ...........it's funny 'cause its true !! LOL
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:03 am
by bibz
Is that true? 2.6L, turbocharged, 152bhp? Is that at the wheels? Even still, extremely light in the loafers! Its gotta be relatively easy to bump that up considerably? Or is it just that bad of an engine?
My 'X2 HR Holden was rated at 145bhp, obviously na and with only 3L, in 1967!
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 7:25 am
by Gary
Of course it is! With no boost. And the didn't say it had to be running right? Ah the Marketing gimmicks. Did not know they had 3 year unlimited mileage warranty.
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:32 am
by jrod82
bibz wrote:Is that true? 2.6L, turbocharged, 152bhp? Is that at the wheels? Even still, extremely light in the loafers! Its gotta be relatively easy to bump that up considerably? Or is it just that bad of an engine?
My 'X2 HR Holden was rated at 145bhp, obviously na and with only 3L, in 1967!
Remember, 152bhp in the UK is approx 400bhp in the USA.
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 12:14 pm
by UlrichWolf
jrod82 wrote:bibz wrote:Is that true? 2.6L, turbocharged, 152bhp? Is that at the wheels? Even still, extremely light in the loafers! Its gotta be relatively easy to bump that up considerably? Or is it just that bad of an engine?
My 'X2 HR Holden was rated at 145bhp, obviously na and with only 3L, in 1967!
Remember, 152bhp in the UK is approx 400bhp in the USA.
Holy SHIT! That would be sweet if it were to work out like that. The '88-'89 cars were listed as 188 HP when they were shiny and new here State-side.
Tim
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:14 pm
by toysrus
That jokes getting tired jrod......
Put it this way, why are all the 1200Hp 4G63 DOHC Engines in the US 2.0L when they could so easily be 2.4L.......same principle applies for the 2.0L vs 2.6L Staz, its all about RPM :beer
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 4:55 pm
by MrBishi
bibz wrote:Or is it just that bad of an engine?
My theory is horribly miss-matched turbo. It's smaller that the one on the 2L FFS! Spools at nothing, but runs out of steam about 3000rpm too early.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 3:28 pm
by smog
they miss the part about 234ftlbs of torque at like 2400rpms or so, but damn, only 152hp, sounds like a non intercooled car.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 7:11 pm
by mrb1
jrod82 wrote:
Remember, 152bhp in the UK is approx 400bhp in the USA.
Oh man don't start that again :roll: