Originally posted by codeo:
lmfao,incase no one has noticed most of what all you guys are saying is based almost entirely off of assumtion.everyone nows what assumtions cause.you are all argueing because you think the others are insulting your intelligence.IMO
BTW:look at the facts there are 2.0L
I-4=200hp Acura RSX,then you have a 2.5L v-6=200hp(well you know),then a 4.6L v-8 that puts out a meager 265 Mustang GT. thats only 57hp/L.and look at the prices for those.
What assumptions are/were being made? I didn't see that anywhere...and we're not arguing...we're 'discussing'.
BTW, look at the Torque curves/numbers for all those cars you listed. You'll notice the Stang has more than the other two by close to 100 ft-lbs...I wonder why that is????. Thats where V8's etc come in handy...they almost always have lots of torque
