[Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake

[Ron Porter]

I figured you would chime in!!!

You read more into what I have stated for years. And Mark has shown my
14-year-old comments to be true. The 3.0 SHO motor in a 3,000 # car is an
exceptional runner. It's a matter of perspective. My perspective is from
owning cars that were much quicker than the SHO, others have different
experiences (my "FSS" comes to mind!)

Other point is that the SHO was the "performance car" back in those days.
Today, these cars are the bread-and-butter family sedans with 225-275 HP, as
opposed to having maybe 150-175 back in that day.

>From the perspective of American cars, and even cars like the 535i BMW in
the late '80s, the SHO "is" low on torque. Again, a matter of perspective.

There is also much more to a car than just the engine, and this is where the
BMWs and others have excelled.

Ron Porter 

-----Original Message-----
From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
On Behalf Of Donald Mallinson
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:51 AM
To: shotimes@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake


Ron,

What you say is true, of course, but you can say that about 
ANY motor, that basically, any motor in a lighter car will 
be faster.  I guess an airplane V16 in a Lotus would be 
overkill.

But, for such a lousy combination, you and I and a lot of 
others seem to have a good time with them.  Also, now almost 
15 years after that motor in too heavy a car came out, 
almost identical combinations are being praised and BMW 
still puts a 225 hp motor in a car weighing the same and 
they get all sorts of praise.  Specs for the 530 aren't that 
much different all the way around from the SHO.

New Mazda 6 has the same 220 hp and is the same weight, or 
very close.  Lots of other cars have 3.0L motors making no 
more HP and they get lots of praise.  Maybe not from you, 
but I never agreed with some of the magazines in 1988/89 
that said the SHO was a high reving low torque mis-match. 
The car scoots around town at 2000-2500 rpm just fine, and 
has no trouble with modestly heavy loads, as I have found 
with my car loaded down for conventions.

All in your perspective, but I don't think harping on the 
lighter weight/more power mantra about the SHO does any 
good, the car is what it is, a fairly high HP car with 
decent torque (great flat torque curve making it more 
useable than just the peak number would indicate) and good 
manners.  Still would test right in there with 90% of the 
"modern" sports sedans under $45,000 today!

Don Mallinson


Ron Porter wrote:
> Ron Porter ( as I said about 2 weeks after buying my new '89 SHO, "This
> motor should never have been put in a car weighing over 3,000 pounds")
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes