[Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake

[John Weidenbenner]

I own one too. I consider it in many ways a worthy successor to the old
SHOs.

 I only thing lacking from the factory is a 6 speed manual trans, as in the
CL Type-S. It is very quite and sophisticated. The suspension is a bit soft
for some of us road warriors and exhaust too quite, but that too can be
personalized as many SHOs are. Styling is conservative for sure. Aren't the
SHOs also conservative looking?

FWIW, the sticker price of the '02 TL-S was only $3K more than the '93 SHO,
but you never had to pay anything close to sticker for a SHO. And then
there's the resale value!

BTW, a few bolt-ons will put the Type-S up to about 290 crank HP.

John W.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James F. Ryan III" <av8r567@optonline.net>
To: "Donald Mallinson" <dmall@mwonline.net>; <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake


> >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.
>
>
> Yeah, and Acura makes it sound like the "dual-stage" induction on the TL
> Type-S is a revolutionary idea.  I bet the mags gave them all kinds of
> praise for getting an extra 35hp from the regular 3.2L.
>
> http://www.acura.com/models/types_perf.asp?model=tls&page=dualstage
>
> The regular TL has 225hp.  The Type-S gets 260hp from:  free-flow exhaust,
> bigger TB, dual-stage induction, higher c/r, and different cams.  Hmmmm,
> sounds familiar, didn't Vadim and Ted figure this out 12 years ago?  But
it
> IS 12 years later and it IS an japanese car so they deserve the praise,
> right?
>
> A civil engineer that I work with owns a TL Type-S - nothing special to
look
> at, nothing special to drive, but at least it does have good size brakes
> (11.8 f and 11.1 r)
>
>
> Jim Ryan
> Wayne, NJ
> '91 PLUS - all white/mocha with fiberglass hood, rod shifter, & rear
spoiler
>
> 255 Lph fuel pump, SHO Shop can & horn, 80mm MAF, S&B cone filter, SHO
Shop
> HiFlow Y-pipe & cat-back exhaust, SHO Shop LPM, SHO Shop underdrive
pulleys,
> SHO Shop HiRevs Jr clutch & steel billet LiteWeight flywheel, reinforced
> engine & trans mounts, SHO Shop TQ limiters, SHO NUT aluminum SFBs, FPS
'96
> SHO front brakes, Carbotech F brake pads, Nook's full-body SFCs, Koni adj
> struts, SHO Shop linear springs, 24mm FSB, 26mm RSB, SHO Shop steel f&r
> STBs, Bridgestone Potenza RE-730 225/55-16, CATZ MSP fog lights, police
> grille
>
>
>
> >-----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
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes