If they wouldn't do a Turbo Set Up I'd have to add up a 6000 Vorktec anyway... so why not get the extra HP from the Turbo and then play with the engine?sky_vue said:Actually at 170 hp it's still going to go fast (7.5 secs) but that number gets closer to 8 if you weigh more.. so big people need more power (insert grunt here).
And yeah.. it would be a great first car.
Guess... I always want more...waywyrd said:Another vote for the "weaker" engine. 170 is fine for me, I plan on driving it to work and for fun, not racing it.
I'm not complainning... it's just... I always wanted to fly!classic66vair said:So guys don't complain about a measily 170 hp from a 4 cylinder 2,860 pound car that goes from 0-60 in around 7 seconds, we could go back to the "good old days" :cheers:
If you want to fly get an airplane, the roads are meant for driving not flying...Snowy_Beast said:I'm not complainning... it's just... I always wanted to fly!
And it's with a 300 HP Sky that I will
Nah.... power is like money... when you have more, you are satisfied :lol:classic66vair said:Power is like money, your never satisfied with what you have, you always want more....
Right on! :cheers:sky_vue said:And as a final note, power is not always used for speed. Using the pedal on turns and what not doesn't always mean you have to get there fast, but you have the acceleration you want from the of ramps. I don't know about your ramps up there, but in Orlando, we've got some short ramps into fast traffic..
I was using the comparison to show how far we have come since 1974, not actually comparing a 74 Camaro with a Sky...sky_vue said:Although you draw a good comparison, the eco tech engine is going to give you and extra two seconds off the line (7.5 to <5.5). This has been designed as a roadster, not a race car, but if you look at todays race cars, hell if you look at todays sedans (i.e the Subaru Legacy GT 0-60 in 5.2) people expect that their vehicle will improve on the performace.
That is why I want the turbo, because I can go at a liesurely pace in my mitsubishi.. and I can already run the 0-60 in 7 using my Saturn Vue, if this car is for driving fun it's got to have more kick.
And as a final note, power is not always used for speed. Using the pedal on turns and what not doesn't always mean you have to get there fast, but you have the acceleration you want from the of ramps. I don't know about your ramps up there, but in Orlando, we've got some short ramps into fast traffic..
P.S. people get spoiled because we make progress.. how happy would you be if it took you 8 weeks to go from New York to San Fransisco, you still can.. get a horse. Or maybe you are checking this forum using dialup, if you aren't be thankful someone somewhere wanted more speed, if you are.. you need to see it go on broadband.. Eitherway it's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a comparison between a 1974 Camaro and a 2006 Sky, it ridiculous.
obviousely the insurance companies dont have any info on the turbo yet, however, I know typically it would be about 10-30% more for a turbo, depending on what car it is.SWQ said:But let me ask the stupid question...how much higher will your insurance premium be with the turbo?