View Single Post
Old 09-15-2017, 03:59 AM   #24 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
Absolutely. Personally, I prefer a lower-power, lower-revving engine with some greater low-end torque than a high-power, high-revving one with such a low torque. I see it comparing some 1.0L engines fitted to small cars in my country due to fiscal benefits, while a 1.2L or 1.4L with a similar power rating and more torque could do better.
Example: Ford Tempo. Intended to be mated to old-school 3-speed no lock-up no OD a/ts, it's 2.4 was tuned for low and mid-range torque vs high rpm horsepower. The result? It was a sales leader for many years in spite of nearly universal disparaging publicity in the motoring press about it's "tractor engine".
__________________


  Reply With Quote