Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:18:02 GMT From: "R.H." <r.hammelnopsam.ca> Subject: Re: 2.3 or V-6 for 9-5 Wagon
...never, ever said the V6 was superior. But..... It gets good mileage, has smooth, fluid power, excellent low end grunt, no annoying turbo whine, (yup I said it annoying turbo whine!) excellent low revver on the highway, good driveability in the city. Tuneability?...Not everyone wants to turn their Saab into a sports car with expensive aftermarket crap. Longevity? doesn't a lower revving engine usually outlast a higher revving one. Don't normally aspirated engines outlast forced induction engines? Besides Saabs as a whole have a crappy reliability record regardless of the motor type or size. <davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message news:ajm4qr$1crglf$1nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... > Someone who looks an awful lot like R.H. <r.hammelnopsam.ca> wrote: > > and of course the Saab made engines never ever break down........... > > Didn't say that, but I don't want someone's misquote to stand. > > > I love getting you Saab people in a huff over the V6's.... > > That wasn't me "in a huff" over the v6, it was me taking exception > to being misidentified as someone who wrote that. If people want > to judge an engine's quality simply by counting the number of > pistons, well, they deserve what they get. > > Perhaps you'd care to explain how the V6 is superior, exactly? You'll > have to bring up something other than fuel economy, longevity, and > tunability, of course. Maybe there's some important factor of an engine that > I've overlooked that the V6 has, that you'd care to enlighten us about? > > Dave Hinz > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
