Pretty impressive for a NA 4 cylinder and NO VVT
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...9900e61435.htm
Sorry, I just happen to be a big fan of Korean cars, I admit it.
Sorry, I just happen to be a big fan of Korean cars, I admit it.
What still impresses me to this day, while people complain about reliability of them still to this day, is that of any company you can think of, the one least likely to make a powerful 4 cyl, GM, and not only GM, but to be more specific, OLDSMOBILE, came out with a 190hp N/A 2.3L 4 cyl in '91. I mean for Oldsmobile, and for being 1991, 190hp from a 2.3 isn't too bad. I am not a big fan of Quad 4'*, but the output still impresses me.
And then they shoved it into little cars like a Cutlass Calais and threw a 3.9x:1 geared 5 speed in it and had 14 second cars that were cheap, practical, and got good mileage.
And then they shoved it into little cars like a Cutlass Calais and threw a 3.9x:1 geared 5 speed in it and had 14 second cars that were cheap, practical, and got good mileage.
Originally Posted by dbtk2
What still impresses me to this day, while people complain about reliability of them still to this day, is that of any company you can think of, the one least likely to make a powerful 4 cyl, GM, and not only GM, but to be more specific, OLDSMOBILE, came out with a 190hp N/A 2.3L 4 cyl in '91. I mean for Oldsmobile, and for being 1991, 190hp from a 2.3 isn't too bad. I am not a big fan of Quad 4'*, but the output still impresses me.
And then they shoved it into little cars like a Cutlass Calais and threw a 3.9x:1 geared 5 speed in it and had 14 second cars that were cheap, practical, and got good mileage.
And then they shoved it into little cars like a Cutlass Calais and threw a 3.9x:1 geared 5 speed in it and had 14 second cars that were cheap, practical, and got good mileage.
Originally Posted by fantastic88
So, if its still NA what has been done? That car was moving nice after 4K.



