Wild but true. Perhaps the torque numbers are only better by 27%, but that's
I want to be perfectly clear, the 328 does not have 30% more torque. The
number is in that neighborhood, but I forget the precise number. I used
"about" because I don't know the actual number. But it's a significant
I haven't done the math, but I suspect that 328 is not 12% greater than 325.
I've done the math now, and I was right, 328 is not 12% greater than 325.
It's actually less than 1%.
By Greene's numbers:
Displacement difference (rounded to 1/10 liter) is .3 liter, so .3/2.5 12.0% increase.
Torque difference (207-181) is 26 lb. ft., so 26/181 = 14.4% increase.
Increase is measured as a percentage of the starting figures; that is the
2.5 liter engine.
Agreed. I originally said that the torque increase was 30%, it's really 30
ft lb, and it's actually 26 ft lb. Dizzy might have been more right than me,
but you'll never hear me admitting that, therefore we're both wrong.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:28:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
I made no errors. I challenged what I saw was an obvious error on
your part, and I said that the torque difference in reality will
closely track the displacement difference.
You are making yourself look ridiculous with your claims that I was
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.