whats the modern(ish) equivilant

It had zero traction in the wet but went like a stung whippet in the dry.

Well over 200BHP is possible but foir every pony gained you sacrifice some of the very little reliability it has.

Mason

It's completely true though.

Mason

I belive it was done to proove it was possivble/to get on the cover af max power.

Why would it be made up? I've seen the car in the metal alongside the rear RS turbo engined 106.

Nearly everyting it's possible to do to those cars has been done.

There ya go.

Mi16 engine, NOS throttlebodies in a 106.

Will find more

That is quite cool....

and more to the point not made up.

Mason

Ok your right

:)

Just seems like such a stupid idea to be reality!

Most modifications done to this level are "expensive" and can easily be viewed as "stupid"

I know too that the bill for the rear engined 106 was around 30k.

Mason

Preeeeeeeeee-cisely.

Now that they've developed, there's no need to swap their engines.

You're missing the point here. Today's legislation is such that there would be *ZERO* 200bhp cars around if they weren't rammed to the gills with emissions-reducing technology.

Er, well it does. The end.

...and both will cost you an imperial fuckload to insure ! The actual cost of the conversion is nothing against the yearly insurance bills.

Total stupidity, the only reason I would do it is for the whole sleeper effect.

You need to stop reading max power...

Well the alloy one did, the other version was circa 155bhp if I remember correctly. From what i've read the mi16 doesnt tune as easily as say a c20xe but that may be just because the redtop has more support.

Yeah that was my initial point i think... cba to check :)

Doesn't really make any differerence to the arguement, although I totally agree.

Well I was just being picky then, because me and my dad have done plenty of normal engine swaps but no real 'performance' swaps, although you are right.

Yep, but I would only do so for a track day car I think.

Um, the best hot hatches were developed in the 80's.

The 205 GTi 1.9, Mk2 Golf GTi, Strada Abarth 130...

Um, I could put a 4.0 V8 in my Capri for less than it'd cost me to buy a semi-decent Capri 2.8i. Much less.

Only if you're a spotty oik who doesn't deserve 200 bhp.

I've not read it for ages truth be told, but I do attend car shows and show the BM and read many car forums so become aware of these things.

Any "show car" or "feature car" is a very expensive thng to have/keep.

Mason

oo hes right, i'm not bias... ;)

I hadn't thought of that *claps*

In news:42c170af$0$41893$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net, Mason decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

My old Cosworth was featured in Max Power, just after I sold it.

Because they didn't bother ringing me to ask any of the spec, they featured it as having a spec they appear to have made up on the spot.

Quite bizarre, featuring a 530 bhp car and putting "385 bhp" all over the place.

Wankers. They *had* the dyno print out if they'd bothered to actually look.

Heh, unlucky for them.

I the BM has been in a few times as well as various other mags. It's never had a standalone feature but has been in club features/pictured when at shows etc.

Why not? Engine pay have become more powerful, but the cars they power have become more lardy too. Not quite propotionally, but more power is always good, whether its and old or new car.

Errr, I suggest you go check that out before posting, because it's utter nonsense. Obviously it depends on the insurance company, but if you shop around it wont make much of a difference in some cases. To give you a little example a mate of mine, as you may remember, had a 309 Mi16 (converted from a GTi). His insurance company (Chris Knott i believe) only charged him an extra £50 above the standard GTi.

Most engine swaps are pretty fair to insure.

When I had my saxo done on specialist insurance with adrian flux it was cheaper than the standard car. (went from a 1.4i - VTS).

Mason