borkborkborkbork69
borkborkborkbork69
borkborkborkbork69

an engine management system that doesn’t allow all controllable engine parameters to be controlled (and turned off in appropriate circumstances) is not very useful.
whether you are talking cylinder deactivation, fuel ratio, timing, electronic valve actuation control, variable emissions control devices or whatever, you

Subie has an opposed 4 because they started off license building VW air cooled 4s. for a long time after they went water cooled you could simply drop in a subie motor on a VW tranny, not sure if you still can or not, I would think that with the HP increases in the newer motors, they would have to have increased output

I meant 3.8, not 3.6, 3.8/3800 was the original SBC based GM V6, 4.3 is just a Gen3 version of the same engine...

the ‘96 was a fuel injected modernized V8 (either last year of the 302/351 or first year of modular) the ‘85 I6 was still carbureted, so I’m not surprised that the ‘96 V8 outperformed the ‘85 I6.
in 1985, the I6 was rated 17 MPG highway to the 302's 16 and the 351's 12, and the I6 could be had with a Manual.

ah yes, the elusive scapegoat rogue engineer. this was not rogue engineers, this was management directed fraud. it may not have reached the boardroom, but it was a manager, not an engineer who decided to go down this path.
the engineers directed to implement the functionality should have blown the whistle on the

point is, at this price point, they should invest the money to make it look nice rather than cheaping out with a plastic cover. a big part of what people are paying for at this price point is the history of beauty and attention to aesthetic detail, including the engine bay. look at any Jag up until say mid 80s and the

this is really sad. the plastic covers were started at the low end of the market to hide ugly motors for cheap. at the premium end of the market and particularly for any brand with a history of making beautiful engines, these plastic covers are an abomination.

people are paying for the history when they buy a Jag and a

the Ford 5.0 I6 that they used to put in their pickups and broncos was by far preferable to the 5.0/5.8 V8 in the same truck. a bit less HP but a ton more torque, and much better gas mileage.

I understand why GM went the 90 degree route on their 3.6/4.3 Vortec V6, but I can not for the life of me understand why anybody designing a ground up V6 would do anything other than 60 degrees (well, VW’s VR6 was cool, a V6 in the physical space of an I4 and a single cylinder head).

you end up with a more compact

I would do violence in exchange for a clean BRAT with modern subie mechanicals

Israel controls our foreign policy in the region and they probably vetoed giving Jordan lots of smart bombs. Both parties long ago sold out our ability to control our own policy in the region in exchange for campaign contributions.

you are failing to take into account that most foreign military aircraft "purchases" from Jordan sized countries are in fact gifts from the US taxpayer in the form of "foreign military assistance" dollars that the country in question immediately hands back to the US government "Foreign Military Sales" office who hands

if you are not one of the Top Gear holy trinity, Chris Harris or Kimi Raikonnen, I don't want to see your face or hear your voice. just straight car pron please.

flying boutros-boutros-gali

why would anyone ever pay $8k one of these when the bigger one is only $500 more?

why is it soooo Fugly? seriously, this is one ugly car (as are all road going McLaren's other than the original F1)

but how many people would have died from boredom if the speed limit stayed at 55?

this is not new. in fact Lockheed proposed a version of that hull that had all amphib capability stripped out in favor of AEGIS, a cruiser+ sized AMDR array and as many VLS tubes as they could cram on (in the multiple hundreds) in a concept similar to the Air Farce’s new “Arsenal Plane”

of course if you were Lockheed,

the "cruiser in a cornfield"