I happen to agree with you about forced induction (as did W. O. Bentley and
Etorre Bugatti) It would be useless in rough or tight situations because it
takes revs to make them work.
Bill Lawrence
apsilon wrote:
> I think we'll all agree that the 2.25 is never going to be a race engine.
> Interestingly ACR claim 113bhp for the 2.25 stage 2 and only 117 for the
> 2.8. Torque jumps 27 lb ft between the two. Not massive increases
> considering what's involved.
>
> I believe a stock 2.25 was rated at 70bhp and I can't see any reason why
> this couldn't be increased to 100bhp without sacrificing durability. I think
> a ~40% increase distributed across the rev range would be nice, not to drive
> faster but to have the extra margin for climbing. Combined with an overdrive
> it would cruise nicer on the highway as well.
>
> Despite the fact that I have a suitable SC sitting here I'd never consider
> forced induction. I'm just not a fan of it in an offroad situation and is
> just adding complexity. I like the simple nature of the stock Landy.
>
> Matt.
> Sydney Australia
> '75 Series III 88
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> LRO@land-rover.team.net
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
LRO@land-rover.team.net
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 00:18:06 EST