>>I much preferred the flexibility of 8-valve petrol engines to the 16-valve engines which replaced them.
You're so right. In the late 80s I had a 2 litre Cavalier and a Carlton estate (my favourite car ever). I think that engine was probably only rated at 115bhp but in the real world they were fast enough cars, the Cavalier especially (I got clocked briefly at over 120 on the deserted northern end of the M6 in that car at about 6 in the morning; the kindly policemen parked at the top of the on slip reported that they had timed me at speeds of 98-102 to give me a sporting chance with the court).
The engines were tremendously flexible. When the Omega came out later I tested a 2 litre with a 16v 2 litre and about 130bhp, wondering if I would notice the extra power. The car felt slow compared with the Carlton. Ultimately a bit faster no doubt, just no low down pull.
The flexibility was what made them nice to drive. Even my 1979 895cc 4-bhp Polo would haul itself up to speed quite happily, eventually, from 20mph in top gear.
I'm surprised your turbo petrol isn't better - the forced induction should help at lower rpm. Maybe you need a supercharger :-)
|
