Re: Re: Subject: 164L vs S engine

["Peter Greis" <gfk982h@domain.elided>]

Brett Melancon wrote:

>I have owned both the 164 L and S models. I currently own a 164 S and I =
can
>say for sure that there IS a difference between the two. My L seemed to
>have more low end grunt while my S pulls all the way past redline if I =
want
>it to (chip equiped). One of the big differences has nothing to do with =
the
>engine, it is the tranny and ratios. The S has a lower closer ratio =
set-up
>than the L. This helps the S overcome some of the lack of low end =
torque
>compared to the S. One would not notice much of a difference between =
the
>two unless the car was really driven to redline.

Thanks for the input. Can anyone give me the figures on an S =
transmission ratio?
I believe Bretts S-engine has 12-valves and I=92m looking at swapping my =
12-valve  L-engine to a 24-valv S but perhaps I still need the gearbox =
too to really appreciate the new engine. (I didn=92t really want to =
spend that money though). What about the ECU, air supply and fuel system =
then. Can I keep them from the L.
Anyone?

/Peter Greis
164 V6 3.0 -90=20
CAR Svetzia

Ps. I don't like the L-transmission anyhow. I=92m driving around with =
too small wheels to get a
better gear ratio on the tracks. The S transmission might be worth the =
extra money :-) Ds.

------------------------------