My bad. You are correct sir, it read: supercharged 2.0L and *turbocharged* 2.4L. I wonder if the supercharged 2.0L was a typo in the buzz article now.
I'd take either. But for an engine that size I think turbo would be more effective, but I am no expert.
Good catch,
Marty
Chuong Nguyen wrote:
>
> Whoops, did I read it wrong? Thought it said turbocharged 2.4. AH! It's
> not even that late yet!!!
> -Chuong
>
> <<
> Are you sure of that? Did you read the part about the the supercharged 2.4L
> going in instead of the supercharged 2.0L? I mean lets talk HP/WT ratio
> here
> ;-)
>
> At least its not a Tiburon with a blown 2.4L. That would just be plain
> embarrassing to get spanked by that.
>
> Marty
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-- "Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good." --Lao-Tzu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:01:30 EDT