Re: [AMC-List] Play on Words (Spirit power)

[" Russell T. Neyhart" <rtneyhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I forgot about the 2.0 liter engine.  Actually... the 2.0 would not have been bad if AMC would have used the Bosch fuel injection system most VWs and Audis had at the time.  A 2.0 from an Audi 80 was listed as putting out 115 bhp stock.  That would be an interesting swap indeed.  Even better would be a cross-flow 2.0 from a later model.

Russ 

-----Original Message-----
>From: farna@xxxxxxx
>Sent: Sep 25, 2006 7:26 AM
>To: AMC-List <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Play on Words (Spirit power)
>
>At least it didn't have the 2.0L as the 79s did! A couple drove a 2.0L four speed Spirit from Oregon to Florida a few years ago. It had been upgraded with a Pertronix ignition. They said it made a noticeable power increase. When you have barely adequate power a 3-5 hp increase is very noticeable! But they did say it was adequate with a four speed. The Iron Duke would probably be much better with a five speed (as would the 2.0L) and a low rear axle. But an EFI Duke should be very nice indeed! About the same hp as a 232, though a bit less torque. Five speed and geared right it would be good. A 2.5L AMC/Jeep four would be even better -- a little more torque than the Poncho, and in the family. 
>
>--
>Frank Swygert
>Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
>Magazine (AMC)
>For all AMC enthusiasts
>http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
>(free download available!)
>
>-------------------original message-----------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Play on Words
>
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Russell Neyhart wrote:
>
>> ...not to keep you talking about this long enough to go out and get 
>> another Spirit, but... maybe a four worked a bit with a manual would 
>> have given you a better front/rear weight bias and made for better auto-x?
>
>As Joe points out -- power. But a modern 2.5 would probably
>kick butt -- the V8 was a tight fit in that little car.  It was
>clearly meant for the big six.
>
>_______________________________________________
>AMC-List mailing list
>AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>or go to http://www.amc-list.com

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com