Quote:
Originally posted by speeder
I won't be losing any sleep over it, but BS is BS. The last 20 pages of this thread have sounded like you are trying to make nice w/ his mechanic, back-peddling and defending the guy, etc...
He's about a bunch of BS.
|
Backpeddling? For the last 20 pages? No, I still have my doubts and will continue to do so. As far as our man reving his 2.4S to 8,500, sure, it's possible he can do it three times and the engine would be fine. When you
used to own a Porsche, didn't you once or twice overrev the motor?
Unlike your less than knowledged observation, I asked one or two mechanics about the possibilities of this engine - none of who had any hands-on experience with it, so, no, I don't know "his mechanic. Nonetheless, they agreed that while a 2.4 on the outside, it could easily be a 2.8 on the inside, thus allowing it to rev as high as 8,500 RPM.
Now, unless EM is willing to tear down his motor in front of all of us, the parameters of the bet coincide with whether or not the motor revs to 8,500, not
how or
why it revs to 8,500 RPMs. For my money, which I said continually through this thread that I was not betting anyway, had I bet, it'd be on the motor reving that high, because why in the world would the owner say it would and it in fact does not?
As far as EM as a person, if you read CLOSELY, you would see that the owness was on those who said the engine would not do what it was claimed to do - not necessarily on the owner. So if no one was around to pony up a C-note, what's he going to show up at WSIR for? To go around the track a few times, then go home.
Granted, you're coming into all this on the caboose car; your only interesting comment involved the age of the tach. But if all this still bothers you, by all means, be the lead person on another thread pointing toward this Dec. 13th when there'll be another track day; and put up $100 to see if the engine is what the owner says it is. If anything, this has made for some great low-brow aspersions on both sides worthy of Porsche ownership.
Oh, yeah: I forgot your accusation of my "defending the guy." Let me put it this way: I think I've made it fairly clear that I'd defend malibu.exec and his half-assed comments about as vigorously as I'd defend your half-assed comments, which is to say I wouldn't.