Ive been looking at the figures for the two cars with the 2.0 t.spark engine in, why is the smaller of the two the slower? Or have I found the wrong figures?
That is my understanding too.I thought the problem with the early JTS's was that the cam profile and the ECU weren't a good match
So the 147 TS has the drainpipe intake too?? :tut:Same intake is used on the TS 147.
Besides, even with the better intake of a 156 there were still issues with the 2.0JTS, so I don't think the GT's intake is to blame.
I think that is a pretty standard measure for power output (Society of Automotive Engineers) particularly in America.My JTS (along with another on the same day) got 145bhp :lol: 20bhp down on claimed figures. At the time mine had 1200miles on the clock, the other about 30,000+ so one still new, the other really bedded in.
I am complaining to ARUK about the issues and from what I gather so far, the engines are tested OUTSIDE the cars, which means no intake etc to restrict them (the intake on the GT is a farce).
The problem is, I bought the engine INSIDE the car so as far as I'm concerned, it should be somewhere near the advertised figures. I wonder how many other cars on the road are way under the advertised figures?!