So basically, tire weight matters more, even among same-size tires.A .10 second if tuned across the board and done right, but most likely in this case, nothing.
Hey, I totally agree. Another reason I buy General Altimax RT43, they’re light tires that perform uber well for their price.So basically, tire weight matters more, even among same-size tires.
I am not denigrating it, if it's a real 10# increase...mo is betta! Just saying I haven't been inspired to trade mine in, and if we see REAL reductions in ET's, it's going to be because of more than just a 10# peak torque increase.
Honestly, I kindof wish I'd bought a lightly used Audi SQ5 some days. Other days, I like the 5mpg or so more I am getting.Hey, I totally agree. Another reason I buy General Altimax RT43, they’re light tires that perform uber well for their price.
They’ve yet to do anything to get me to really wanna buy one, until they add about 60 more lbs of torque and 50ish horsepower.
Short reply is that the 1992 and 1993 5.0 engine is unchanged other than changing from forged to cast pistons. From 1987 to 1993, there were multiple small changes made that reduced the power, but it wasn't reported until 1993....is it even real? The 1992 Mustang GT was rated at 225hp/300#tq, while the 1993 Mustang GT was rated at 205hp/275#tq. They performed identically.
I agree. If you can report you have 10 more torques, do it.Why not? Didnt they advertise the 1 horsepower gain of the 2.5NA motor? Lol!