"Steve" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1uGdnYN8GPscp33bnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bryan wrote:
>
>> "Newsgroups" wrote:
>>
>>>A frat brother of mine had one. It was gold and was very quick and
fast.
>>>Good handling. Back then, it seemed like every other person in
>>>Cincinnati
>>>had one of these.
>>
>>
>> In '78-'83, the second-generation Challenger (a Mitsu im****t) was
powered
>> by
>> a carbureted inline 4cyl 1.6L (4G32) or 2.6L (4G54)... about 100hp for
>> the
>> 'big' engine. Unless your frat brother seriously hotrodded it or
swapped
>> in
>> a larger engine, you must be thinking of the first generation 70-74
>> Challenger.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the Mitsu engines wouldn't run even at 100
> horses for long before breaking a cylinder head.... those things were
> JUNK!
>
Now, I have to say that at least in one case, you're wrong there. ;) Had
an
80 Challenger with the 2.6L... Ran strong until the catalytic converter
clogged horribly. Burned two of the "jet" valves off in the head, fixed
it(but didn't know what caused it), burned two more... found the problem.
Car ran great for the next 3weeks, til I wrecked it.
Compared to the original Challenger? Slowwwwwww Compared to other cars
same
size, etc of the same era? Pretty good runner. Not to mention Mitsu took
that same motor and put it in the Conquest which was a pretty strong
runner
at the time.
|
