>>28569286 >Yes mein führer, the car only makes 299hp no need to dyno it we swear it's only 299hp >Yes, it will fit in the lower tax bracket, thank you mein führer
>>28569498
They always were about what kind of comparable power, NA power they represent.
For example the old E23 745 with a 3.2 litre turbo 6 had comparable power to a 4.5 litre engine.
E30 316 with the carbed M10B18 was a 1.8 litre 4 banger, but they deemed that the engine puts out power comparable to a 1.6.
>>28569495
Pre-canbus bmws were named after their displacement. E36s all had their true displacement in their names, while E46s no longer did. My 320i E46 is actually 2.2 for example
>>28569504
Lol i know that. I've had this discussion before with some fag on here and they basically just said "well thats retarded" when I explained that a lot of the time their model names did NOT match displacement
>6 speed transmission >it actually has 7 >in reality it's two 3 gear ratios split with an overcomplicated doubler >4th has two ratios, the better of only used for 6-4 kickdown
Behold, the power of the Chrysler 62TE.
