Would have liked to have seen the Simpson upgrade from small bore without the change in carbs first, just to see the difference between each manifold. Great video though, keep them coming!
What do you know, your just the dyno man, lol🤣 back in the day,i never heard of the Simpson manifold, i bought an Ashley 3 piece, because the normal 4-2-1 kept breaking re mig it blah blah blah, but Ashley 3 piece was really good,it was like the handbrake was taken off, engine breath so much better and climbed the revs with vigger, but very surprised of the horsepower you got out of the motor, my set-up was BVH Kent cam dowled vernier,RL1 3,500 rpm to 7,500 rpm, and Webber downdraught IDF 44, did i have fun in that car, but my wheel horsepower was 145-150 at the wheels, but the motor was pulling nothing (mk1) but things have upgraded since then (mid to late 80's) we used Lumention ignition system then, things have progress since then, I really find your video's fascinating, king of the road back in those days were Capri 3.0 2.8i sunbeam Lotus most I walked past but Lotus we were neck a neck, if we had that motor that had the three-piece manifold(ashley) the champagne would be out, lol like we won a stage on Lombard RAC Rally. 🤣 incidently,what would a motor like that cost to build at todays cost? Back then the places to get stuff from was far and few, like Burton Motivation UK (Roger & Jamie)good lads, Race & Rally Centre (James Perkowski), your not just the dyno man, your the man that can😊.
Great video again Sir Graham, showing that a simple manifold can make a big difference. To give you some ideas, you could try an anti-reversion chamber at the output of the manifold, or a short small bore 50mm output being followed by a tapered pipe from let's say 2 inches to 3 inches and ending in a straight 3 inches pipe. Or also small bore headers going straight onto a 3 inches exhaust pipe. Cheers from Spain!!
usually when i try that the shock waves coming back up the intake mess with the camera so the video footage is blurry. but i will try again on some other occasions
Great video again Graham. You sure know how to find the ponies in these motors. Have you ever tried unequal length headers on one of these? Supposedly good for midrange, which could prove useful in certain applications. Keep up the good work
Your Carbs are too big....ask any Successful Engine Designer. A 1700 cc X-Flow requires twin 43 mm carbs. I'm running twin 42 mm Throttle bodies....could not get twin 43 mm. AT Power throttle Bodies. 14:24
@Indicant exactly....been waiting 25 years for the Pinto Engined cars to get near my class record at my local hillclimb......25 years. Pinto too heavy.
Without question if i had a pinto to rebuild, you id be looking up pal. Mate of mine used his Dad to do his engine work for a road rally car, his last motor was alleged to be pushing 240. Rob Roy i think he goes by.
Ive seen a 6hp gain going from 45's to 48's on an 1800cc 190hp (non pinto) engine, both carbs running 39mm chokes, so id say most if not all of the gain seen was from the carbs.
Judging by the way the engine responded to going upto the 50mm carbs I would guess most of the 7bhp gain after first carb and exhaust swap came from the carbs
i'd love to do more comparisons but they manifolds are just too dammed expensive for me to buy for testing purposes. but my gut feeling with an NA YB is the simpson would work better than a Tony Law
@@PenguinMotors yeah understandable. I've already got the tony law set-up, but I really like the look of the simpson manifold. But I can't justify buying a set just for looks, unless there was a big difference on the dyno.
no i havnt, they are just too rare and expensive for me to lay my hands on one. Once i found a MK2 RS ex manifold on a mk3 cortina in a scrap yard, i paid about £10 for it including front pipe!
@@PenguinMotors If memory serves me right, Stefan Glass did a comparison with a Gr1 big bore manifold versus a tubular manifold. He gained most top end bhp with the tubular (204), and 202 with the Gr1 manifold. But the torque came in about 500rpm lower with the Gr1 manifold. So as You say, it all depends on budget and what use the enigine is going to have. His engine was tuned and set up for each manifold. Thanks for all your good videos here. Lots of fantastic work.
Good video as always Graham, I just wondered what you use on the end of all of those manifolds, is it similar to a one box 2.5 inch escort system (Ashley) or is it just a pipe out into the outside world. 😀😀
usually a long length of flexible tube that goes to the extraction flue and up a chimney to the outside world. the flex tube is 1.5-2 mm bigger than the manifold outlets, but is not smooth interally so probably slightly more restrictive than if it were smooth. it must replicate cars exhaust systems quite well, as standard engine show standard power, and ive run engines that have also been rolling roaded and power was within 2bhp.
@@PenguinMotorsthanks for your reply, the reason I was asking as I ran a small bore sportex with 2” outlet and 48’s with 40mm chokes running a gts 3 on a unforgiving dyno and got 176 bhp with a good low down pull and ive changed up slightly on manifold bore and gone to a 21/4 outlet and 50’s which have 42”s in , i was looking for some 40 mm chokes as thinking 42’s maybe too big but after your video fingers crossed they may work , it will be up and running again in next month as gave the car a full refresh and was hoping to see 185/190 bhp as im sure my sportex primaries was smaller than yours as was listed for a 1.6 pinto 😂
It depends on your goal dropping back to 40mm chokes in the 50’s should improve drivability, but not have much effect if any at the top, you can it 38mm chokes in the 50’s that certainly will cost you power but again likely improve drivability and low speed manners
I'll add what I can re header primary sizes for 2v engines. This issue changes engine to engine based on their unique variables. Hitting 50hp per cylinder from 2v and 500cc can be tough. For engines with individual cylinders around 500-550cc, 38mm primaries work great and rev great until you have a 2v engine with an intake valve larger than 46-47mm, which allows for even larger intake ports, wants more revs, so a 38mm exhaust port and primary is not quite up for the job way up high. The best example is the Porsche 911RSR or even Porsche Carrera 3.2 engines which both have 42mm intake ports and 49mm intake valves and sometimes up to 51-52mm. The RSR engine has very large 42mm exhaust ports and primary size (also 42mm) and of course revs and often makes 330hp-360hp from 3L. A standard 3.2 Porsche Carrera engine with a 38mm tubular primary exhaust manifold, even with big 48mm carbs, high compression, and 265 duration @ .050 .500 lift cams, will not make 300hp, never seen it happen unless the exhaust is ported to 42mm and 42mm primaries are used and it's revd well north of 7000. Note 911 engines, even in race form, don't get much anything out of going higher than 12:1 compression. Hot street builds with twin plugs (required) never go hotter than 10.5-11:1. The 3L Alfa Romeo Busso V6 2v engine is a different story. You can stay with the 38mm primary exhaust manifold as the intake valve on the Busso 2v head is at maximum 43-45mm or so, meaning a 38-39mm intake port is the largest one can go, thus negating the need for an exhaust port larger than 38mm. Mind you this is with 48mm carbs as well. Those variables are not all doom and gloom though, as when one has this somewhat small valve issue, you can run much higher static compression (even up to 12:1) on water cooled aluminum motors, even on the street, as volumetric efficiency of the intake makes for dynamically realizing the static ratio very challenging. A 2v 3L Busso engine can still crank upwards of 300hp+ (the most I've heard of from a 2v was 347hp, on race fuel at around 14:1 compression) with much higher static compression than certainly would be used with an RSR motor as it's just not needed nor does it benefit the RSR motor, all while running the 38mm primaries. A Busso motor likes tons of compression due to the volumetric efficiency issue caused by the lack of intake, but it can still make good power as that opens the door to playing with compression. It's not so diminishing returns as it is with the 911 engine, which has much better intakes. The 3L Ferrari 308 2v engine is not exactly a similar comparison but I'll note the stock exhaust flows some 92% of the stock intake right out of the box, while the intakes are sort of horrid. Stock manifolds are 35mm ID and that motor can be tuned to make 300hp+, never touching the exhaust, but only bumping compression (at least 11.5:1) and running larger carbs, much larger cams, and ported intake. Playing with compression is definitely a thing when the VE of the intake is lacking, all while leaving the exhaust alone if that's what one is stuck with.
now your asking, 45mm carbs were on 40mm chokes, 48's on 42,s cant remember about the 50's, but oddly the engine seemed to like them. jet settings between 48's and 50's were pretty similar
it is not something i have back to back tested. theretically longer rods are mechanically better from a thrust prospective, However thats a too simplistic way of looking at it, changing rod length changes the time the piston will dwell at TDC, so alters piston timing in relation to valve timing slightly. The other effect the rod length has is on piston acceration, longer rod will slow it, which the engine might or not like. on an engine which is struggling for airflow a faster accerating piston might actually get the air moving faster and improve cylinder filling, . theres just too many variables to give a straight yes no answer. interestingly the most powerfull pintos and bmw m10's i have built had worse than standard rod ratios!
Never tested one, most engines you have a natural step unless you hog the exhaust port out to a huge size. The bigger bore section will probably hurt scavenging so it’s likely they would help in one specific point and hurt power elsewhere
thing is at the time i wasnt testing exhausts as such i was testing cams! but as there was no real difference to power curves, and the engine gained even more power on the 50mm webers its fair to say that the small bore Ashley probably wasnt robbing it of more than a few bhp
Grayham maybe try a CV type controled vortex manifold. It's an anti back flow idea.. 2lte fiat + janspeed 421, to bigger CV 4to1 Gained 8 whp and pulled from 500rpm lower down. On kent race cams.
yes well aware of cv manifolds, if someone wants to send me some to test...... but im not awre of anything off the shelf. your point is interesting, BUT to really know if the CV part of your manifold was the gain ( as opposed to the 4.1 simply hitting a sweet spot for your engine) you would have to try two manifolds with and without the CV using same pipe configuration. Mostly in tests 421 manifolds win, but i have seen occasions when 4/1 is better
Unfortunately I made my original CV type here, the only other one ivemade is on the Kart engine which isn't dyno'd yet. Its going to Emerald as it has there ECU fitted. How about Ram charging if you can get the airflow, it made the kart better but correcting the fueling was an issue to correct over the rev/speed range, but it does work.
Ashley exhaust i had bought in the past is rubbish. I had to reweld parts for flow and connection to cylinder head. Flange even was warped due to welding. I make my own exhaust headers now. Simpson build headers are better option to use. For the rest cross section of primaries is a discussion that ends up in hours. How engine is build and what it wants. generaly a high rpm engine needs larger primary tubes, but you can tune the length of it. Then would you have to use 4-1 or 4-2-1 system. It all depends, and you know that very well. testing and some more testing will be a time consuming effort at cost.
true, but i didnt start out to do a manifold or even carb test, if my origonal intension had been to do a manifold test i would not of changed the first exhaust manifold and carbs at the same time. even though i changed two things at once in the first instance i still thought it interesting enough results to include.
no not much these days, cams and followers are harder than days of old, and oils are better, like anything they can wear out, but i havent seen a wiped out cam lobe for many years
Would have liked to have seen the Simpson upgrade from small bore without the change in carbs first, just to see the difference between each manifold. Great video though, keep them coming!
Yes the thing was this didn’t start out an exhaust or a carb test, which is why I didn’t have data on exhaust swap but retaining the 45’s
Yeah same, would've been nice as that's what I'm looking at myself engine wise
Awesome, fantastic effort you have gone to to answer everyone’s questions. Great job.
I try
What do you know, your just the dyno man, lol🤣 back in the day,i never heard of the Simpson manifold, i bought an Ashley 3 piece, because the normal 4-2-1 kept breaking re mig it blah blah blah, but Ashley 3 piece was really good,it was like the handbrake was taken off, engine breath so much better and climbed the revs with vigger, but very surprised of the horsepower you got out of the motor, my set-up was BVH Kent cam dowled vernier,RL1 3,500 rpm to 7,500 rpm, and Webber downdraught IDF 44, did i have fun in that car, but my wheel horsepower was 145-150 at the wheels, but the motor was pulling nothing (mk1) but things have upgraded since then (mid to late 80's) we used Lumention ignition system then, things have progress since then, I really find your video's fascinating, king of the road back in those days were Capri 3.0 2.8i sunbeam Lotus most I walked past but Lotus we were neck a neck, if we had that motor that had the three-piece manifold(ashley) the champagne would be out, lol like we won a stage on Lombard RAC Rally. 🤣 incidently,what would a motor like that cost to build at todays cost?
Back then the places to get stuff from was far and few, like Burton Motivation UK (Roger & Jamie)good lads, Race & Rally Centre (James Perkowski), your not just the dyno man, your the man that can😊.
Great job.
I wonder 😊 wat would the small bore doo on the 50's
Comment for engagement and to encourage you to continue your good work 👌🏻
Great video again Sir Graham, showing that a simple manifold can make a big difference. To give you some ideas, you could try an anti-reversion chamber at the output of the manifold, or a short small bore 50mm output being followed by a tapered pipe from let's say 2 inches to 3 inches and ending in a straight 3 inches pipe. Or also small bore headers going straight onto a 3 inches exhaust pipe. Cheers from Spain!!
trouble is i barely have time to run tests let alone make exhausts!
@@PenguinMotors I understand, could be interesting though
Old is gold
Outstanding video, still like to listen to the induction noise!
Love these insights.
Please put the camera and a light facing down the can barrels 😊.
usually when i try that the shock waves coming back up the intake mess with the camera so the video footage is blurry. but i will try again on some other occasions
Outstanding research and development. Thanks tons for doing this!
Great video again Graham. You sure know how to find the ponies in these motors.
Have you ever tried unequal length headers on one of these?
Supposedly good for midrange, which could prove useful in certain applications.
Keep up the good work
Not tried unequal on a pinto, have run them on bmw m10. Tends to give a better spread of torque but lower peaks
Wow, that was a shocker, just goes to show its not all about how much money you can throw at a project,. Nice work Graham 👍
Your Carbs are too big....ask any Successful Engine Designer.
A 1700 cc X-Flow requires twin 43 mm carbs.
I'm running twin 42 mm Throttle bodies....could not get twin 43 mm.
AT Power throttle Bodies. 14:24
you cannot directly compare throttle body size to carbs. Carb size is like a cam shaft you have to choose it to suit your application
@@gj91471but a 1700 xflow isn't a 2.1 pinto?
@Indicant exactly....been waiting 25 years for the Pinto Engined cars to get near my class record at my local hillclimb......25 years.
Pinto too heavy.
@@gj91471 so again, what is the relevance of TB's on a 1700 xflow to a 2.1 pinto on carbs?
Without question if i had a pinto to rebuild, you id be looking up pal.
Mate of mine used his Dad to do his engine work for a road rally car, his last motor was alleged to be pushing 240. Rob Roy i think he goes by.
Great video graham
Could you give us some specs? Like clearances for example
crackin vid, very interesting !!!
May i ask does those little trumpet things on the carburators give that much more airflow?
they can make a big difference, its not so much airflow its ram tuning
Ive seen a 6hp gain going from 45's to 48's on an 1800cc 190hp (non pinto) engine, both carbs running 39mm chokes, so id say most if not all of the gain seen was from the carbs.
Judging by the way the engine responded to going upto the 50mm carbs I would guess most of the 7bhp gain after first carb and exhaust swap came from the carbs
Damn! I nearly got the comparison i wanted! Simpson vs tony law. But on a yb atmo. As usual, great vid 👍
i'd love to do more comparisons but they manifolds are just too dammed expensive for me to buy for testing purposes. but my gut feeling with an NA YB is the simpson would work better than a Tony Law
@@PenguinMotors yeah understandable. I've already got the tony law set-up, but I really like the look of the simpson manifold. But I can't justify buying a set just for looks, unless there was a big difference on the dyno.
Love the videos! Keep em coming much love from Holland
Good video again. What do You think is smallest exhaust pipe OD for 200hp Pinto? When OD 51mm exhaust pipe will be restrictive?
not on my dyno but i have had pintos do 200bhp on rolling roads using 2 inch so 51mm or there abouts
Thank you for this informative video!
Have you ever tested one of the big bore cast iron RS manifolds? Are they far away from the Ashley and Simpson?
no i havnt, they are just too rare and expensive for me to lay my hands on one. Once i found a MK2 RS ex manifold on a mk3 cortina in a scrap yard, i paid about £10 for it including front pipe!
@@PenguinMotors If memory serves me right, Stefan Glass did a comparison with a Gr1 big bore manifold versus a tubular manifold. He gained most top end bhp with the tubular (204), and 202 with the Gr1 manifold. But the torque came in about 500rpm lower with the Gr1 manifold. So as You say, it all depends on budget and what use the enigine is going to have. His engine was tuned and set up for each manifold. Thanks for all your good videos here. Lots of fantastic work.
I’m going high with that exhaust, don’t think it’ll be the limiting factor
Good video as always Graham, I just wondered what you use on the end of all of those manifolds, is it similar to a one box 2.5 inch escort system (Ashley) or is it just a pipe out into the outside world. 😀😀
usually a long length of flexible tube that goes to the extraction flue and up a chimney to the outside world. the flex tube is 1.5-2 mm bigger than the manifold outlets, but is not smooth interally so probably slightly more restrictive than if it were smooth. it must replicate cars exhaust systems quite well, as standard engine show standard power, and ive run engines that have also been rolling roaded and power was within 2bhp.
Hi Graham , love your videos could you please check what chokes are in the 50’s and was the small bore a 2” exit
Thanks Chris
2 inch. Think but cannot be 100% that the 50’s has 42mm chokes
@@PenguinMotorsthanks for your reply, the reason I was asking as I ran a small bore sportex with 2” outlet and 48’s with 40mm chokes running a gts 3 on a unforgiving dyno and got 176 bhp with a good low down pull and ive changed up slightly on manifold bore and gone to a 21/4 outlet and 50’s which have 42”s in , i was looking for some 40 mm chokes as thinking 42’s maybe too big but after your video fingers crossed they may work , it will be up and running again in next month as gave the car a full refresh and was hoping to see 185/190 bhp as im sure my sportex primaries was smaller than yours as was listed for a 1.6 pinto 😂
It depends on your goal dropping back to 40mm chokes in the 50’s should improve drivability, but not have much effect if any at the top, you can it 38mm chokes in the 50’s that certainly will cost you power but again likely improve drivability and low speed manners
I'll add what I can re header primary sizes for 2v engines. This issue changes engine to engine based on their unique variables. Hitting 50hp per cylinder from 2v and 500cc can be tough.
For engines with individual cylinders around 500-550cc, 38mm primaries work great and rev great until you have a 2v engine with an intake valve larger than 46-47mm, which allows for even larger intake ports, wants more revs, so a 38mm exhaust port and primary is not quite up for the job way up high. The best example is the Porsche 911RSR or even Porsche Carrera 3.2 engines which both have 42mm intake ports and 49mm intake valves and sometimes up to 51-52mm. The RSR engine has very large 42mm exhaust ports and primary size (also 42mm) and of course revs and often makes 330hp-360hp from 3L. A standard 3.2 Porsche Carrera engine with a 38mm tubular primary exhaust manifold, even with big 48mm carbs, high compression, and 265 duration @ .050 .500 lift cams, will not make 300hp, never seen it happen unless the exhaust is ported to 42mm and 42mm primaries are used and it's revd well north of 7000. Note 911 engines, even in race form, don't get much anything out of going higher than 12:1 compression. Hot street builds with twin plugs (required) never go hotter than 10.5-11:1.
The 3L Alfa Romeo Busso V6 2v engine is a different story. You can stay with the 38mm primary exhaust manifold as the intake valve on the Busso 2v head is at maximum 43-45mm or so, meaning a 38-39mm intake port is the largest one can go, thus negating the need for an exhaust port larger than 38mm. Mind you this is with 48mm carbs as well. Those variables are not all doom and gloom though, as when one has this somewhat small valve issue, you can run much higher static compression (even up to 12:1) on water cooled aluminum motors, even on the street, as volumetric efficiency of the intake makes for dynamically realizing the static ratio very challenging. A 2v 3L Busso engine can still crank upwards of 300hp+ (the most I've heard of from a 2v was 347hp, on race fuel at around 14:1 compression) with much higher static compression than certainly would be used with an RSR motor as it's just not needed nor does it benefit the RSR motor, all while running the 38mm primaries. A Busso motor likes tons of compression due to the volumetric efficiency issue caused by the lack of intake, but it can still make good power as that opens the door to playing with compression. It's not so diminishing returns as it is with the 911 engine, which has much better intakes.
The 3L Ferrari 308 2v engine is not exactly a similar comparison but I'll note the stock exhaust flows some 92% of the stock intake right out of the box, while the intakes are sort of horrid. Stock manifolds are 35mm ID and that motor can be tuned to make 300hp+, never touching the exhaust, but only bumping compression (at least 11.5:1) and running larger carbs, much larger cams, and ported intake.
Playing with compression is definitely a thing when the VE of the intake is lacking, all while leaving the exhaust alone if that's what one is stuck with.
ua-cam.com/video/DG2NOTTpTHU/v-deo.htmlsi=oT5meC-Ss1foOeIA mazda bp 1,8l engine is awesome, high boosted more than 250whp/ hole!
Great information and video - thanks Graham 🍻
Great vid, what were the differences in choke and jet settings between the 45,48,50 carbs?
now your asking, 45mm carbs were on 40mm chokes, 48's on 42,s cant remember about the 50's, but oddly the engine seemed to like them. jet settings between 48's and 50's were pretty similar
What a Sound!!! At 7500….. 🙏🙏🙏
2 :11 in and I going to say that the small bore manifold is good for upto 180 bhp.?
Has the rod ratio changed for the' better' with the rods? Engine sounds so balanced beautiful
it is not something i have back to back tested. theretically longer rods are mechanically better from a thrust prospective, However thats a too simplistic way of looking at it, changing rod length changes the time the piston will dwell at TDC, so alters piston timing in relation to valve timing slightly. The other effect the rod length has is on piston acceration, longer rod will slow it, which the engine might or not like. on an engine which is struggling for airflow a faster accerating piston might actually get the air moving faster and improve cylinder filling, . theres just too many variables to give a straight yes no answer. interestingly the most powerfull pintos and bmw m10's i have built had worse than standard rod ratios!
@@PenguinMotors Worse in this case meaning shorter rods?
Yes shorter
whats your thoughts regarding stepped pipe diameter manifolds?
Never tested one, most engines you have a natural step unless you hog the exhaust port out to a huge size. The bigger bore section will probably hurt scavenging so it’s likely they would help in one specific point and hurt power elsewhere
This is very interesting…
I really wish you had ran a test after changing only the exhaust....
thing is at the time i wasnt testing exhausts as such i was testing cams! but as there was no real difference to power curves, and the engine gained even more power on the 50mm webers its fair to say that the small bore Ashley probably wasnt robbing it of more than a few bhp
@2:15 mins in and think it will work well up till 175hp.
Small bore exhaust will do to 190bhp.
and so it did!
195hp is the max for the small bore. That’s my guess
highest guess ive seen by a long way, and my guess a pretty accurate one, 190 bhp is doable so you would have to think it would stretch a bit further
and to think, you had to slap a turbo + another 8 valves on a pinto in a sierra for 204 bhp in the day...
True, not sure. 207bhp pinto will pass an exhaust emissions test though……
Grayham maybe try a CV type controled vortex manifold. It's an anti back flow idea..
2lte fiat + janspeed 421, to bigger CV 4to1
Gained 8 whp and pulled from 500rpm lower down. On kent race cams.
yes well aware of cv manifolds, if someone wants to send me some to test...... but im not awre of anything off the shelf. your point is interesting, BUT to really know if the CV part of your manifold was the gain ( as opposed to the 4.1 simply hitting a sweet spot for your engine) you would have to try two manifolds with and without the CV using same pipe configuration. Mostly in tests 421 manifolds win, but i have seen occasions when 4/1 is better
Unfortunately I made my original CV type here, the only other one ivemade is on the Kart engine which isn't dyno'd yet. Its going to Emerald as it has there ECU fitted.
How about Ram charging if you can get the airflow, it made the kart better but correcting the fueling was an issue to correct over the rev/speed range, but it does work.
Most manifolds are too big so smaller would have made same power, with better response.
Ashley exhaust i had bought in the past is rubbish. I had to reweld parts for flow and connection to cylinder head. Flange even was warped due to welding.
I make my own exhaust headers now. Simpson build headers are better option to use.
For the rest cross section of primaries is a discussion that ends up in hours. How engine is build and what it wants. generaly a high rpm engine
needs larger primary tubes, but you can tune the length of it. Then would you have to use 4-1 or 4-2-1 system. It all depends, and you know that very well.
testing and some more testing will be a time consuming effort at cost.
Save £700 and spend it on tyres, you'll be doing better times
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Club motorsport in a shell🙂
Can only change 1 item at a time.
true, but i didnt start out to do a manifold or even carb test, if my origonal intension had been to do a manifold test i would not of changed the first exhaust manifold and carbs at the same time. even though i changed two things at once in the first instance i still thought it interesting enough results to include.
@@PenguinMotors Are Pinto Cams still bad for wiping lobes ?
no not much these days, cams and followers are harder than days of old, and oils are better, like anything they can wear out, but i havent seen a wiped out cam lobe for many years
hoe veel kan een pinto op zijn max halen 2.0 of 2.3 . geen turbo shit
Most I have seen so far is 230bhp but plenty out there claiming much more
@@PenguinMotors Harris heb ik horen zegen 271,5 bhp 2.3 pinto