Rear Calipers, What a Deal!!! Options

[d7n7master]

Hey Hey,
Check it out, http://www.9xauto.com/914.html
Maybe if we do a group buy of rear calipers we can get a deal (IMG:style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/barf.gif)

[mike_the_man]

On the final note. The largest FI 2.0 engine in the 914 series has throttle body slightly larger than a silver dollar with a tiny fuel rail. The 944 with 2.5 4 cyl engine has throttle body and the fuel rail 10 times the size of the 914. So is the rest of the "Rice Burners" with the engines smaller than 2.0. I've metioned the reputable company makes large intakes for type IV engines to compensate for such short commings-and I'm still called an idiot on this forum by people claiming to be an "Assholes".

I love this place (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Yack.gif)

You still have no proof that a stock 2.0L needs more fuel and air. Just because a 944 2.5L has huge fuel rails doesn't mean that it needs it. Plus, 944 engines , as well as rice burner engines, are totally different than a 2.0L type IV. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Once again, show us some sort of tangible proof (ie dyno pulls, G-Tech info, something). If you had proof, you might get some appologies. And the fact that 'reputable' companies make different intakes doesn't mean they are necessary either. Larger intakes have been disuccused several times here before, and other than slightly improved throttle response, I believe that the general concensus was that there was no performance gain.

So, rather than getting deffensive about people questioning the need for your high priced fuel rails, give us some proof that they work. And we don't consider proof to be "This guy said that a stock type IV needs more fuel" or "This car has huge fuel rails, why doesn't a 914." So far, thats all you've said.

PROVE IT TO US!!!