SRi 2.2 vs SRi-T

[CNBLU]

This thread is the biggest ****ing wank fest ever.

Can someone close it?

Turbo>NA2.2 We get it already.

^^^^^^^^^
thats the name of the thread and its in general discussion. Dont like the topic buddy i suggest you stop reading.

[EL BURITO]

if the XR4 didn beat the 2.2 i would be taking the XR4 back or learning how to drive.

how do the XR4's go Burito they not too bad they are on my short list for a new small car.

Well I am thinking ''IF" I do not have any more warranty issues I will upgrade to the new XR4/ST150 that will be coming out late 2009 early 2010 approx 150kw from a 1.6t

It handles alright, needs to be lower thou as the ride hight as stock it far to high, the interior has its downfalls.

I have been on a few performance car cruises with out too many issues keeping, but especially when it hits the twisty's i can play more. The body roll is a little bad but I attribute that to the ride hight. Other item that needs improving is brakes but nothing better pads, fluid and rotors would not solve.

[poita]

Back on topic pls guys

[Ishley]

What is the 2.2's fuel consumption like compared to the 2.0 turbo???

[gman]

Could you just turbo the 2.2...Direct injection 2.2 turbo...Might make things interesting..

Biggest advantage of the "G" over the "H" is weight...But the "H" has more rubber on the road so should be better in the corners, (well at least in the dry anyways)...

[EL BURITO]

itsnt the 2.2 a weaker engine thou ?????????????


Ash the 2.2 is about 9l per 100km if i remember right. thats from the sticker

[cbrmale]

What is the 2.2's fuel consumption like compared to the 2.0 turbo???

Significantly better. Mine has averaged 8.4 litres/100km actual since new.

Remember that the 2.2 was not intended to be the high performance variant, just to go harder than a 1.8 in what is a fairly heavy car. Remember there isn't any comparison between the previous 2.2 and the current 2.2 direct, because only the bottom end of the motor was carried forward. New head, cams, valve sizes, fuel injection and engine management and so on. And then there's the weight difference between the two models.

The AH 2.2 manual does 0-100 in 8.4secs, and the auto in 8.9, which is quicker than the previous model 2.2 which I think was manual only.

[daiflu]

The AH 2.2 manual does 0-100 in 8.4secs, and the auto in 8.9, which is quicker than the previous model 2.2 which I think was manual only.

My sources (an old Total Vauxhall magazine) have the TS SRi 0-60mph (96.56kph) as 8.2sec, so probably pretty close.

[glider]

the NRMA road test of the G SRi says 10.4secs so I'm happy to go with your review

nrma test for 2.2 vert/sri is here
https://www.aaa.asn.au/roadtests/reports/391.pdf

[CNBLU]

ive got around 172kw atw and i get 9ltr/100km so i'd be assuming that a stock turbo would be around 8.5lt/100km.

Having previously owned a 2.2 G, dont think theres that much of a difference in fuel econemy.