Amc
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,930
From: IL
Those cars suck, the weight distribution is horrible, they are not light, and the stock engine puts out :
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
weight distribution is 35/65 (big shock there with the v6 hanging off the trans on the back of the car)
according to the pamphlet on delorean.com the weight 'with full tank' is 2712lbs
so it's slower than a stock S4 NA FC, blistering performance.
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
weight distribution is 35/65 (big shock there with the v6 hanging off the trans on the back of the car)
according to the pamphlet on delorean.com the weight 'with full tank' is 2712lbs
so it's slower than a stock S4 NA FC, blistering performance.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 124
From: Pensacola, FL
Originally Posted by pengaru' date='Sep 2 2003, 01:54 PM
Those cars suck, the weight distribution is horrible, they are not light, and the stock engine puts out :
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
I've seen the Delorean's numbers so mis-quoted over and over. The first site I found had the Delorean rated at 88 hp.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,837
From: Wayne, NJ
Originally Posted by kkw4p' date='Sep 2 2003, 02:12 PM
[quote name='pengaru' date='Sep 2 2003, 01:54 PM'] Those cars suck, the weight distribution is horrible, they are not light, and the stock engine puts out :
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
Max Horse power: 130 @ 5500 rpm
Max Torque: 153 ft LB @ 2750 rpm
I've seen the Delorean's numbers so mis-quoted over and over. The first site I found had the Delorean rated at 88 hp. [/quote]
http://www.conceptcarz.com/folder/vehicle....2&autoShowID=31
he was only off by 11hp. The delorean ran like 16.5 1/4 miles IIRC.
kevin.