360 or 340?

Post by **foggyjames** » 21 Jan 2005 02:42 pm

I think the later ones were 16v, while the early ones were 8v. You tend to see more 8v ones in my breakers (as they're older), hence my surprise!

cheers

James

Post by **SteveP** » 13 Mar 2005 01:11 pm

Well last night showed a 360GLT is an equal match for a Calibra... I'm assuming it was a 2 litre 8v, as it was pretty equal. The Cav must weigh more too!

Post by **foggyjames** » 13 Mar 2005 02:45 pm

Bloody hell! I'm surprised...no offence...

It probably wasn't the 2.0 16v turbo anyway

cheers

James

Post by **SteveP** » 13 Mar 2005 02:55 pm

Well I thought I'd try it, seeing as he was in the right turn lane with no intention of actually turning right.. because I'd held him up doing 30 down the last stretch of road!

Don't think it was the 16v turbo somehow...

Post by **huskyracer** » 13 Mar 2005 06:24 pm

The calibra actualy weighs quite a bit more than the cav. 2.0 8v came in two flavours 115 or 130 bhp, the sixteen valve was 150 bhp nasp and 210 turbo, the cavaliers and calibras handle equaly as badly in my opinion. the mk 2 cavalier was a much better car, although i did manage to put mine backwards through a roundabout at 60 wich made the handling er, much worse

Post by **foggyjames** » 13 Mar 2005 06:31 pm

So a 115 ought to take a mild beating from a GLT...? Still, I'd not have expected that before this thread!

Strange you say that about the handling - I've always been quite impressed by my mates Cav TD! Then again I guess I'm comparing it to a stock 360...

cheers

James

Post by **SteveP** » 13 Mar 2005 06:32 pm

huskyracer wrote:The calibra actualy weighs quite a bit more than the cav.

Hmm.. I didn't know that!

Id've thought it was the other way round, the Calibra has two less doors and is essentially the same running gear?? Odd.. I don't rate either the Cav or Calibra atall though and everyone says how nasty they handle.