> This question was forwarded from NKM7527@zeus.tamu.edu, a new subscriber
>> However is it true that the 1992 Audi 100 quattro does not have a multivalve
>> engine or electronic fuel injection?
Ti Kan wrote:
> It is true that the new Audi 2.8L V6 engine is a traditional 2-valves per
> cylinder design, but that should hardly be a point of consideration. This
> normally-aspirated engine produces 174hp at 5500rpm and 184 lbs-ft of torque
> at 3000 rpm, which is quite competitive with other engines of its class,
> multi-valve or not.
I agree 100% with Ti. The 2-valve vs. 4-valve is only one aspect of a
complete engine design, and only tells you one bit of information, like
saying "it's a 2.8L". Look at the torque curves (where available), or
better yet, drive the car! The new V6 is a very good engine (although
I'm even more impressed by VW's new VR6, another 2.8L 2-valve design).
Let's look at some figures, per litre of some engines...
Audi 100 2.8L 12V V6 62 @ 5500 66 @ 3000
Acura Legend 3.2L 24V V6 62 @ 5500 66 @ 4500
Infiniti J30t 3.0L 24V V6 70 @ 6400 64 @ 4800
Lexus ES300 3.0L 24V V6 62 @ 5200 65 @ 4400
Mazda MX-6 2.5L 24V V6 66 @ 5600 64 @ 4800
Mazda 929 3.0L 24V V6 65 @ 5750 67 @ 3500
Mitsu Diamante 3.0L 24V V6 67 @ 6000 66 @ 3000
The Audi's numbers look remarkably similar to all those revered Japanese
24V designs, don't they? And all except the big Mazda and the Mitsubishi
have their torque peaks way up in the rev range, reducing driveability.
The VR6 is remarkably similar, too... :)
VW Corrado 2.8L 12V V6 63 @ 5800 63 @ 4200
I'd say the VW and Audi engineers did some amazingly good work with these
engine. Ignore the valves per cylinder, and DRIVE THE CAR!
[ \tom haapanen | "only bullfighting, mountain climbing and motor racing are ]
[ email@example.com | sports -- all others are only games" -- ernest hemingway ]
[ waterloo engineering software | "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]