[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: vr6 and the competition

> > re: bimmer v8's vs the audi ones. 
> > 
> >you guys are talking apples and oranges here because the audi v8 you're dealing
> >with is the old one, developed 5 years ago.  the new one, to all press accounts
> >is *much* better and of the same technological age as the bimmer 3 and 4
> >litres. 
> i don't think that much has changed with the audi v8 engine aside from
> the capacity increase.  lots of minor details, of course, which would
> ensure parts incompatibilities, but i'd be curious to know what, if any,
> major improvements there are.

The "new" 4.2 used in A8 reportedly has variable timing thing involved. I 
don't think I've heard the variable timing in the old iteration.

> with the new a8, which by all accounts is a really good car, the positive
> aspects of the engine is now emphasized.  aside from the capacity
> increase, not much else has changed as far as i can tell.

I was browsing through several magazines and was wondering why in the 
world do Audi cars with similar displacement and bhp/torque gets somewhat 
of a worse performance than other makers. Then I ran across BBC's 
magazine Top Gear -- and presto! A huge list of cars with good data -- 
engine type/size, wheels driven, bhp per ton, max speed, and 0 to 60 
time. Well, here it is (selectively):

                  engine     DRV    bhp   bhp/ton  top-sp  0-60

Audi S6           I5/2226     4     230     145     147     6.2
Audi S6 Estate    I5/2226     4     230     141     146     6.9

(could someone get some similar info on the A6 that comes in the States? 
The A6 listed here are 2.0 and 2.6 for gas running engines amd no 2.8...)

Audi A8 2.8       V6/2771     F     174     118     136     11.0
Audi A8 2.8 Sport V6/2771     F     174     118     140     10.2
Audi A8 3.7 Sport V8/3697     F     230     156     153      8.7
Audi A8 Sport     V8/4172     4     300     174     155      7.3

BMW 328i          I6/2793     R     193     141     147      7.3
BMW 540i          V8/3982     R     286     176     149      6.8
BMW M3            I6/2990     R     286     199     157      6.0
BMW M5            I6/3795     R     340     209     160      5.6
BMW 740iL         V8/3982     R     286     152     155      7.4

MB C280           I6/2799     R     190     130     142      9.0
MB S280           I6/2799     R     190     106     144      8.8
MB S420           V8/4196     R     286     146     152      7.9

Well, here we are...

Ain't it interesting? Compare the S6 Estate and 328i -- similar bhp/ton at 
141, yet the S6 Estate goes to 60mph in 6.9 and 328i needs 7.3 -- and S6 
Estate has quattro to chug along!

Look at the A8 series. They are the slower Audis if get my drift. The A8 
2.8 has 118 bhp/ton and goes to 60 in 11.0 -- and look at MB S-class 280, 
106 bhp/ton and goes to 60 in 8.8 seconds!? Something is wrong with the 
A8 2.8 here -- must be the transmission ratio or something...

And look at the A8 4.2 and BMW 740iL. The 740iL has a lot less bhp/ton 
yet can move as almost fast. I wonder what's the story here?

I think there's a lot more than bhp/ton stuff going on here. Too bad they 
don't list 1/4 mile and things as that would show the top-end power of 
these car+engine combinations. 

Some wierd things... like why the 2.8 in C-class MB can perform as well 
as in S-class? I think MB has the right idea in playing the trans 
ratios. Overall, Audis ain't bad but could be better...

------------- clip here with virtual scissors --------------
Looking for roadkills... drop it by honge@creighton.edu...
e-mails are welcome anytime -- but mails are not.
Keyboard stuck failure. Press F1 to continue.
Windows 95:
  Finaly after four days, my fax-modem, scanner and sound-
  card are working thanks to the plug and plug and plug and
  plug and plug and plug and play play play play play play
  play play play play play play play