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

Re: 1.8 T vs 2.8 na

> >
>         Although there there have been many improvements on turbo's, they
> will still wear your engine faster than w/o them.  If you are looking for
> a car that you will keep for a long time, you may be better off with the
> 2.8 instead of the 1.8T. After you make chip upgrades in both, the 1.8T
> only has 4-5 hp more than the 2.8 v6,...nothing huge, but because it is
> heavier the 2.8 would be a tad slower off the line. The European 30-valve
> 2.8 v6 is supposed to come to the U.S. in a few years and it would be the
> obvious favorite, but untill then the normal 2.8 is the way to go.

 I have been lurking too long...I must jump in here. High torque/low boost turbo
engines with modern valve head design are a real alternative to the smooth and 
soft V6 luxury engines. As long as the NVH are not intrusive in the car cabin. 
The 1.8t Audi/VW has higher torque,lighter weight ,constant performance at altitude, 
better real world fuel economy and much lower unit cost. As we see already 1.8t engine 
can be tuned for different application requirements. The V6 has resort to head work 
,cam change ,intake modifications for incremental power increases.  

All engines wear out but oil changes,stress from heat/compression and driving styles
have a large factor also. When the rebuild is required a straight 4 cylinder with
one head is cheaper than a twin bank engine. It is a matter of timing of the turbo
and engine repairs. The money savings in purchase cost,maintance and fuel will 
offset this.  

Is the current V6/12v a step forward over the turboI5/20v ? The new fabled multivalve
v6 will not be inexpensive.

 Patrick James
 4000q 86 
 Honda CX500 Turbo @ 22psi

 "I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
 They get all nervous and give the wrong answers."