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

Re: "Smooth" VR6

On Tue, 14 Nov 1995 STEADIRIC@aol.com wrote:

> The VR6 Sucks, It's Torque curve is awful.  IT's NVH is Awful (Noise, 


> They admit that they only did it cause it was the only way 
> to make a V-6 fit in the engine bay and their target was Mazda with it's 
> 2.0 V-6 (A MUCH better engine BTW).

it's a 1.8, and the MX3 with a conventional v6 has incredibly bad crash
results.  check out the insurance rates sometime.
> The VR6 is simply not up to the task in the Passat.  Hang on here for a 
> min.  I ran the VW Passat B3 (New Body Style) Introduction last year.  I 
> was paid by VW to show the dealers and focus groups how the Passat is 
> superior to the competition.....  It's not.....  EVERY Excersise had to 
> be rigged in one way or the other to mask the deffiencies of both the 
> Passat and The VR6,

do you know who mark sirota is?  he was in a similar deal and his
findings are completely opposite to yours. 

> >
> >as in 0 foot pounds?  :)
> Not quite but close, I think it has only 130/lbs ft

waaay off.  try again.
> >and comparing the 318 to passat is totally dumb.  what kind of weight
> >differences are we talking about here?  
> 0 lbs..................

wrong again.
> >the I5 is dead and buried.  live with it.  after 20 years of development
> >it has reached it logical end.  
> Tell that to, Honda, Volvo and Audi.........

honda's five was built entirely for marketing reasons.  volvo's five
was built as part of a modular engine concept, and audi has no more
plans to continue building the 5.  none of these engines are as
good as a 6 in smoothness and sweetness.  not even the gruff bmw's.

> I dunno with hyd engine mounts the I5 does pretty good....

only when compared to a I5 w/o hyd engine mounts.  compared even to
a balance shaft 4 it is not in the same class.  the 20v turbo is
the only I5 where i would call smooth by 6 cylinder standards.

> The one thing 
> that your not taking into account though is that the power potential of 
> the Audi I5 is Outragious.....  400hp from 2.2L, that's 181hp/liter in a 
> dailly driver no less,

sure, no disputing that.  the fact is still that audi has no future plans
for the 5.  it is dead.  production of the S6 runs for another 6 weeks or
so and that's it.

> try that in that fragile thin walled VR6 and your 
> going to get meltdown.  The VW engineers that I had at my and my crews 
> disposal on the ride and drive told me that that the VR6 could go up 
> MAYBE 15% in hp before the block would twist it's self to death.  

and if you read my earlier posts, you will see that i also said that. and
i also said that very few owners would tweak for more power in an
atmospheric engine. 

> Sorry but it's time to put this silly argument to bed.  The VR6 was a 
> stopgap, VW well tell you this.  It's old tech.  VW loves to do things to 
> see IF it's possible, The VR6 was BUT it's not pratical. 

i never disagreed on the corporate viewpoint.  i forecasted, based on
its development history that it has a limited future.  your findings
only confirm my speculation.

the crux of my argument is that right *now*, the audi v6 has no
significant advantage over a vr6.  it is completely irrelevant that the
audi v6 can produce a zillion bhp 100 years from now while the vr6 cannot. 
the joe average buyer doesn't need to care how much extra hp can be

and speaking of toughness, i went over to the dealer's this afternoon and
asked the service guys what they thought.  surprise. the vr6s have been
tough, not a single one grenaded, while several audi v6s have. 

> BTW It is a 
> "Double Single Overhead Cam"  There is One cam Per Cylinder Head, making 
> it a SOHC.

like i said, everybody tries to squeeze maximum bragging rights from
whatever they have... if you want to nitpick this, then you should
also go after all those quad cam engines.  personally i don't get
too hung up over marketing.  my audi v8 says "4OHC" on each cam cover.
if you wanted to take that literally, that would mean that the car
has 8 cams.  why no bashing over this?
> All of this information is from a Informed opinion, One that is Informed 
> enough that auto makers Hire me to help them figure out how to present 
> their cars to the public while minimizing it's drawbacks.  

i'm afraid i'm not terribly impressed.  i don't know if you got your facts
wrong above on purpose or that you felt that you didn't have to bother
getting them right.  and saying that the VR6 has terrible NVH while saying
that *your* I5 is pretty ok leads me to believe that perhaps there's some
personal biases at play here.  let me apologise in advance if this offends

i don't have to submit my qualifications to this group before i post. i
write what's on my mind and let the merits of it stand by itself. if i
write complete rubbish, i would have been flamed off long ago. and this is
not the first time that i'm in a controversial topic. 

in any case, i don't think there's much left to discuss with regards to
the engines, so let's just say that you and your buddy scott dislike the
vr6 while i like it.  and for everyone else, encourage them to drive the
various cars and let them decide for themselves. we don't have to force
our opinions down other people's throats.