2.7T v 4.2 A6

[Larry C Leung]

T'was done to save longitudinal space, as the 
B6 chassis has less room the C5 or A8. As I 
recall (Ti?) they managed to come up with a single
or at most double roller chain that they deemed 
durable enough instead of the standard 3 or 4 roller
chain that most timing chains are made of. 

LL - NY



> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:33:27 -0800
> From: "Tyson Varosyan" <tigran at tigran.com>
> Subject: RE: 2.7T v 4.2 A6
> To: "'S Dewitt'" <sdewitt at stx.rr.com>,        "Quattro at Audifans. 
> Com
>         (E-mail)" <quattro at audifans.com>
> Message-ID:
>         <33F4525132B64945AFEED25E3D67415D054420 at xchange.exchange.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;        charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> It seems like a step backwards to remove a light belt and install a 
> metal
> chain. The rotational weight is the name of the game there and there 
> is a
> big difference. Nobody here needs to sing me songs about what 
> happens when
> the damn thing fails, I have 3 TT motors (Mitsu and Supra) that
> snapped/skipped the belt resulting in many bent valves and cracked 
> pistons.
> I would hope that Audi would find a way to build a lighter-weight 
> stronger
> belt rather than revert to a chain drive. If you want perfect 
> timing, gear
> drive is for you.
> 
> Tyson Varosyan
> Technical Manager, Uptime Technical Solutions LLC.
> tyson at up-times.com
> www.up-times.com
> 206-715-TECH (8324)
> 
> UpTime/OnTime/AnyTime
>