tubo vs super -- Re: [s-cars] was, 0-60 , 1/4mile, now:Re: superchargers are bad, mmkay?

[Calvin & Diana Craig]

Bill,

I think that you have to consider what you want the car to do before you buy
it.  I never owned a turbo-charged car at sea level, because V-8s are so
great when you have 14.7 psi of air pressure.  However, when I moved to
Denver and all of a sudden 300 ft-lbs got cut to 240 because of altitude,
and my HP was down in the 1xx range it was time to do something different.

Since I was a torque nut I had to find some way to get acceptable
performance, beat the environment so to speak.  So I switched to T-charged
Audis because they had the most low end grunt of any of the turbos out there
plus the reliability of the turbos was so great and the AWD.  However, I too
agree that the 258 ft-lbs @ 1950 rpm is a bunch of crap.  I would guess that
doesn't come on until 2500-2700 rpm.

Short of getting rid of your S-car for a V-8, Bill, I think you might want
to simply change your driving habits.  When in San Francisco you shouldn't
be driving your S-Car at 1800 rpm anymore than you would drive your old
Supercoupe at 7000 rpm.  Keep your revs above 2500 all the time except when
cruising on the highway and you will be much happier.

In regards to the Automatic/B5 comments....I have a 2.7T A6 automatic and
when you step on the gas from a standing start the thing kind of says
"WHAT?" for about 2-3 seconds before it goes, so I don't notice the wow
factor off the line at all.  Also, maybe at sea level one of the B5's will
"destroy" a UrS car but not up here.  The altitude compensation at the
higher boost levels for the UrS is much better than that of the newer cars
with the dual peanut sized hairdryers.  A stock UrS and a stock B5 stick
shift will be almost a dead heat....I've done this with many of them.  They
usually pull you by a couple of car lengths up to 75 or so but not by much,
at least at 6k feet of altitude.

It all depends on the application.  Personally, if I were at sea level in a
town that it didn't snow in I don't know if I would own a UrS or not, but in
Denver I don't know if I will ever get rid of the car, it's perfect here.

--Calvin


-----Original Message-----
From: s-car-list-bounces at audifans.com
[mailto:s-car-list-bounces at audifans.com]On Behalf Of Bill Clancy
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:56 AM
To: kirby.a.smith at verizon.net
Cc: s-car-list at audifans.com
Subject: Re: tubo vs super -- Re: [s-cars] was, 0-60 , 1/4mile,now:Re:
superchargers are bad, mmkay?


all good questions.   I guess it will take me time to get you the answers.

thanks for replying....

I think I just got bagged by the Audi-S-Car list supervisor.    This reminds
me of being 8 years old and my mom catching me lighting matches or pissing
in the back yard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Smith" <kirby.a.smith at verizon.net>
To: "Bill Clancy" <clancybill at yahoo.com>
Cc: <s-car-list at audifans.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: tubo vs super -- Re: [s-cars] was, 0-60 , 1/4mile,now:Re:
superchargers are bad, mmkay?


> Things to consider: Is your bypass valve functional or leaking? Are you
> using too heavy of an oil?  Mobil 1 15W-50 vs 10W-40 makes a difference,
> even in warm weather, I perceive.  Don't try to operate the engine in
> lug mode, i.e., full throttle under 2500 rpm.  There is only so much an
> Audi DOHC system can compensate for.  Is your wastegate frequency valve
> in need of replacement?
>
> kirby
>
>
> Bill Clancy wrote:
> >
> > but, read into this.   I am asking for help man.
> > has anyone been able to get the turbo to respond quicker?     if you
read
> > the data, it is supposed to have 265 ft-lbs of torque at 1800.
> > ahhh.....I'm not getting that.   I need 3000 rpm to get torque.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Clancy" <clancybill at yahoo.com>
> > To: "Dave Forgie" <forgied at direct.ca>; <s-car-list at audifans.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 8:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: tubo vs super -- Re: [s-cars] was, 0-60 , 1/4mile,now:Re:
> > superchargers are bad, mmkay?
> >
> > > OK... you got me.  yes, I bad mouthed the S-car.
> > > but my argument/question was why not a supercharger?     Mercedes
makes
> > that
> > > SLK kompressor.   I have never driven one, so I don't know if it is
any
> > > good.
> > >
> > > thanks for your feedback.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dave Forgie" <forgied at direct.ca>
> > > To: <s-car-list at audifans.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 8:50 AM
> > > Subject: tubo vs super -- Re: [s-cars] was, 0-60 , 1/4mile,now:Re:
> > > superchargers are bad, mmkay?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Bill:  Your San Francisco hill story has more to do with having a
> > > > standard transmission instead of an automatic than it does about
having
> > > > a turbo instead of a supercharger.  If I had to live in San Fran
(and I
> > > > visit fairly often), my daily driver wouldn't be a heavy car with a
> > > > standard.  It would be something automatic.  Same for bumper to
bumper
> > > > commutes anywhere.  The S-car was not developed to service that
need.
> > > > Or at least not a std. trans S-car (they had autos in Europe, even
on
> > > > the 20vt).
> > > >
> > > > I don't think your arguement holds.  Regardless, rather than
continuing
> > > > to bad mouth the S-car, you should probably just sell it, and get
> > > > something with a sport-matic/ tiptronic/manumatic.  Everyone will be
> > > > happier, even your favorite chick.
> > > >
> > > > Dave F.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > S-CAR-List mailing list
> > > > S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> > > > http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > S-CAR-List mailing list
> > S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> > http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list

_______________________________________________
S-CAR-List mailing list
S-CAR-List at audifans.com
http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list