Re: 5 bangers galore

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Wed, 9 Nov 1994, Carl DeSousa wrote:

> Eliot, we've had this conversation before, and once again, with all
> due respect, I have to step up and defend the goood ol 5 banger.

dialog! that's great...
 
[vigor flames deleted]

> Is the above fact or opinion.  Just curious...

the space efficiency of the vigor you can see for yourself clear as
daylight.  the dampers you can feel for yourself too if you are
discerning enough.  high speed (i.e. 55-75 mph) float, rocking motions
on turn-in.. you name it i am glad that american buyers still have
enough brain power left to vote with their checkbooks despite flagrant
lying by you-know-who.
 
> I said this last time.  Don't know about the Honda or Volvo 5's but
> packaging of the 5 in the Audi has great advantages to the techician
> that has to work on it.  Having space on both sides of the engine bay
> allows for easier repairs.  (except for ever popular air cleaner)
> The inline 5 is a simpler motor than anything in a V shape.  Tell me
> you have fun changing the spark plugs in your V8 Quattro.  :)

the plugs in the v8 are a real piece of cake. honest!  this is after
all nothing more than a pair of vw 16V heads.  the only thing is that
they are damm expensive and you have 8 of them to change which means
more time.. the air cleaner is located right on top of the V, so they
are even easier to change than on the inline engined cars.

the oil plug and filter are located right next to each other and are
perpendicular to the ground.  the filter comes with a hex nut on its
top, so you can even use a torque wrench to tighten it.

as far as routine maintenence is concerned, the v8 is as easy as
any of its siblings.

> I think it was brilliant of Audi to use another cylinder to balance
> the motor instead of adding a balance shaft.

but it is not balanced longitudinally.. touch your shifter knob 
sometime. you can't really make it balanced lengthwise unless
you had a stationary middle cylinder.. :)

> Part of the reason why the S4 can
> obtain max torque at 1900 RPM?  Now horse power is another matter.
> With only 2.2L the 4 valves/cyl and turbo take care of that.  

the S4's max torque number assumes that the turbo is already spooled
up.  there are some refinements to the turbo installation that keeps
the turbo spinning even with a closed throttle, the "bypass valve" if
i recall.  that's how it can pump out so much torque at such a low
rpm.. the turbo wastegate also features computer control, which means
that chips have more influence over its power output than any other
kind of engine.  without the boost there's no way so little capacity
can put out so much torque.

> ugh hugh, everyone has $50k to spend on an S4.  Know where i can get 
> an S4 motor for my 4000Q?

get a 1991 200Q for $20K.. that's not outrageous is it?  this is
almost the same as the S4 except that it doesn't have overboost and
multi-coil ignition. ned ritchie for $700 will provide you with an
eprom upgrade which will raise it to the S4's output.  don't know if
the IA chip features overboost though.  for $2.7K you can squeeze out
a safe 290bhp from it.
 
> Put the s4 motor in the Passat for a fair comparison.  It would easily haul
> a full load of people up Mt Washington.  The engine sound is left to
> personal taiste. 

the engine sound is what distinguishes european cars from japanese
ones.  lexus pursues the wholesale elimination of sound (noise if you
will) while ferrari designs exhaust systems with musicality as a major
consideration.  the vr6 is among the greatest engines that has ever
been built and for a moderately light car i would not have anything
else powering it. yes, i like the vr6 more than i like the v8 but i
fully recognize its output limitations for powering a big heavy car.
it is rare for the critical press to be in total agreement with the
corrupt press, but in the case of the vr6 there is not a single
naysayer.. the vr6 brings out more effusive praise today than when it
first appeared, proof that writers then were not simply paying lip
service.

also, comparing engines based solely on output is like comparing
movies based solely on production budget or box office receipts.

> Remember, all the above is just my personal opinion.  

me too.  :)
 
> But I wouldn't mind having your V8 Quattro either, I guess I'm just
> too cheap.  :)

used v8's are cheap and tend to get more reliable with age, just as
JDP says.  mine has not needed much for a very long time except for
the pressure accumulator, which was taken care of by ext. warranty.
right now the car is pretty much gas and oil changes only in terms of
expenses.  i'll let you know if i'm ready to sell it... :)


eliot