Re: Audi stuff in "Automobile"

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

On Tue, 31 Jan 1995 GregoryPC@aol.com wrote:

> The Audi normally aspirated 20Valve 4 cylinder (125hp) is disappointing
> compared, for example, to the Acura 1.7 liter (170hp).  Five valves per
> cylinder is a landmark event for production, but variable valve timing (as in
> the Acura and BMW M3) seems to the the next logical technological step for
> multi-valve engines.  

why?  if you've experienced the small bmw six since its introduction in
the late 70's you will see the destruction that variable valve timing
has brought to that engine.  it used to be the sweetest thing out
there, every bit as nice as today's vr6, then they did their VANOS
thing and ruined (IMO) a great (if not as tough as the audi 5) engine.
the VANOS 6 today is gruff and no joy to work hard whatsoever.

as for acura, ti has already pointed out the serious lack of torque.
what is the use of 8000 rpm when you have to gear it so low?  the
corresponding road speed (as opposed to engine speed) doesn't go
very high.  the vtec would be great for a miata, but the integra
is complete garbage.  (flame me if you like)  the car stimulates
your mind, but not your spine nor your heart.  they are also
easily dusted in the curves by any good vw/audi.

the ferrari f355 is a 5 valve engine, and achieves a higher bhp/liter than
the vtecs without any need for fancy schmancy valve gear.  audi was tuning
for torque.  the 1.8 turbo 5 valve produces max. torque at 1750 rpm, (even
lower than the 2.2 4 valve turbo 5) the vtec 7000.  go figure. 

that's just for the a4.. the hot version isn't even out yet.. can't wait
to see how much they are going to wind up on the boost.  having now driven
many turbo cars i am more and more appreciative of the wondeful
innovations made by audi in turbocharging..  not even the saabs and volvos
have a turbo installation as refined as the s4/s6/a4. 

eliot

eliot