Re: Relative power from engines

[LToy@aol.com]

Vikram Mittal writes

>Maybe I'm missing something here. What I did find impressive (no flames
>please) is that in 1989, BMW's normally aspirated 2.5 liter (525i) engine
was
>developing 189hp while Audi's 2.3 had only 130hp. Even today, their 2.8l
>engine only gets 172hp and it's 1995 !!

There's a bit more than bhp:displacement to look at here.  Look also at the
car the motor goes into (esp:  weight), and torque (esp: torque curve.
 unfortunately rarely published).  still, peak torque is telling, esp at what
speed.

BMW's I-6 2.5 puts out 189hp, it puts out 181lb-ft@4200 torque--this is
actually less than Audi's V6 2.8 (184@3000) and much higher.

(some stuff from my notes):
V6:
Audi 2.8:  172hp@5400, 184lb-ft@3000
VW 2.8:    172hp@5400, 173lb-ft@4200
Nissan 3:  222hp@6400, 198lb-ft@4800 (300zx)
Chrs 3.3:  161hp@5300, 182lb-ft@3200 (Intrepid, Vision)
Ford 3.0:  140hp@4800, 165lb-ft@3250 (Taurus)
Ford 3.0:  220hp@6200, 200lb-ft@4800 (SHO)
I6:
BMW 2.5:   189hp@5900, 181lb-ft@4200
BMW 3.0:   240hp@6000, 225lb-ft@4250 (M3)
Toyota 3:  225hp@6000, 210lb-ft@4800 (Lexus SC300)
turbos:
Audi 2.2t: 227hp@5900, 258lb-ft@1950 (S4/6, 217hp on the '91)
Nissan 3t: 300hp@6400, 283lb-ft@3600 (300zx turbo)
I don't recall the 20v 1.8 turbo torque figure, but it follows the same
philosophy as the S6 motor--peak torque way down low, and quite a bit of it,
too.

The point is that Audis are heavy and they're chasing the luxury market--less
so the sporting market, and a lower rpm peak torque motor helps the luxo-side
of the equation (quieter, less frantic).  Audi isn't out of the picture
here--I think many of us on this list are just trying to use our cars a bit
differently than Audi intended--I know I am (until I find the
Carrera!--hey-that's it--we all need about 3 or 4 different cars for the 3 or
4 different uses we have!)

Linus Toy
LToy@aol.com