Re: The V-Files

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

> ......  Let's not forget what the Vr6 six was designed for.....  To put a six
> where a 4 normally resides, without having to change the front bay
> design.....  For that goal, it accomplished well, for a 6, it's not an awe
> inspiring engineering as a 3L 8 from BMW for instance..... 

what's so great about BMW's 3 liter V8?  1/2 :)

the only kool thing about it that i can think of is its low weight,
but i think that audi's v8 is superior all around.  bmw's v8 has
been unreliable, according to CAR, while audi's is bulletproof.

as for the vr6, one of its greatest strengths is also its greatest
weakness.  the compact nature of everything means that cooling
would be a problem if one wanted really high outputs.  recall
that the vr6 started life as a 2.4 liter 24 valve and a 2.6 liter
12 valve but had severe head cooling problems throughout.

very late in its development it was a 18 valve 2.8 liter and right at the
end the 3 valve head was ditched in favor of a 12 valve.  i think that's
why its torque curve isn't as fat as the audi v6. 

this leads me to think that the vr6 is a lot closer to the limits
of its development potential than the audi v6.

but i am not in the least bit critical of the current vr6.  old timers
will remember that i was singing its praises right from the day the
corrado vr6 was launched.  just trying to be objective about the vr6 vs.
v6 debate. 

CAR magazine also has the vr6 in its list of top 10 engines... it's in the
same company as the 911 boxer, various ferraris, the NSX.  not bad for a
engine powering a $20K car.  no bmw engines in that list.


eliot