Re: Crating vr6's

[STEADIRIC@aol.com]

>>drivetrain inertia, transmission lossiness (for slush) all play a part
>>in determining performance.  to say that everything else doesn't matter
>>and that only the engine is the sole determinant is just plain wrong.
>
> - How 'bout, wrong engine for the performance variables above - example:
>audi increase displacement on V8, wrong first time, and that's the wrong
>engine dynamics, eliot, there was no, "hey let's change the gear ratio to
>cover it up......"
>
>
>Don't agree at all, the engine should complement the chassis, and should do
>so regardless of inertia, transmission, flywheel weight (my car), etc..  The
>engine makes those variables either obvious or "nice engine", certainly
there
>are plenty of "uneducated" people that can complain in real terms, where the
>weak link of their car is........  There are good engines and bad engines,
>they can be rated on their torque and hp curves, then tested in a variety of
>chassis.....  When you put the vr6 in as many chassis as vw did, the engine
>starts showing its weak side.....  There have been plenty of posts here
>reflecting that......  The vr6, CAR magazine aside, deserves kudos only for
>it's crate dimensions, not its dynamics........  The v6 in the former SHO is
>a perfect example of my argument, an engine in search of a chassis (and a
>tranmission)......  And, the Grandam iron duke 150hp four, an example of the
>butched side.......

I'm Siding with Scott here.  BTW the Q drivetrain only introduces a 3% 
frictional loss penatly, but makes that up by lowering the Tire drag that 
is caused by a unpowered tire, so it's a wash.....


Later!

Eric Fletcher
'87 5KCSTQIA2RSR2B

STEADI RIC@aol.com