Re: Double sixes

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

On Tue, 14 Nov 1995 PDQSHIP@aol.com wrote:

> >so if you put a good engine into a bad chassis you are saying it's
> >automatically the engine's fault?  no way will i agree with this. 
> 
> It is when you put it in enough cars/chassis.......  The vr6 was DESIGNED to
> replace the existing 4 bangers IN the jetta, passat, corrado, and the
> golf......  In replacing the four it did a great job, as a 6 against other
> 6's it isn't as big a success. 

so what do you mean by "success"?  who else besides yourself thinks lowly
of the VR6?

> >i say that judged on the test bench without a car body, it is a great
> engine.
> 
> Compared to what......  

compared to any other six.
 

> >i am also saying that this engine is superior to the 325i's engine,
> >irrespective of what it is installed in. 
 
> Hmmm......  No agreement here.....  Maybe you ought to drive the 2.8 liter
> motor before you convince yourself of that, eliot

here's another factoid that would cast doubt on your assertion that BMWs
are the best things to be had:  the european 2.8 has an alloy block;
the american 2.8 will have an iron block.  why is that?  the alloy block
is too weak to handle shit gas that americans like to stick in cars.

is this superior design?

i stick by my guns that the current bmw straight six sucks.  they used
to be sweet in the 12 valve days, even when they first went to 24
valves.  it's only when they did their VANOS thing (thankfully missing
from the V8s) that the engines became gruff.  the VR6 takes up where
the old 12 valve left off.

> >a silky smooth engine does not have to be characterless.  the vr6 proves
> >this. 
> 
> silky smooth and characterless are opposites......  Character in a motor,
> what is that?

how about the quality of the sounds it makes?  why do people like ferraris
or the porsche flat six?

do you judge food based on the cost per unit nutrient that it contains
or simply by how it tastes?  if it is the latter, how does one judge
what is good food?
 

> >and you may be interested to know that BMW only went to V8s because the
> >number crazed americans would not believe that a straight six is better in
> >vibration terms to a V8.  lexus had a v8 and it was eating into BMW sales,
> so
> >they had to bite the bullet and make a V8... 
> 
> That is wrong......  The six is great but what BMW needed was to address the
> gap between the Gas hungry six (I-engines, great torque, lousy cafe -worse as
> displacement increases) and the more gas guzzling 12

and i will quote you a BMW executive who says just that.

the old sixes (and the V12) had low compression ratios, could run on
regular unleaded but were less efficient.  there's nothing inherent in
a straight six design that makes it fuel inefficient.

> Eliot, the execution of motor technology ain't rocket science, no one is
> reinventing the wheel here......

don't patronise me...

>  Many chassis ago Benz made some subtle
> choices, now BMW has to great success......  VW of america is, by all intents
> and purposes, behind the mark.......  Even with the packaging of the vr6 into
> the 4 bay......  Lots of enthusiasts like yourself, there just aren't enough
> of those to make sales......  It is time to get up to standard (minus the
> cupholders) of where the successful big boys play......  Sales, is what they
> need, and the corrado vr, jetta vr, golf vr and the "new" passat aren't
> selling big with the award winning engine...  Or their good looks
> either......  That leaves the chassis, put that fourth wheel down.....  And
> make the passat as smooth as an audi with the same six, maybe that will help,
> we know it can't hurt..........  

like i said, if you want to roll over and play sheep, be my guest.  if
all the enthusiasts backed down and just accepted whatever crap the
makers foisted upon them, it will make the cars worse, not better,
because the ever so righteous consumers don't know s*** about good
engineering.  nissan already discovered that having a good rear end
doesn't sell more cars, so they put in something more primitive and
most importantly, cheaper.  the enthusiasts made the golf VR6 happen,
the same enthusiasts are also making VW correct the cadillac
suspension of the 95 cars.

so while you are advocating the corporate line, you seem to be
contradicting yourself about the 4th wheel in the air.  what is the
4th wheel on the ground going to do for sales?  where is your data that
shows that VW are losing sales because of that?


eliot