Re: v/vr -room

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

On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Robert Phillips wrote:

> Here's a scenario:
> 
> I bought the 4KS with 100k miles on the clock.  I would *almost never* 
> even consider an American vehicle with that kind of milage!  I know the 
> Audi's will go the distance, 
> 
> The Audi retains it's "value", which  for some reason Audi's do not, in 
> terms of $$, and the new car dealer can boast of "high resale values", 
> 
> If "joe average" buys a 1995  model, and the '95 model (excuse the pun) 
> has a better engine he can:
> 
> 1. Buy the new one, a year later, if he's got the cash

do you mean '96 model?
 
> 2. Keep the old one and wonder why the manufacturer didn't install the 
> best engine possible before he bought *his* car! 

and what are the choices TODAY?  a 172 bhp audi V6 and a 172 bhp VW
VR6.  the audi V6, with its 90 degree banks will cause far worse crash
testing scores in a transverse installation.  how would that affect
its marketability?  how would the current audi V6 make things any
better in terms of stock performance?

i also do not agree that hot rodding potential is the only
consideration in determining "best engine".  most in the critical (and
corrupt) media consider the VR6 the better engine.  the hot rodders
have their valid objections, but i claim that this is irrelevant for
joe average buyer.

we know that the VR6 cannot be tweaked for 1000 bhp, but is there any
evidence to suggest the stock engine cannot go 100K+ miles?  hey, if
it blows before 100K, VW will buy a new one.  are they really that
stupid to offer a 100K warranty on a car that cannot do 100K?

i asked my dealer to give a candid appraisal of the two engines
(without telling them where i stood on this debate) and they told me
that they have not seen VR6's blow *despite* the design, while they
have had several audi V6s blow up.

as for longevity and resale, if we were to adopt the corporate line
that eric and scott advocates, then from a corporate point of view it
is not in the maker's best interests to make a car last forever
because if you do not create demand for turnover, who's going to buy
your new cars?  the highly touted BMW makes no bones as to what
their priorities are when it comes to longevity.  i.e. they have
no interest whatsoever to make their cars last forever.  it is
not smart business strategy.

as it stands, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the
current audi v6 has any advantages in longevity over the VR6.

i think that most of the (valid) objections being raised over the VR6
only has relevance to the hot rod community and for the rest of us it
has little or no relevance whatsoever.  in the grand scheme of things
very few people will try to mess with a normally aspirated engine.


eliot