re: BMW I6 vs Audi V6 vs VW VR6

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

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Dave Eaton wrote:

> i agree with you about the vr6.  it's a nice, flexible motor.  my
> criticism of the 12 valve audi is that it is *slow* to change revs etc.
> probably a heavy flywheel allied with a recalcitrant computer.

i used to be somewhat critical of the audi v6.  while it was smooth and
quiet and a big improvement in this regard over the 5, i found it to be
soulless and unexciting and much preferred the vr6 over it.

that was back in 1992.  i recently drove an a4q and while the engine on
paper is "identical", lots of little tweaking has been done to make it
livelier and i'm happy to report that as far as i'm concerned the
engine is now every bit as nice as the vr6.  goes to show how much
numbers will tell you.

i am still a little bothered that the audi brochures (not sure about the
current one) which state that you need 94 octane fuel to get full power,
while the s4/s6 with its hyper boosted engine only "needs"  92.  around
here nobody sells 94 octane, so if you believe the brochure you are not
getting full power with 92.

has anybody with a TQ experimented with octane boosters?  what are these
beasts like with 100 octane?


eliot