RE: Super A4

[Tom Haapanen <tomh@metrics.com>]

Actually, having seen the superimposed torque curves for the two
engines, they cross at about 2000 rpm -- at 1750 the 1.8T indeed has (a
little bit of) more torque.

And after all is said and done, the 1.8T has ultimately more potential.
F1 engines 10 years ago (!) were making 1200 hp from 1.5L, some 800
hp/L.  Current normally aspirated ones make about 800 hp from 3.0L,
about 170 hp/L.  And the turbo versions aren't significantly less
driiveable than the atmo ones.

Given the potential of the turbo, and that the S6 already produces over
100 hp/L, I would say that a 250 hp 1.8T will be at least as driveable
as a 250 hp 2.8 12V engine.  But of course that'll be just hypothetical
until somebody does two such cars and we get to try them out ...

-----
Tom Haapanen -- Software Metrics Inc. -- Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
A Microsoft Solution Provider Partner -- http://www.metrics.com/


>-----Original Message-----
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:09:01 -0700
>From: Fringe Ryder <Fringe@ai.net>
>Subject: Super A4
>
>Dan, you're ignoring the extremely-obvious.  The 1.8t peaks at 155 at 1750,
>the 2.8 peaks at 184 at 3000.  The 2.8 has a fairly flat torque curve too.
>I have little doubt that the 2.8 has more torque than the 1.8 at 1750.
>(Keep in mind that the horsepower/torque conversion tells us the 2.8 is
>still around 165 '# at 5500 rpm, which is more than the maximum torque of
>the 1.8.)  If the curve were even (which we know it isn't, but assume it for
>the point, the 2.8 could also have 165 '#, more than the 1.8's peak but less
>than it's own, at 500rpm.  
>
>We know it isn't that high at 500rpm, but you get the idea - just because
>the PEAK is at a higher point doesn't mean it isn't higher at the other
>engines somewhat-lower peak.
>
>Dan Masi wrote:
>>As much as I love my 2.8 A4Q, Grant is absolutely right.
>>The 2.8 has far from "gobs of low-end torque".  The 1.8
>>performs as well as it does mostly due to its low-end torque
>>characteristics; it reaches its maximum torque at 1700 rpm
>>or so, vs. the 2.8 needing to spin 3000.  If you're under 3k
>>on the 2.8, there's no way that you're doing any kind of
>>aggressive driving, unless it's braking.
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:12 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Mark Pollan" <Mark.Pollan@MCI.Com>
>Subject: Re: DC Area Dealer Discount
>
>>Give us the name of the parts or service guy so we know who knows who 
>>we are (what a strange sentence).
>
>Yeah I guess that would help.  I spoke with two individuals:
>     Kevin (no last name but he is the parts manager)
>     Dave (no last name)
>
>Both seem real nice.  I went there twice yesterday cuz I lost one of
>the injector seals so had to get another.  Anyway, Kevin helped me
>the second time and was with some other parts guy.  The "other" guy
>was new as Kevin was showing him how to use the fiche reader.  I am
>mentioning this so that you don't get soured if you get the new guy.
>
>When I told Kevin what I drive he got a big smile.  His ride is an
>'87 5KCSTQ and from the way he lit up you could tell he is really into
>it.
>
>Also I reiterated to him that q-list members are service and price
>sensitive and that he should not expect a lot of orders.  Didn't phase
>him at all.  Matter of fact he seemed to be eagerly awaiting the calls
>so that he/his boss could re-evaluate.  Just my read on the deal.
>
>Enough already on this from me.
>
>Mark Pollan, '86 5KCSTQ 218K Miles
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of quattro-digest V4 #598
>*****************************
>
>*
>*  To unsubscribe, mail to majordomo@coimbra.ans.net and in the body of
>*  your note, say:
>*  unsubscribe quattro-digest
>*  Questions, comments to quattro-owner@coimbra.ans.net