RE: 5KCSTQ 1.8T?

[Tom Haapanen <tomh@metrics.com>]

I tend to agree with Graydon.  When Audi first came out with the L5
engine, based on the VW-Audi corporate L4,
they claimed that it was "as smooth as a six and as small as a four."
Well, as it turned out, it's still a large engine, and it's certainly
nowhere as smooth as the Audi V6 -- or the Volkswagen VR6, which really
does fulfill that original mandate of the L5.

No, the L5 was nothing to write home about in the end in its basic form.
Having driven numerous Audi L5s as well as dozens of VW/Audi L4s (and
now owning an A4 1.8T), I will state as my firm opinion that the Audi L5
was no smoother than the current 1.8T.  Neither matches up to a good six
in smoothness.

No, Audi was right to drop the idea, I think.  The current VW
eight-valve four produces as much hp from 2.0L as the normally aspirated
Audi 5L did from 2.3L (110 hp each); the Audi five-valve produces 125 hp
from just 1.8L.  The fours are as smooth and more compact.  The six is
smoother and, with more displacement, substantially more powerful.  And
marketing-wise a six-cylinder has substantially more cachet than a five
...

The thing that saved the Audi 5L from being a ho-hum engine was the
turbo.  Audi's engineers did some wonderful work with this device, the
S4/S6 being a prime example.  But why on earth shouldn't they apply that
same technology to more modern base engines, like the 1.8L 20V and the
2.8L 30V?

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


> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu>
> Subject: 5KCSTQ 1.8T?
> 
> On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 MSV96@aol.com wrote:
> > And the I5 2.2t for that matter....which is why I feel that Audi
> made a HUGE
> > marketing mistake deciding not to continue developing that motor for
> export
> 
> Hmmmm, I think they were long overdue in canning the I-5.  It was a
> dumb
> design in the first place, but it was advanced enough to work for them
> in
> the early '80s.  In 1997, the I-5 is hopelessly outclassed by all the
> multi-valve V6s and V8s on the market.   I do wish they had replaced
> it 
> with a turbo V6 S series car.   Maybe we'll get that soon though. :-)
>