Re: 5KCSTQ 1.8T?

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

tom sez:

> No, Audi was right to drop the idea, I think. 

i agree.  just because v*lv* is now putting 5's in their cars doesn't mean
that audi made a mistake.  v*lv*'s fives are much gruffer than the audis.

> 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.  

there were many many versions of the 5, ranging from 2.1 to 2.3 liters.
the final version of the 5, at 2.3 liters made 130, not 110 bhp.  the
older low compression 2.2 units were the ones that made 110.  and the
emissions choked 2.1 versions made 100.  yes, nothing great, but the 2.3
did make slightly more power than the current 2.0 four.

the 20V 1.8 four makes 125, but the older 16V 1.8 four made 123 w/
catalyst and 139 w/o.  the 20V has a much flatter torque curve tho...

>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? 

the other strong attribute of the 5 was its toughness and ability to take
obscene amounts of boost.  my guess is that the V6 is not as tough, but
hopefully it's got a long development life ahead of it.  i have an article
somewhere talking about how proud audi engineers are about how *light* the
cast iron block is..  somehow i don't think that a very light block is
going to be a very tough one.  have they licked the oil seal problem yet?

it's a *very* sore point with me that the most desirable audis never make
it here.  RS2, urQ-20V, V6TDI, S6 4.2, etc etc etc. 


eliot