A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Audi
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$74,000



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 8th 04, 01:35 AM
Steve Grauman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>The firing order will have an effect on the frequency distribution of
>the vibration, thus affecting the peak intensity which is what will be
>perceived by the human. A 1-3-4-2 order should, hypothetically, produce
>vibrations of twice the frequency and half the amplitude that would be
>generated by a 1-2-3-4 order.


Interesting....
Ads
  #32  
Old June 12th 04, 12:01 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Byron" > wrote in message
...
> Tha Ghee wrote:
>
> So, Ghee,
>
> What is it like owning both a V-12 Lambo and a W-12 A8? I mean, you
> have driven both cars - you must have, or else your opinion on vibration
> and harshness would have no basis in reality. And you never have pulled
> a statement from your ass before, right?


never said I owned both just drove a V-12 MB pack to back with a W-12 VW,
can you read this. I didn't pull anything from my ass I sorry your head is
there.



  #33  
Old June 12th 04, 12:05 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >just take the V-12 from Lambo, and tune it for a luxo sedan.
> >

>
> It's not that simple. The Murcielago's V12 wouldn't have fit in the A8.

Plus,
> they can't produce them in great enough number for A8 application.
>
> >I understand the width & length angle, but what are any benefits, between
> >some savings in development time, and small size.

>
> FITMENT. The A8 wouldn't have accpeted a V-12 of that displacement.
>
> > they seem to be a little
> >low on power compared to a "traditional" layout,

>
> This is the result of Adui's tuning, not the engine type.
>
> > and they seem to have a
> >little more harshness vibration.
> >

>
> B.S. I've ridden in a W12 Pheaton and it was incredible.


then make the A8 wider, it's a big car why keep it skinny. the A8 sells
less than 10K a year that's only 850 a month I think AudiAG can produce
that. never said it wasn't a great car, past being a VW but it's not as
smooth as a VS.-12.



  #34  
Old June 12th 04, 12:07 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> > when GM
> >converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with
> >a 90 degree configuration)

>
> Most V6s are 90 degrees, AFAIK.


no there about 60 degrees or something close to this



  #35  
Old June 12th 04, 12:08 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Toby Groves" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tha Ghee
> > writes
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine

on
> >the planet.

>
> I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be smoother
> than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one plane and
> can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily than they can
> in a Vee engine.
>
> --
> Toby


you do realize that a V-12 is nothing more than 2 I-6s attached at a proper
angle to quell vibration.



  #36  
Old June 12th 04, 12:18 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >The engine family I referred to is the one used in the Mustang

>
> Yuck. They could've gotten the same power output and better fuel economy

from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice
too.
>
> >The 60 degree V-8 pretty much killed the SHO - along with its high price.

>
> That car was pitiful. An overpriced P.O.S. as far as I'm concerned, not to
> mention ugly and not particularly fast if memory serves me.
>
> >There's a new duratec 3.5L V-6 coming out within a year.

>
> I hadn't heard about that. I know that something based on the Futura

concept
> and built on the Mazda 6 platform is set to replace the Taurus and Sable.

A 3.5
> would be nice, if it's done right. But even the 3.0 in the 6 would be an
> improvement over the current Taurus mill.
>
> >If I coulda I woulda... 'course I tried to get into a used '00 S4, but
> >the new '02 WRX fit so much better into my budget.

>
> I came very near getting a 944 Turbo instead of my VW. But the high

maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the
same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang
for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than
quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand
National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch
and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas,
insurance and registration costs.

the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement. the V-60 SHO 2nd
gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.



  #37  
Old June 12th 04, 12:20 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >Many American V-6's _are_ 90 degrees for the reason I stated in my
> >earlier post including the very popular GM 3.8 liter, now in it's 3rd or
> >4th generation. That engine was fitted with balance shafts in the mid
> >'90s and it ran pretty smoothly in a rental car I drove.

>
> I seriously dislike the GM 3.8. I've driven an N/A version as well as two
> supercharged units (a 2001 Bonneville SSEi and a 2004 Grand Prix GTP) and
> disliked both. The supercharged version has a ton of torque but it did

very
> little to help get quick 0-60 times from the bloated Bonneville. The 3.1

in the
> Malibu was worse, although I've not driven the new version. But 170Hp from

a
> 3.1 litre V6 is stupid to say the least.
>
> > Even modular engine families, such as the one Ford
> >developed in 1996 (which spawned a V-6, several V-8s, and a V-10) use a
> >60 degree angle for the 6

>
> Does this include the unit (2.5 litres?) used in the Contour or just the

3.0
> litre used in the Taurus? I always liked the Contour, for what it was. I
> thought it was Ford's best sedan with the possible exception on the 2nd

Gen. V6 powered SHO.
>
> >Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
> >Pilot, others?

>
> The Accord is a 3.0 litre. The Odyssey and Pilot have a 3.5 litre engine,

as
> does the 3.5RL, but the Acura's is different. I drove a Pilot and liked

the
> 3.5, a friend's 2004 Accord is nice too, but a little more torque could be
> useful.
>
> >I do know that the H-4 in my WRX, while quiet and
> >powerful, isn't as smooth at idle as the I-6 engines I've test driven.

>
> The H-4 is the WRX felt a bit gruff to me. But the boxer-sixes in Porsches

are
> made of automotive dreams. ;-)


GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions. like Byron said
engine engineers do crazy things. The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL. the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
as being different because of the two extra cylinders



  #38  
Old June 12th 04, 12:24 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a

V-8
> >the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.

>
> What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with

smoothness?
>
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine

on the planet
>
> What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one?

The Lamborghini one?
>
> > when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle

>
> The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
>
> > they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need

thisappliance.
>
> I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>
> >yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
> >just look at the charts.

>
> Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with

Twin
> Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>
> >if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits

of
> >a "W" engine.
> >

>
> It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.


I think Byron and Toby answered your first question. I would say the vast
majority of V-12s if they are at a 60 degree Vee. the VR engines are 15
degrees so how can it be the same. balance shafts are different that
dampeners. look at the NA BMW V-12, and the NA MB. no I wasn't you just
didn't answer the question.



  #39  
Old June 12th 04, 12:25 AM
Tha Ghee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
...
> >Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
> >other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
> >relative to each other balances out.

>
> I'm having a fit of dumb**** and not following. I'm well aware of how the
> standard combustion driven engine operates but I'm not sure as to how a
> 4-cylinder with a 1-2-3-4 firing order could be any more or less smooth

than
> one with a 1-3-4-2 firing order, or any other variation. Beyond that, I've
> ridden in a W12 Pheaton and found it to be quite smooth, so I find Ghee's
> claims (as usual) to be obnoxious.


why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??



  #40  
Old June 12th 04, 06:59 AM
Steve Grauman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
>


Your claims are obnoxious because they usually involve lies and general
fabrications. You and your points of view are rarely grounded in reality and
anyone that followes your last 2 threads has seen as much.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.