New Audi S4
01-25-2002, 11:22 AM
#41
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You missed the point. I was referring to the superiority of engines that are 10 years old to the current Audi S4's current engine. That is why I finished my post with the notion of dropping one of these engines into a Nissan or a Toyota.
Some cars are like jeans. Is there really a $13K (25% - 30%)difference between the Audi S4 and a Nissan Maxima SE? There is not that much of difference, but some people have to have status.
I can buy denim jeans at Old Navy that are the same quality and same weave of jeans from Armani. The difference is Old Navy jeans are $27, Armani jeans are $90. Some people MUST have the label and the brand. They will go to any length to justify and rationalize their choice using style, look and label because that is what they need. The same goes for the many people who choose to spend the extra 25% - 30% on that German car. They 'need' the better handling (which comes in handy 10% of the time while driving). They 'need' the better service they get at the Audi, Mercedes or BMW dealership. They need that 'brand', that 'label'. It is all 'show' for many people. Don't get me wrong. Not all driver's of those types of cars are like that, but many are. I know people like that.
It is for the 'brand' reason alone that the Germans laughed at Honda when they came out with Acura line in late 80's. They scoffed at Honda! Now who is laughing? Acura is laughing since they TOOK a big piece of the German's market and put a hurting on GM's luxury sedan segment too. Acura makes a better car for the money than the Germans. What a bunch of eliteist fools the German's were at the time... Now they are on their toes and that is better for every prospective car buyer out there. Look at how far Audi has come in the last 10 years. They have come a long way.
Some cars are like jeans. Is there really a $13K (25% - 30%)difference between the Audi S4 and a Nissan Maxima SE? There is not that much of difference, but some people have to have status.
I can buy denim jeans at Old Navy that are the same quality and same weave of jeans from Armani. The difference is Old Navy jeans are $27, Armani jeans are $90. Some people MUST have the label and the brand. They will go to any length to justify and rationalize their choice using style, look and label because that is what they need. The same goes for the many people who choose to spend the extra 25% - 30% on that German car. They 'need' the better handling (which comes in handy 10% of the time while driving). They 'need' the better service they get at the Audi, Mercedes or BMW dealership. They need that 'brand', that 'label'. It is all 'show' for many people. Don't get me wrong. Not all driver's of those types of cars are like that, but many are. I know people like that.
It is for the 'brand' reason alone that the Germans laughed at Honda when they came out with Acura line in late 80's. They scoffed at Honda! Now who is laughing? Acura is laughing since they TOOK a big piece of the German's market and put a hurting on GM's luxury sedan segment too. Acura makes a better car for the money than the Germans. What a bunch of eliteist fools the German's were at the time... Now they are on their toes and that is better for every prospective car buyer out there. Look at how far Audi has come in the last 10 years. They have come a long way.
01-25-2002, 11:25 AM
#42
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2002
Age: 54
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You, my good man, sound a little on edge-->
When it comes to sheer power output, the 2.7l "bi-turbo" doesn't seem to do as well as the other engines you mentioned. Keep in mind that those engines were only available in all out sports cars (the SupraTT and the 300ZTT) At that, they all were at least 3 liters in displacement. The 2.7 is exactly what it says 2.7 liters in displacement with 250hp and 260 lb ft. The output may not be that great, but the flexibility is. Did any of the other cars have their full torque output from 1800-4800 rpm? I don't think so.
If you took the 2.7l engine and put it in a sports car body (say the TT perhaps) it would run every bit as quick as a stock TT supra or 300Z. The S4 and 2.7t are "sport sedans" that perform very well indeed. The engines are tractable and provide excellent throttle response with more than adequate power output. There are no sequential turbos to increase higher HP levels like the Supra, nor was there the desire to produce over 300 hp like the 300z.
The Japanese cars you mention can use the $75 boost controller to make almost obscene amounts of HP. The Audi cannot. If you want to build an all out 1/4 mile monster, the S4 is not the car to start with. If you want to build a car that can serve up a king sized whuppin' to a 600 HP Supra on a road course, then a 450hp S4 is the car you want. If you want a car that you can drive fast, easily and without danger. In rain, snow, or dry conditions, then a A6 2.7T with a chip is what you want. (13.3-13.6 1/4 mile times, able to handle 6+ inches of snow with ease)
Audi's may not be perfect, but they are excellent "all-purpose" automobiles, which is exactly how I use mine. For "all-purposes", all the time.
You're quote" Subaru built every bit as much car as the Audi S4 for 40% less! The only thing the WRX lacks is fit and finish. " says a lot. It says that you're only interested in a car that can be modified to kick the ass of a higher priced German Sedan that is grouped by the EPA in the same size (category). The WRX is a quick little 4dr, but the build, fit&finish and quality are much lower than I'd be willing to accept. The old adage "you get what you pay for" rings loud and clear.
Do you know how much R&D would be required to make the WRX as quality a construction piece as the S4? A lot more than you'd think. That would make the purchase price far higher than 5-7k on top of what you pay. Then you have the issue of who will buy the car. Not too many people will want to pay 32-35k for a compact Subaru, no matter how fast it is, when they can get an Audi or BMW that is just as fast for 3-5k more.
If you took the 2.7l engine and put it in a sports car body (say the TT perhaps) it would run every bit as quick as a stock TT supra or 300Z. The S4 and 2.7t are "sport sedans" that perform very well indeed. The engines are tractable and provide excellent throttle response with more than adequate power output. There are no sequential turbos to increase higher HP levels like the Supra, nor was there the desire to produce over 300 hp like the 300z.
The Japanese cars you mention can use the $75 boost controller to make almost obscene amounts of HP. The Audi cannot. If you want to build an all out 1/4 mile monster, the S4 is not the car to start with. If you want to build a car that can serve up a king sized whuppin' to a 600 HP Supra on a road course, then a 450hp S4 is the car you want. If you want a car that you can drive fast, easily and without danger. In rain, snow, or dry conditions, then a A6 2.7T with a chip is what you want. (13.3-13.6 1/4 mile times, able to handle 6+ inches of snow with ease)
Audi's may not be perfect, but they are excellent "all-purpose" automobiles, which is exactly how I use mine. For "all-purposes", all the time.
You're quote" Subaru built every bit as much car as the Audi S4 for 40% less! The only thing the WRX lacks is fit and finish. " says a lot. It says that you're only interested in a car that can be modified to kick the ass of a higher priced German Sedan that is grouped by the EPA in the same size (category). The WRX is a quick little 4dr, but the build, fit&finish and quality are much lower than I'd be willing to accept. The old adage "you get what you pay for" rings loud and clear.
Do you know how much R&D would be required to make the WRX as quality a construction piece as the S4? A lot more than you'd think. That would make the purchase price far higher than 5-7k on top of what you pay. Then you have the issue of who will buy the car. Not too many people will want to pay 32-35k for a compact Subaru, no matter how fast it is, when they can get an Audi or BMW that is just as fast for 3-5k more.
01-25-2002, 11:30 AM
#43
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2002
Age: 54
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC, I just read your signature-->
Originally posted by AC
Wheww!
Why you hatin on the Audi so much? I think we all know that the Supra TT was one of the greatest cars built. I don't think anyone was arguing that fact.
This still goes back to "for $x I can make my Civic faster than your S4 and still save money, etc". Well guess what, you still got a CIVIC! Get the point.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "love" Audis but I do like what they've done with the S4 in regards to fit, finiksh, performace, and luxuries.
Wheww!
Why you hatin on the Audi so much? I think we all know that the Supra TT was one of the greatest cars built. I don't think anyone was arguing that fact.
This still goes back to "for $x I can make my Civic faster than your S4 and still save money, etc". Well guess what, you still got a CIVIC! Get the point.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "love" Audis but I do like what they've done with the S4 in regards to fit, finiksh, performace, and luxuries.
Got any pics to share? IF only that car were larger inside, I'd have myself one of them right now.. In a 6spd of course..
01-25-2002, 11:42 AM
#45
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, the point is that those engines are TEN years old! Ten years old! Also what HUGE difference is .3 liters in displacement especailly after ten years has passed. Ten years is the Auto world is HUGE! And no my Dodge Stealth RT/TT doesn't pull hard at 1800 RPMS. It does however start pulling at about 2400 - 2600 RPMs. It will also pull EXTREMELY hard all the way into the redline where according to you, the Audi dies out well below that at 4800 RPM. 95% of the peak torque with that 3.0L V-6 is available from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM... is that broad enough for you? The bottomline here is once again, these types of engines are TEN years old!
What if one of those engines was dropped into a Toyota or Nissan? You could call it the 'German Car Killer'.
What if one of those engines was dropped into a Toyota or Nissan? You could call it the 'German Car Killer'.
01-25-2002, 02:30 PM
#46
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: toronto
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's more to a car than straight line accelleration.
Putting in a heavy V8 instead of a twin turbo V6 would change the weight distribution and thus the handling.
Every car has it's advantages and disadvantages. Arguing over it is arguing over preference and priorities (and budget I suppose)
Putting in a heavy V8 instead of a twin turbo V6 would change the weight distribution and thus the handling.
Every car has it's advantages and disadvantages. Arguing over it is arguing over preference and priorities (and budget I suppose)
01-25-2002, 03:59 PM
#47
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2002
Age: 54
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So your point is what?-->
Originally posted by MB-telecom
Once again, the point is that those engines are TEN years old! Ten years old! Also what HUGE difference is .3 liters in displacement especailly after ten years has passed. Ten years is the Auto world is HUGE! And no my Dodge Stealth RT/TT doesn't pull hard at 1800 RPMS. It does however start pulling at about 2400 - 2600 RPMs. It will also pull EXTREMELY hard all the way into the redline where according to you, the Audi dies out well below that at 4800 RPM. 95% of the peak torque with that 3.0L V-6 is available from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM... is that broad enough for you? The bottomline here is once again, these types of engines are TEN years old!
What if one of those engines was dropped into a Toyota or Nissan? You could call it the 'German Car Killer'.
Once again, the point is that those engines are TEN years old! Ten years old! Also what HUGE difference is .3 liters in displacement especailly after ten years has passed. Ten years is the Auto world is HUGE! And no my Dodge Stealth RT/TT doesn't pull hard at 1800 RPMS. It does however start pulling at about 2400 - 2600 RPMs. It will also pull EXTREMELY hard all the way into the redline where according to you, the Audi dies out well below that at 4800 RPM. 95% of the peak torque with that 3.0L V-6 is available from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM... is that broad enough for you? The bottomline here is once again, these types of engines are TEN years old!
What if one of those engines was dropped into a Toyota or Nissan? You could call it the 'German Car Killer'.
I think not. As a matter of fact, I know not. Having a background in automotive technology, I invite you to do some research on this, before we debate this further. Do some research on both of these engines, the specs (not just compression ratios,either), the weights, the emissions and so on. If you research it that way (using pure facts, and not opinion) you'll see it differently.
To be honest, Nissan and Honda can extract 255 and 260hp from a 3.2 and 3.5l NA engine. That's more impressive than a twin turbo 3.0l with 300hp, or a twin turbo 2.7l with 250 something hp don' t you think? All while meeting ULEV standards..
Each manufacturer tunes their cars for their respective buyers. Each manufacturer wants their engines to perform respectably in the bodies in which they are installed.
01-25-2002, 04:09 PM
#48
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thx for jim's posting...
in fact, the 2.7T from audi is more luxury and refine compare to the super cars like Supra TT...they have a different goals...while audi is leaning towards low rpm, high torque and supra is going to the max....can't reallie compare...
2.7T is the best turbo engine around...for refinement and power....don't see any stock 4 door cars can beat....
also it's on the ward's best engine for a couple of yrs...no dobut..
in fact, the 2.7T from audi is more luxury and refine compare to the super cars like Supra TT...they have a different goals...while audi is leaning towards low rpm, high torque and supra is going to the max....can't reallie compare...
2.7T is the best turbo engine around...for refinement and power....don't see any stock 4 door cars can beat....
also it's on the ward's best engine for a couple of yrs...no dobut..
01-25-2002, 04:13 PM
#49
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim Will - NOT once did I say that the 3000GT motor or the Supra motor was more technologically advanced that the current crop of motors Honda and Audi are using. That would be just plain ridicluous for anyone to say that. Can you show me where I said that? I was making a point (which many people are missing) that in the ten years since these cars ruled the streets (they were awesome in their time) , Audi's 2.7 V-6 is ONLY making 250 HP. How far is advanced are END RESULTS in ten years? I am talking HP and torque (and the torque curve too). The Audi motor is sad even compared to the those motors of 10 years ago. My Dodge Stealth RT/TT will still get 26 miles to the gallon hwy. I guess it is a sorry motor with poor emmisons though... Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn....
01-25-2002, 05:07 PM
#50
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Framingham, MA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MB-telecom
Jim Will - NOT once did I say that the 3000GT motor or the Supra motor was more technologically advanced that the current crop of motors Honda and Audi are using. That would be just plain ridicluous for anyone to say that. Can you show me where I said that? I was making a point (which many people are missing) that in the ten years since these cars ruled the streets (they were awesome in their time) , Audi's 2.7 V-6 is ONLY making 250 HP. How far is advanced are END RESULTS in ten years? I am talking HP and torque (and the torque curve too). The Audi motor is sad even compared to the those motors of 10 years ago. My Dodge Stealth RT/TT will still get 26 miles to the gallon hwy. I guess it is a sorry motor with poor emmisons though... Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn....
Jim Will - NOT once did I say that the 3000GT motor or the Supra motor was more technologically advanced that the current crop of motors Honda and Audi are using. That would be just plain ridicluous for anyone to say that. Can you show me where I said that? I was making a point (which many people are missing) that in the ten years since these cars ruled the streets (they were awesome in their time) , Audi's 2.7 V-6 is ONLY making 250 HP. How far is advanced are END RESULTS in ten years? I am talking HP and torque (and the torque curve too). The Audi motor is sad even compared to the those motors of 10 years ago. My Dodge Stealth RT/TT will still get 26 miles to the gallon hwy. I guess it is a sorry motor with poor emmisons though... Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn....
"The RS4, which, like its predecessor the RS2, is to be produced exclusively as an Avant model.
It will feature the same 2.7 litre biturbo V6 engine that is in the S4. Instead of the 265 hp that the Euopean S4 produces, the RS4 engine develops 380 hp at 6,500 rpm. The RS4 sprints from 0 - 100 km/h in 4.9 seconds.
The RS4 will sport cast aluminium wheels of a new spoke design that will provide space for the upgraded brake system. The suspension has been upgraded from the S4 also resulting in a significantly lowered appearance compared to the A4. A six-speed manual transmission and quattro all-wheel drive are standard equipment."
http://www.audiworld.com/model/rs4.html
01-25-2002, 05:29 PM
#51
Pleasure Unit
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dirty Jersey
Age: 52
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really not a fan of the Audi cars, but they do have some merit in everyday driveability and good reliability.
Others are right, in 2002, a 2.7L motor making 250hp ain't that great, considering the 1990 300ZX turbo made 20% more power with a motor only 10% larger. The S4 would really have to make 270hp to equal that 12 year old's motor. I'm not even counting the 320hp rating of the 3000GT or Supra.
Now since most turbo cars can add a few psi of boost, extra power comes pretty easy, but obviously the Audi can't take advantage of most performance parts because of the OEM set-up, fine. I don't think 300hp is any problem with the right parts, 400hp isn't in the cards, forget 450.
The one area I find funny is the fact that someone stated a 450hp S4 would beat a 600hp Supra on a road course, in actuality, unless the road is dirt, the S4 would catch a major league beating. 4 wheel drive in a street trim car has no advantage over a RWD one, a FWD one yes.
Considering how well the Supra handled from the factory and the availability of performance suspension parts, its a no-brainer. The same goes for a moded RX7 or 300ZX TT as they are also RWD. The 3000GT is a better match, but it can out HP the S4. Also, the 1982-on Camaro/Vette/Trans Am are the same in regards of handling prowess as the Jap cars, except they have unlimited HP potential becuse of the engine displacements available (can you say 600hp NA 434?).
Anyway, I think that a manual S4 can beat a stock TL-S by maybe 3-4 cars, an auto one by 1-2 cars. Its not that much of a difference in my book. A 300hp moded S4 would obviously be 3 or 4 cars better (if it ran 13.5).
Others are right, in 2002, a 2.7L motor making 250hp ain't that great, considering the 1990 300ZX turbo made 20% more power with a motor only 10% larger. The S4 would really have to make 270hp to equal that 12 year old's motor. I'm not even counting the 320hp rating of the 3000GT or Supra.
Now since most turbo cars can add a few psi of boost, extra power comes pretty easy, but obviously the Audi can't take advantage of most performance parts because of the OEM set-up, fine. I don't think 300hp is any problem with the right parts, 400hp isn't in the cards, forget 450.
The one area I find funny is the fact that someone stated a 450hp S4 would beat a 600hp Supra on a road course, in actuality, unless the road is dirt, the S4 would catch a major league beating. 4 wheel drive in a street trim car has no advantage over a RWD one, a FWD one yes.
Considering how well the Supra handled from the factory and the availability of performance suspension parts, its a no-brainer. The same goes for a moded RX7 or 300ZX TT as they are also RWD. The 3000GT is a better match, but it can out HP the S4. Also, the 1982-on Camaro/Vette/Trans Am are the same in regards of handling prowess as the Jap cars, except they have unlimited HP potential becuse of the engine displacements available (can you say 600hp NA 434?).
Anyway, I think that a manual S4 can beat a stock TL-S by maybe 3-4 cars, an auto one by 1-2 cars. Its not that much of a difference in my book. A 300hp moded S4 would obviously be 3 or 4 cars better (if it ran 13.5).
01-25-2002, 09:01 PM
#52
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2002
Age: 54
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we agree to disagree, it's no problem for me-->
Originally posted by MB-telecom
Jim Will - NOT once did I say that the 3000GT motor or the Supra motor was more technologically advanced that the current crop of motors Honda and Audi are using. That would be just plain ridicluous for anyone to say that. Can you show me where I said that? I was making a point (which many people are missing) that in the ten years since these cars ruled the streets (they were awesome in their time) , Audi's 2.7 V-6 is ONLY making 250 HP. How far is advanced are END RESULTS in ten years? I am talking HP and torque (and the torque curve too). The Audi motor is sad even compared to the those motors of 10 years ago. My Dodge Stealth RT/TT will still get 26 miles to the gallon hwy. I guess it is a sorry motor with poor emmisons though... Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn....
Jim Will - NOT once did I say that the 3000GT motor or the Supra motor was more technologically advanced that the current crop of motors Honda and Audi are using. That would be just plain ridicluous for anyone to say that. Can you show me where I said that? I was making a point (which many people are missing) that in the ten years since these cars ruled the streets (they were awesome in their time) , Audi's 2.7 V-6 is ONLY making 250 HP. How far is advanced are END RESULTS in ten years? I am talking HP and torque (and the torque curve too). The Audi motor is sad even compared to the those motors of 10 years ago. My Dodge Stealth RT/TT will still get 26 miles to the gallon hwy. I guess it is a sorry motor with poor emmisons though... Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn....
Too bad I eat A6's like yours all....day....long. yawn
How juvenile.. But it's not like I shouldn't expect it. You can eat A6's like mine all day long, can you? That's just terriffic for you then, isn't it? I suppose you can put 4 full size adults with luggage into your car and carry them on a 10 hour trip in comfort as well? Of course you can't, because your car is a sports car, not a luxury sedan. The same way I can't run below 14 seconds without some serious help. Simply because my car is not a sports car, it's a luxury sedan.
I'm done with this thread, it's not worth the energy typing replies to you if that's all the realization you can gain from this conversation.
01-25-2002, 10:20 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by hemants
The new S4 is not available yet. What you encountered was probably a current S4 with a Chip ~320hp!!!
And yes, the S4 has always been an M3 killer. I'm sure the next one will be as well.
The new S4 is not available yet. What you encountered was probably a current S4 with a Chip ~320hp!!!
And yes, the S4 has always been an M3 killer. I'm sure the next one will be as well.
The only car that can kill a M3 is a car that cost twice as much.
No car in its class especially not an audi can even compete with the M3.
I mean i can see it now, a guy driving a s4 thinking he is hot sh!t, then pull over next to him is the M3. The guy with the s4 immediately hides in his little corner and begin to cry like a little girl.
The M3 will tear up the s4 like it is a little girl. we all know that.
M3 owns the s4.
the s4 is the M3's b!tch.
The M3 will rape the s4 so badly anyday of the week
Nuff said
01-26-2002, 12:13 AM
#55
MB-Fanatic w/TL-S
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Age: 45
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ok, here we go... couple points I would like to add...
1. I agree, Audi is not really known for it's reliability.... but again, no one build AWD sedans like they do(maybe except Subaru, but they are not as refine as Audi). But recent Audis have proven to be very well build, there are not many problems. Take S4 for example, so far, the 2 major known problems were TBB and transmission problems.
2. 2.7T engine is very refine, smooth... the torque curve is so flat, you would swear it's wrongfully drawn on HP/Torque graph..
3. How many HP does 300ZX non-turbo make?? If you read some of the earlier reviews of 300ZX, many journalists have agree that 300ZX lacks HP some how, and just doesn't feel the HP Nissan claimed. Non-turbo Z suppose to make 220HP, but in reviews, the writter claims that "it lacks punches, and judging from the performance, the car makes no where close to 220HP, more like 195HP - 200HP. However, I do admit that Supra's I-6 TT engine is very well made, and almost bullet-proof for taking higher PSI from turbo. Supra's I-6 TT engine really is a work of art.... a race engine in street-legal trim....
And sorry, the 3L engine used in 300ZX is not refine/advance nor it is fast.... heck, it wouldn't even out-accelerate my 5100lb S-Class at triple digit speed....
e.g. a 1992 Mercedes 500E(315HP/354lb-ft) can do 0-60 around 6 sec flat, 1/4 in about 14.4 sec stock w/ASR(can't not be disabled)... with ASR disabled(aftermarket switch from Renntech), it can do 0-60 in low 5's, 1/4 mile in about 14-flat or even into high 13's.... yet it has MUCH lower HP/displacement, so does that make it a less of a engine compare to 300ZX TT/Stealth R/T TT/Supra TT engines??? How do you know 2.7T is not as advance as 300ZX TT/Stealth TT/Supra TT engines??
4. One car that would kill an E46 M3, or at least run side-by-side with M3 w/out a sweat, and is stock?? C32/SLK32 AMG...... under normal condition, with an average driver, my bet is on C32/SLK32 AMG..... M3 has superior handling, that, I have to admit.... but C32/SLK32 AMG would take the edge in terms of acceleration....keep in mind that MB's ESP/ASR can NOT be 100% disabled where DSC/ASR on BMW can..... and that's what really killed AMGs performance....
One thing I still haven't caught it, what do you drive again, MB-telecom???
Andy Kuo
1. I agree, Audi is not really known for it's reliability.... but again, no one build AWD sedans like they do(maybe except Subaru, but they are not as refine as Audi). But recent Audis have proven to be very well build, there are not many problems. Take S4 for example, so far, the 2 major known problems were TBB and transmission problems.
2. 2.7T engine is very refine, smooth... the torque curve is so flat, you would swear it's wrongfully drawn on HP/Torque graph..
3. How many HP does 300ZX non-turbo make?? If you read some of the earlier reviews of 300ZX, many journalists have agree that 300ZX lacks HP some how, and just doesn't feel the HP Nissan claimed. Non-turbo Z suppose to make 220HP, but in reviews, the writter claims that "it lacks punches, and judging from the performance, the car makes no where close to 220HP, more like 195HP - 200HP. However, I do admit that Supra's I-6 TT engine is very well made, and almost bullet-proof for taking higher PSI from turbo. Supra's I-6 TT engine really is a work of art.... a race engine in street-legal trim....
And sorry, the 3L engine used in 300ZX is not refine/advance nor it is fast.... heck, it wouldn't even out-accelerate my 5100lb S-Class at triple digit speed....
e.g. a 1992 Mercedes 500E(315HP/354lb-ft) can do 0-60 around 6 sec flat, 1/4 in about 14.4 sec stock w/ASR(can't not be disabled)... with ASR disabled(aftermarket switch from Renntech), it can do 0-60 in low 5's, 1/4 mile in about 14-flat or even into high 13's.... yet it has MUCH lower HP/displacement, so does that make it a less of a engine compare to 300ZX TT/Stealth R/T TT/Supra TT engines??? How do you know 2.7T is not as advance as 300ZX TT/Stealth TT/Supra TT engines??
4. One car that would kill an E46 M3, or at least run side-by-side with M3 w/out a sweat, and is stock?? C32/SLK32 AMG...... under normal condition, with an average driver, my bet is on C32/SLK32 AMG..... M3 has superior handling, that, I have to admit.... but C32/SLK32 AMG would take the edge in terms of acceleration....keep in mind that MB's ESP/ASR can NOT be 100% disabled where DSC/ASR on BMW can..... and that's what really killed AMGs performance....
One thing I still haven't caught it, what do you drive again, MB-telecom???
Andy Kuo
01-26-2002, 01:17 AM
#56
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea man...C32 the fastest sedan in the world...
again...audi is just being humble for producing 250hp in their 2.7T engine...consider both turbo is just with a low 0.6bar of boost...imagine this engine will produce 400+hp with full boost
while those Supra TT and 300Zx has 1.0-1.2bar of boost for both turbos...that's y they can have 320hp...but it has a lot of turbo lag for such high boost...
so since audi is looking for refinement and luxury, they wouldn't put such high boost to thier luxury line except the hot rod RS4...which has 380hp as mentioned...
btw...250hp is more thna enough to keep up with most of the mucular cars around...if u are not satisfied, just go for a chip...an extra 50-80hp is waiting for u...
this engine has A LOT of potential like their 1.8T does...the stock 1.8T used to have only 150hp...but u can get 194hp with just a 1000 dollar chip with no other mod needed...the TT has 220hp with that engine..so u can see the 2.7T engine is just at its 70% of potential...since they are going to use this engine for around a decade...they would save it for the next model or a couple years later for the upgrade
again...audi is just being humble for producing 250hp in their 2.7T engine...consider both turbo is just with a low 0.6bar of boost...imagine this engine will produce 400+hp with full boost
while those Supra TT and 300Zx has 1.0-1.2bar of boost for both turbos...that's y they can have 320hp...but it has a lot of turbo lag for such high boost...
so since audi is looking for refinement and luxury, they wouldn't put such high boost to thier luxury line except the hot rod RS4...which has 380hp as mentioned...
btw...250hp is more thna enough to keep up with most of the mucular cars around...if u are not satisfied, just go for a chip...an extra 50-80hp is waiting for u...
this engine has A LOT of potential like their 1.8T does...the stock 1.8T used to have only 150hp...but u can get 194hp with just a 1000 dollar chip with no other mod needed...the TT has 220hp with that engine..so u can see the 2.7T engine is just at its 70% of potential...since they are going to use this engine for around a decade...they would save it for the next model or a couple years later for the upgrade
01-27-2002, 01:32 AM
#57
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Toronto
Age: 44
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did any of the other cars have their full torque output from 1800-4800 rpm? I don't think so.
I like the discreetness of the S4 b/c only the front grille and different wheels distinguish its exterior from its run of the mill, but highly desirable A4.
I like Mercedes for their engines. I find that manufacturers who design engines for F1/Indy/CART such as Toyota(Lexus), Honda(Acura), BMW and Mercedes often have the best, most bulletproof motors in the industry.
What's funny is, I don't understand why the Toyota Supra was pulled from the market, it was had once nice looking a$$ but the front headlights left a lot to be desired.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mlody
5G TLX (2015-2020)
85
12-04-2019 02:11 PM
Yumcha
Automotive News
4
09-15-2015 06:44 PM
