A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"gus" <martindoran@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:752c02d6.0307031429.79f0b385@posting.google.c om...
> Does anybody know how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6
> 1.8T SE Auto without spending too much money, as for this size of car
> more power is definately needed.
Then why did you buy it?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:752c02d6.0307031429.79f0b385@posting.google.c om...
> Does anybody know how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6
> 1.8T SE Auto without spending too much money, as for this size of car
> more power is definately needed.
Then why did you buy it?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought I'd post
it to
> > the group.
>
> Did you get the author's permission first?
Why does this matter?
> > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > even if they might not know all of the facts.
>
> USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> netiquette.
If it makes you happier, please do, however I suspect you'd be taking up
bandwidth.
> The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> questions.
>
> Start with www.google.com, and click on the web tab and do a search.
> If you do not get answers, click on the groups tab and search there.
> While you are there, use the search string "netiquette top posting".
/holds up hands to make a "W" shape/
Yeah, whatever, buddy.
> I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
qualified technician, to respond to a post? Usenet is about communication.
If you just tell people, "oh, use a search engine" to every query, what's
the point in having a DISCUSSION board, eh?
Or did that bit escape?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought I'd post
it to
> > the group.
>
> Did you get the author's permission first?
Why does this matter?
> > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > even if they might not know all of the facts.
>
> USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> netiquette.
If it makes you happier, please do, however I suspect you'd be taking up
bandwidth.
> The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> questions.
>
> Start with www.google.com, and click on the web tab and do a search.
> If you do not get answers, click on the groups tab and search there.
> While you are there, use the search string "netiquette top posting".
/holds up hands to make a "W" shape/
Yeah, whatever, buddy.
> I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
qualified technician, to respond to a post? Usenet is about communication.
If you just tell people, "oh, use a search engine" to every query, what's
the point in having a DISCUSSION board, eh?
Or did that bit escape?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> Did you get the author's permission first?
No.
> > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > even if they might not know all of the facts.
>
> USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> netiquette.
Excuse me, but when did I top-post? I've just double checked every post
I've made to this thread, and not in a single one of them have I top-posted.
If you actually bothered to properly read the message you reply to, it was
not top-posted - the text at the top was an introduction to the forwarded
email below it. You know, in a logical order.
> The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> questions.
<snip>
I'm perfectly well aware on how to search archives, but as Dervman
mentioned, the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things. I'm
sorry if you've got a problem with that. Fair enough though - I accept it
can be a bit irritating if something has come up literally hundreds of times
before, but there are polite ways of saying things.
> I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
Well yes, I knew little about it. But I also knew that another 1.8T engine
was used in another car, and that the aforementioned engine had a fair bit
more power than 150bhp. Hence my comparison.
Peter
No.
> > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > even if they might not know all of the facts.
>
> USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> netiquette.
Excuse me, but when did I top-post? I've just double checked every post
I've made to this thread, and not in a single one of them have I top-posted.
If you actually bothered to properly read the message you reply to, it was
not top-posted - the text at the top was an introduction to the forwarded
email below it. You know, in a logical order.
> The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> questions.
<snip>
I'm perfectly well aware on how to search archives, but as Dervman
mentioned, the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things. I'm
sorry if you've got a problem with that. Fair enough though - I accept it
can be a bit irritating if something has come up literally hundreds of times
before, but there are polite ways of saying things.
> I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
Well yes, I knew little about it. But I also knew that another 1.8T engine
was used in another car, and that the aforementioned engine had a fair bit
more power than 150bhp. Hence my comparison.
Peter
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<99FPa.9078$nP.1212@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > Did you get the author's permission first?
>
> No.
Why not?
> > > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > > even if they might not know all of the facts.
> >
> > USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> > include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> > to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> > would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> > netiquette.
>
> Excuse me, but when did I top-post?
You didn't - I mis-read the post due to some funky quoting marks. My
apologies.
> > The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> > 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> > forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> > questions.
> <snip>
>
> I'm perfectly well aware on how to search archives, but as Dervman
> mentioned, the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.
Indeed it is. But if you do not have knowledge on the subject that
you are discussing, why bother? It's just useless chatter.
> I'm
> sorry if you've got a problem with that.
I don't have any problems with discussion (nice straw man argument,
however.) I do have a problem with the spouting of opinion disguised
as fact. Or offering technical answers to technical questions without
one shred of expertise or knowledge.
> Fair enough though - I accept it
> can be a bit irritating if something has come up literally hundreds of times
> before, but there are polite ways of saying things.
From someone posting private e-mail without permission in public, a
discussion of politeness is hilariously ironic.
> > I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
>
> Well yes, I knew little about it. But I also knew that another 1.8T engine
> was used in another car, and that the aforementioned engine had a fair bit
> more power than 150bhp. Hence my comparison.
The plain fact is that over 400HP can be wrung out of that engine.
It's just a matter of how much of the guts and accessories you wish to
change. And how fast you want to go. It's not a simple job to go
from 150 to 225. From 150 to 210 is much less painful and expensive,
however. www.apr.com
Spider
> > Did you get the author's permission first?
>
> No.
Why not?
> > > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas,
> > > even if they might not know all of the facts.
> >
> > USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions
> > include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how
> > to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you
> > would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with
> > netiquette.
>
> Excuse me, but when did I top-post?
You didn't - I mis-read the post due to some funky quoting marks. My
apologies.
> > The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> > 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> > forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> > questions.
> <snip>
>
> I'm perfectly well aware on how to search archives, but as Dervman
> mentioned, the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.
Indeed it is. But if you do not have knowledge on the subject that
you are discussing, why bother? It's just useless chatter.
> I'm
> sorry if you've got a problem with that.
I don't have any problems with discussion (nice straw man argument,
however.) I do have a problem with the spouting of opinion disguised
as fact. Or offering technical answers to technical questions without
one shred of expertise or knowledge.
> Fair enough though - I accept it
> can be a bit irritating if something has come up literally hundreds of times
> before, but there are polite ways of saying things.
From someone posting private e-mail without permission in public, a
discussion of politeness is hilariously ironic.
> > I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
>
> Well yes, I knew little about it. But I also knew that another 1.8T engine
> was used in another car, and that the aforementioned engine had a fair bit
> more power than 150bhp. Hence my comparison.
The plain fact is that over 400HP can be wrung out of that engine.
It's just a matter of how much of the guts and accessories you wish to
change. And how fast you want to go. It's not a simple job to go
from 150 to 225. From 150 to 210 is much less painful and expensive,
however. www.apr.com
Spider
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought I'd
> post
> it to
> > > > > the group.
> > > >
> > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > >
> > > Why does this matter?
> >
> > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
>
> It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
Posting private e-mail is one of the greater "sins" in USENET. But
according to you, it should just be free-for-all. Where is the value
in that?
> Did I ask you to jump
> on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
only one. Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
exercizing your hyperbole skills.
> > > > > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > > > > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and
> ideas,
> > > > > even if they might not know all of the facts.
> > > > The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> > > > 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> > > > forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> > > > questions.
>
> > > > I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> > > > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
> > >
> > > So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
> > > qualified technician, to respond to a post?
> >
> > When one offers technical answers to technical questions, it would be
> > nice if the person actually had FACTS, instead of pulling stuff out of
> > thin air.
>
> So, what you're saying is that everybody should shut up unless they are
> qualified to your standards to produce facts that you agree with?
I suggest you read what I wrote, instead of inventing something. Read
it again carefully.
> > > Usenet is about communication.
> >
> > Indeed. Communication is a wonderful thing, but why someone without
> > technical expertise would answer a technical question is still causing
> > me to scratch my head.
>
> Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
One that makes sense? One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
interaction that isn't worth the time spent. The end result of that
view is a very quiet USENET.
> > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge on
> > the subject would offer an opinion.
>
> Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
"how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
> > If you don't know the right
> > answer, how about just shutting up, or going and finding the right
> > answer? I guess they don't call it USELESSNET for nothing...
>
> Nobody puts disclaimers on their posts, but perhaps they should report that
> the information contained within the post may or may not be accurate, but
> the author cannot be held responsible for any individual taking action and
> causing harm or damage, directly or indirectly, from the contents of the
> post?
Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
> Would that make you happy?
What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
posed.
Spider
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought I'd
> post
> it to
> > > > > the group.
> > > >
> > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > >
> > > Why does this matter?
> >
> > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
>
> It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
Posting private e-mail is one of the greater "sins" in USENET. But
according to you, it should just be free-for-all. Where is the value
in that?
> Did I ask you to jump
> on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
only one. Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
exercizing your hyperbole skills.
> > > > > Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for
> > > > > experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and
> ideas,
> > > > > even if they might not know all of the facts.
> > > > The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the
> > > > 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this
> > > > forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to
> > > > questions.
>
> > > > I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> > > > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
> > >
> > > So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
> > > qualified technician, to respond to a post?
> >
> > When one offers technical answers to technical questions, it would be
> > nice if the person actually had FACTS, instead of pulling stuff out of
> > thin air.
>
> So, what you're saying is that everybody should shut up unless they are
> qualified to your standards to produce facts that you agree with?
I suggest you read what I wrote, instead of inventing something. Read
it again carefully.
> > > Usenet is about communication.
> >
> > Indeed. Communication is a wonderful thing, but why someone without
> > technical expertise would answer a technical question is still causing
> > me to scratch my head.
>
> Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
One that makes sense? One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
interaction that isn't worth the time spent. The end result of that
view is a very quiet USENET.
> > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge on
> > the subject would offer an opinion.
>
> Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
"how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
> > If you don't know the right
> > answer, how about just shutting up, or going and finding the right
> > answer? I guess they don't call it USELESSNET for nothing...
>
> Nobody puts disclaimers on their posts, but perhaps they should report that
> the information contained within the post may or may not be accurate, but
> the author cannot be held responsible for any individual taking action and
> causing harm or damage, directly or indirectly, from the contents of the
> post?
Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
> Would that make you happy?
What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
posed.
Spider
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> > > I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something
> > > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
> >
> > So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
> > qualified technician, to respond to a post?
>
> When one offers technical answers to technical questions, it would be
> nice if the person actually had FACTS, instead of pulling stuff out of
> thin air.
It was called a suggestion. Not a technical answer. And since when has
"how can I get more bhp from my car" been a technical question?
Peter
> > > that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
> >
> > So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a
> > qualified technician, to respond to a post?
>
> When one offers technical answers to technical questions, it would be
> nice if the person actually had FACTS, instead of pulling stuff out of
> thin air.
It was called a suggestion. Not a technical answer. And since when has
"how can I get more bhp from my car" been a technical question?
Peter
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
Can I just take a bit of time out to reply to these first ten lines of
unsnipped headers? This was at the top of a post from you, who criticised
me for top-posting (which I did not) and general lack of netiquette. This
makes you a complete hypocrite, so if you're posting up unneccessary advice
to others, could you please take some of it yourself?
> So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
> Posting private e-mail is one of the greater "sins" in USENET. But
> according to you, it should just be free-for-all. Where is the value
> in that?
And just randomly emailing someone and insulting them is perfectly ok, I
suppose........
> Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
Yes, you're right. The original question was "Does anybody know how I can
improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without spending too
much money, as for this size of car more power is definately needed".
That doesn't look like a desperately technical question to me.
> Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
The right answer would be to get a car with more power in the first place.
A car of that size with a 150bhp turbo engine (with the inevitable lag)
bolted to an auto gearbox, is not going to be quick. If the OP wants more
power, then the best answer would not be to about with his current car
(which would at best only produce slight improvements), but to get a more
powerful version. There are plenty available.
Peter
news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
Can I just take a bit of time out to reply to these first ten lines of
unsnipped headers? This was at the top of a post from you, who criticised
me for top-posting (which I did not) and general lack of netiquette. This
makes you a complete hypocrite, so if you're posting up unneccessary advice
to others, could you please take some of it yourself?
> So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
> Posting private e-mail is one of the greater "sins" in USENET. But
> according to you, it should just be free-for-all. Where is the value
> in that?
And just randomly emailing someone and insulting them is perfectly ok, I
suppose........
> Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
Yes, you're right. The original question was "Does anybody know how I can
improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without spending too
much money, as for this size of car more power is definately needed".
That doesn't look like a desperately technical question to me.
> Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
The right answer would be to get a car with more power in the first place.
A car of that size with a 150bhp turbo engine (with the inevitable lag)
bolted to an auto gearbox, is not going to be quick. If the OP wants more
power, then the best answer would not be to about with his current car
(which would at best only produce slight improvements), but to get a more
powerful version. There are plenty available.
Peter
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave before
> replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake) 100,000
> kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000
kilometres
> and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at
about
> the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
Talking of that, I'm yet to get one clear answer about the cambelt interval
on my Fiesta, but I'll discuss that over on uk.rec.cars.maintenance, where
there are less *******.
Well, and the fact that it's quite blatantly OT to talk about Fords on an
Audi group!
Peter
> replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake) 100,000
> kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000
kilometres
> and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at
about
> the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
Talking of that, I'm yet to get one clear answer about the cambelt interval
on my Fiesta, but I'll discuss that over on uk.rec.cars.maintenance, where
there are less *******.
Well, and the fact that it's quite blatantly OT to talk about Fords on an
Audi group!
Peter
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf1ap5$a8651$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought
> I'd
> > > post
> > > it to
> > > > > > > the group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why does this matter?
> > > >
> > > > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
> > >
> > > It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
> >
> > So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
>
> You're putting words into my post.
Your reading skills are in question.
You will notice that a question was asked, and I notice that you did
not answer.
> > > Did I ask you to jump
> > > on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
> >
> > What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
> > have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
> > only one.
>
> If somebody has sent something to me, I reserve the right to tell all and
> sundry about it, yes.
Then you are an ***.
> > Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
> > inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
> > exercizing your hyperbole skills.
>
> /chuckles/
I thought as much.
> > >
> > > Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
> >
> > One that makes sense?
>
> No.
Wrong again. I suppose it's fun to just have a ****-take, but your
proposal makes much less sense than mine.
> > One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
> > if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
> > interaction that isn't worth the time spent.
>
> I happen to value grey or fuzzy opinions.
That's wonderful. I do not share your values. And they do nothing to
enlighten on technical matters.
> When I ask a question about, hmm,
> okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and fast answer.
Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer." A
data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
distinguish between the two.
> There is no one specific correct answer.
But that does not imply anywhere that the data points are reduced to
mere opinion.
> How do you get the VW 1.8 turbo
> from 150 PS up to 225 PS? There's more than one way, or did that escape
> you?
The question is not how *I* get from 150 -> 225. It's how *Audi* gets
there. And there is only one way. How others might do it - well,
that's really not under discussion.
What does escape me is how the answer "a bigger turbo and a head
gasket" is meaningful in any way, other than just shuttling electrons
around.
> No such thing as a black and white answer with regard to these things.
Really? How many ways does Audi make the 1.8T 225HP?
> > The end result of that
> > view is a very quiet USENET.
> >
> > > > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge on
> > > > the subject would offer an opinion.
> > >
> > > Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
> >
> > Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> > answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> > not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> > THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> > "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> > bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> > question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
>
> To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave before
> replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake) 100,000
> kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000 kilometres
> and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at about
> the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
There is a TSB from Audi that gives a lower number than the manual.
IIRC, it's about 75k km. *That* would be the correct answer. The
others would be, uhhh, "not correct."
> Agreed in that there are known differences between two products, but as to
> how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same power and torque
> as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise method.
Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> > Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> > Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
>
> This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Which brings me back to my question for you, up at the top of this
post.
> > > Would that make you happy?
> >
> > What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
> > posed.
>
> My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under powered, why
> buy it in the first place?"
Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly as
worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
> I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your opinion of how
> Usenet should be "run."
100% strawman BS.
I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor, put-upon
fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the info.
Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
Spider
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought
> I'd
> > > post
> > > it to
> > > > > > > the group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why does this matter?
> > > >
> > > > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
> > >
> > > It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
> >
> > So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
>
> You're putting words into my post.
Your reading skills are in question.
You will notice that a question was asked, and I notice that you did
not answer.
> > > Did I ask you to jump
> > > on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
> >
> > What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
> > have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
> > only one.
>
> If somebody has sent something to me, I reserve the right to tell all and
> sundry about it, yes.
Then you are an ***.
> > Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
> > inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
> > exercizing your hyperbole skills.
>
> /chuckles/
I thought as much.
> > >
> > > Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
> >
> > One that makes sense?
>
> No.
Wrong again. I suppose it's fun to just have a ****-take, but your
proposal makes much less sense than mine.
> > One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
> > if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
> > interaction that isn't worth the time spent.
>
> I happen to value grey or fuzzy opinions.
That's wonderful. I do not share your values. And they do nothing to
enlighten on technical matters.
> When I ask a question about, hmm,
> okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and fast answer.
Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer." A
data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
distinguish between the two.
> There is no one specific correct answer.
But that does not imply anywhere that the data points are reduced to
mere opinion.
> How do you get the VW 1.8 turbo
> from 150 PS up to 225 PS? There's more than one way, or did that escape
> you?
The question is not how *I* get from 150 -> 225. It's how *Audi* gets
there. And there is only one way. How others might do it - well,
that's really not under discussion.
What does escape me is how the answer "a bigger turbo and a head
gasket" is meaningful in any way, other than just shuttling electrons
around.
> No such thing as a black and white answer with regard to these things.
Really? How many ways does Audi make the 1.8T 225HP?
> > The end result of that
> > view is a very quiet USENET.
> >
> > > > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge on
> > > > the subject would offer an opinion.
> > >
> > > Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
> >
> > Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> > answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> > not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> > THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> > "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> > bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> > question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
>
> To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave before
> replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake) 100,000
> kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000 kilometres
> and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at about
> the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
There is a TSB from Audi that gives a lower number than the manual.
IIRC, it's about 75k km. *That* would be the correct answer. The
others would be, uhhh, "not correct."
> Agreed in that there are known differences between two products, but as to
> how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same power and torque
> as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise method.
Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> > Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> > Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
>
> This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Which brings me back to my question for you, up at the top of this
post.
> > > Would that make you happy?
> >
> > What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
> > posed.
>
> My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under powered, why
> buy it in the first place?"
Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly as
worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
> I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your opinion of how
> Usenet should be "run."
100% strawman BS.
I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor, put-upon
fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the info.
Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
Spider
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307151548.2f437cb7@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf1ap5$a8651$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just
thought
> > I'd
> > > > post
> > > > it to
> > > > > > > > the group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does this matter?
> > > > >
> > > > > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
> > > >
> > > > It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
> > >
> > > So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
> >
> > You're putting words into my post.
>
> Your reading skills are in question.
>
> You will notice that a question was asked, and I notice that you did
> not answer.
You and I both are ignoring questions.
> > > > Did I ask you to jump
> > > > on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
> > >
> > > What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
> > > have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
> > > only one.
> >
> > If somebody has sent something to me, I reserve the right to tell all
and
> > sundry about it, yes.
>
> Then you are an ***.
Your opinion and not a fact.
> > > Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
> > > inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
> > > exercizing your hyperbole skills.
> >
> > /chuckles/
>
> I thought as much.
>
> > > >
> > > > Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
> > >
> > > One that makes sense?
> >
> > No.
>
> Wrong again. I suppose it's fun to just have a ****-take, but your
> proposal makes much less sense than mine.
>
> > > One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
> > > if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
> > > interaction that isn't worth the time spent.
> >
> > I happen to value grey or fuzzy opinions.
>
> That's wonderful. I do not share your values. And they do nothing to
> enlighten on technical matters.
So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> > When I ask a question about, hmm,
> > okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and fast
answer.
>
> Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer." A
> data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
> opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
> distinguish between the two.
So what you're saying is that, when it comes to something like this, there
are a great many facts. The brake pad question cannot be answered without
opinions. If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> > There is no one specific correct answer.
>
> But that does not imply anywhere that the data points are reduced to
> mere opinion.
> > How do you get the VW 1.8 turbo
> > from 150 PS up to 225 PS? There's more than one way, or did that escape
> > you?
>
> The question is not how *I* get from 150 -> 225. It's how *Audi* gets
> there. And there is only one way. How others might do it - well,
> that's really not under discussion.
Errrrr, no, did you read the original post, which said, "Does anybody know
how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without
spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is definately
needed."
Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> What does escape me is how the answer "a bigger turbo and a head
> gasket" is meaningful in any way, other than just shuttling electrons
> around.
>
> > No such thing as a black and white answer with regard to these things.
>
> Really? How many ways does Audi make the 1.8T 225HP?
Read on . . .
> > > The end result of that
> > > view is a very quiet USENET.
> > >
> > > > > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge
on
> > > > > the subject would offer an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
> > >
> > > Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> > > answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> > > not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> > > THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> > > "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> > > bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> > > question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
> >
> > To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave
before
> > replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake)
100,000
> > kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000
kilometres
> > and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at
about
> > the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
>
> There is a TSB from Audi that gives a lower number than the manual.
> IIRC, it's about 75k km. *That* would be the correct answer. The
> others would be, uhhh, "not correct."
T'others would be opinions on known experience.
So what's the difference between a belt change and new brake pads? One has
more obvious wear. If either breaks, it's probably bad news for the car.
> > Agreed in that there are known differences between two products, but as
to
> > how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same power and
torque
> > as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise method.
>
> Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
> motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
>
> Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
>
> And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
So you're now saying that replacing the turbocharged for a larger variant in
the family wouldn't up the poke from 150 to 225 PS, or thereabouts.
Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem to
be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> > > Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> > > Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
> >
> > This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
>
> Which brings me back to my question for you, up at the top of this
> post.
>
> > > > Would that make you happy?
> > >
> > > What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
> > > posed.
> >
> > My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under powered,
why
> > buy it in the first place?"
>
> Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly as
> worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
If you want a 300 PS car, buying a 150 PS and then fannying about with it to
get it up to the equivalent* is almost certainly going to cost you more than
simply going out and buying the 300 PS car.
*and I don't just mean the engine.
/sarcasm/ Surely, somebody as sophisticated and intelligent as you would
understand this?
> > I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> > original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your opinion of
how
> > Usenet should be "run."
>
> 100% strawman BS.
>
> I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
> bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor, put-upon
> fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the info.
>
> Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
I'm almost through. I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:73da2590.0307151548.2f437cb7@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf1ap5$a8651$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307150748.63d58754@posting.google.c om...
> > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bf04lq$8vh00$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:73da2590.0307141548.34656722@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ben1ac$74rfd$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:73da2590.0307101449.21f11ac7@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<cx1Pa.6234$ju6.113507@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > > This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just
thought
> > I'd
> > > > post
> > > > it to
> > > > > > > > the group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does this matter?
> > > > >
> > > > > Courtesy. Perhaps you've not heard of it?
> > > >
> > > > It's lacking from all comers here, don't forget this.
> > >
> > > So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable?
> >
> > You're putting words into my post.
>
> Your reading skills are in question.
>
> You will notice that a question was asked, and I notice that you did
> not answer.
You and I both are ignoring questions.
> > > > Did I ask you to jump
> > > > on my post and pick it apart? Did you ask me first?
> > >
> > > What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who
> > > have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and
> > > only one.
> >
> > If somebody has sent something to me, I reserve the right to tell all
and
> > sundry about it, yes.
>
> Then you are an ***.
Your opinion and not a fact.
> > > Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your
> > > inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are
> > > exercizing your hyperbole skills.
> >
> > /chuckles/
>
> I thought as much.
>
> > > >
> > > > Clearly, you live in a strange part of the world!
> > >
> > > One that makes sense?
> >
> > No.
>
> Wrong again. I suppose it's fun to just have a ****-take, but your
> proposal makes much less sense than mine.
>
> > > One where USENET holds some sort of value, even
> > > if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless
> > > interaction that isn't worth the time spent.
> >
> > I happen to value grey or fuzzy opinions.
>
> That's wonderful. I do not share your values. And they do nothing to
> enlighten on technical matters.
So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> > When I ask a question about, hmm,
> > okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and fast
answer.
>
> Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer." A
> data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
> opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
> distinguish between the two.
So what you're saying is that, when it comes to something like this, there
are a great many facts. The brake pad question cannot be answered without
opinions. If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> > There is no one specific correct answer.
>
> But that does not imply anywhere that the data points are reduced to
> mere opinion.
> > How do you get the VW 1.8 turbo
> > from 150 PS up to 225 PS? There's more than one way, or did that escape
> > you?
>
> The question is not how *I* get from 150 -> 225. It's how *Audi* gets
> there. And there is only one way. How others might do it - well,
> that's really not under discussion.
Errrrr, no, did you read the original post, which said, "Does anybody know
how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without
spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is definately
needed."
Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> What does escape me is how the answer "a bigger turbo and a head
> gasket" is meaningful in any way, other than just shuttling electrons
> around.
>
> > No such thing as a black and white answer with regard to these things.
>
> Really? How many ways does Audi make the 1.8T 225HP?
Read on . . .
> > > The end result of that
> > > view is a very quiet USENET.
> > >
> > > > > What still escapes is why people who have no technical knowledge
on
> > > > > the subject would offer an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Bingo. You said the magic word. "Opinion."
> > >
> > > Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete
> > > answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really
> > > not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong.
> > > THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked
> > > "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a
> > > bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your
> > > question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.
> >
> > To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave
before
> > replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake)
100,000
> > kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000
kilometres
> > and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at
about
> > the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
>
> There is a TSB from Audi that gives a lower number than the manual.
> IIRC, it's about 75k km. *That* would be the correct answer. The
> others would be, uhhh, "not correct."
T'others would be opinions on known experience.
So what's the difference between a belt change and new brake pads? One has
more obvious wear. If either breaks, it's probably bad news for the car.
> > Agreed in that there are known differences between two products, but as
to
> > how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same power and
torque
> > as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise method.
>
> Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
> motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
>
> Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
>
> And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
So you're now saying that replacing the turbocharged for a larger variant in
the family wouldn't up the poke from 150 to 225 PS, or thereabouts.
Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem to
be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> > > Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead.
> > > Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.
> >
> > This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
>
> Which brings me back to my question for you, up at the top of this
> post.
>
> > > > Would that make you happy?
> > >
> > > What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question
> > > posed.
> >
> > My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under powered,
why
> > buy it in the first place?"
>
> Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly as
> worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
If you want a 300 PS car, buying a 150 PS and then fannying about with it to
get it up to the equivalent* is almost certainly going to cost you more than
simply going out and buying the 300 PS car.
*and I don't just mean the engine.
/sarcasm/ Surely, somebody as sophisticated and intelligent as you would
understand this?
> > I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> > original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your opinion of
how
> > Usenet should be "run."
>
> 100% strawman BS.
>
> I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
> bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor, put-upon
> fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the info.
>
> Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
I'm almost through. I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com