A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> 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.
I believe there was a slight typo there, Dervy!
Peter
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.
I believe there was a slight typo there, Dervy!
Peter
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<rnZQa.9869$ju6.193789@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit more, that'd be a
> bit less bandwidth wasted.
Uhhh, now you're just talking out of your ***. Quoting attributions
are nice to follow who said what.
Go ahead and find otherwise - I'm always willing to admit when I am
mistaken.
> > 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
>
> Well instead of wasting all your time picking my posts to bits, why didn't
> you put something like that up to start with.
Because you were:
1.) An idiot for posting junk that's not true,
2.) an *** for posting private e-mail.
The plain fact is that *you* should have posted the URL, if it were
help that you wished to give.
Spider
> Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit more, that'd be a
> bit less bandwidth wasted.
Uhhh, now you're just talking out of your ***. Quoting attributions
are nice to follow who said what.
Go ahead and find otherwise - I'm always willing to admit when I am
mistaken.
> > 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
>
> Well instead of wasting all your time picking my posts to bits, why didn't
> you put something like that up to start with.
Because you were:
1.) An idiot for posting junk that's not true,
2.) an *** for posting private e-mail.
The plain fact is that *you* should have posted the URL, if it were
help that you wished to give.
Spider
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<HfZQa.9859$ju6.193763@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> "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?
You can, but you'd be wrong (again.) Quoting without attribution
sucks just as bad as not trimming posts properly. Show me a
netiquette FAQ that suggests quoting without attribution.
> > 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........
No, I don't think it is (but another nice strawman.)
How do two wrongs make a right?
> > 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".
I have not, nor am not, talking about the original question. I am
talking about your half-baked response. It's a nice attempt to steer
the discussion away, but I don't fall for those tactics.
> > 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.
I did not notice you posting that opinion. But another nice try at
diversion.
> 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.
Oh, indeed.
> 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.
Then, the suggestion to get a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" was
what?
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>...
>
> Can I just take a bit of time out to reply to these first ten lines of
> unsnipped headers?
You can, but you'd be wrong (again.) Quoting without attribution
sucks just as bad as not trimming posts properly. Show me a
netiquette FAQ that suggests quoting without attribution.
> > 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........
No, I don't think it is (but another nice strawman.)
How do two wrongs make a right?
> > 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".
I have not, nor am not, talking about the original question. I am
talking about your half-baked response. It's a nice attempt to steer
the discussion away, but I don't fall for those tactics.
> > 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.
I did not notice you posting that opinion. But another nice try at
diversion.
> 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.
Oh, indeed.
> 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.
Then, the suggestion to get a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" was
what?
Spider
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf2pka$aao9t$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:PhZQa.9863$ju6.192882@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > 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!
>
>
> Heh; I'm sure it's also off topic to discuss how one should behave in
> Usenet!
Obviously, you are having difficulty with the meaning of "alt.*"
Here's a link for you to try:
www.google.com
Have fun.
Spider
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:PhZQa.9863$ju6.192882@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > To pounce on this one point. How many kilometres should you leave
> before
> > > replacing a given belt? A dealership may say (for arguments sake)
> 100,000
> > > kilometres. A salesman may say, "we've known them on for 150,000
> kilometres
> > > and no problems" but a mechanic may say, "I've known of three break at
> about
> > > the 75,000 km marker, so change them more often."
> >
> > Talking of that, I'm yet to get one clear answer about the cambelt
> interval
> > on my Fiesta, but I'll discuss that over on uk.rec.cars.maintenance, where
> > there are less *******.
> >
> > Well, and the fact that it's quite blatantly OT to talk about Fords on an
> > Audi group!
>
>
> Heh; I'm sure it's also off topic to discuss how one should behave in
> Usenet!
Obviously, you are having difficulty with the meaning of "alt.*"
Here's a link for you to try:
www.google.com
Have fun.
Spider
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<rnZQa.9869$ju6.193789@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because I didn't ask. Next.......
Nice circular reasoning.
You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
"bigger turbo and head gasket."
> > > > 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.
>
> Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit more, that'd be a
> bit less bandwidth wasted.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a good
play. Keep it up.
> > > 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 didn't have zero knowledge on the subject. I was aware that there was
> another 1.8T engine produced by Audi/VW that had 225bhp. That is some
> knowledge.
Nice weasel. You have zero knowledge as to the differences between
the two. Being pedantic doesn't help you make your point.
> > > 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.
>
> It wasn't a technical question.
You offered a technical solution that was incorrect. There is no
escaping the fact that you spouted some blather for some unknown
reason.
> Mine wasn't a techincal answer.
Uhhh, sure.
> It wasn't
> an opinion. It was a suggestion.
That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
be helpful.
> > > 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.
>
> Ok, displaying his email address was wrong, and I apologise for that, but if
> someone sends me an email full of nothing but insults and abuse, it's mine
> do what the I like with.
Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
just boggles my mind.
> > > 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
>
> Well instead of wasting all your time picking my posts to bits, why didn't
> you put something like that up to start with.
Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
Besides, it's my time to waste. I suggest that if you want to offer
help, at least offer something of value.
Spider
> > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because I didn't ask. Next.......
Nice circular reasoning.
You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
"bigger turbo and head gasket."
> > > > 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.
>
> Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit more, that'd be a
> bit less bandwidth wasted.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a good
play. Keep it up.
> > > 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 didn't have zero knowledge on the subject. I was aware that there was
> another 1.8T engine produced by Audi/VW that had 225bhp. That is some
> knowledge.
Nice weasel. You have zero knowledge as to the differences between
the two. Being pedantic doesn't help you make your point.
> > > 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.
>
> It wasn't a technical question.
You offered a technical solution that was incorrect. There is no
escaping the fact that you spouted some blather for some unknown
reason.
> Mine wasn't a techincal answer.
Uhhh, sure.
> It wasn't
> an opinion. It was a suggestion.
That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
be helpful.
> > > 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.
>
> Ok, displaying his email address was wrong, and I apologise for that, but if
> someone sends me an email full of nothing but insults and abuse, it's mine
> do what the I like with.
Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
just boggles my mind.
> > > 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
>
> Well instead of wasting all your time picking my posts to bits, why didn't
> you put something like that up to start with.
Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
Besides, it's my time to waste. I suggest that if you want to offer
help, at least offer something of value.
Spider
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf2pkb$aao9t$2@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307151548.2f437cb7@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf1ap5$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.
Hardly. Point out where I am ignoring anything but rhetorical
questions.
You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
comers is good and acceptable?
> > > > > 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.
So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
therefore, accept is as fact.
> > > > 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?
In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
are indeed 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.
Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
points generated may have very little value from person to person.
That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
limited value.
> The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> opinions.
Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
What are the other factors? That "fact" is correct, but the other
part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
> > > 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."
I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
gasket." Hilariously wrong.
> Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
discussing, or would you like to start a new thread about green
balloons?
> > 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 . . .
>
> > > > > 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.
Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> 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.
The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
brake wear are parallel in what way?
> > > 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.
All by itself? Probably not.
> Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem to
> be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
> > > 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.
And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
and a head gasket?"
Not one damn thing, of course.
One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
-> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
> > > 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.
Well, it's been fun playing with you.
> I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
As long as it takes.
> Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
for me, hmmm?
Spider
> "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.
Hardly. Point out where I am ignoring anything but rhetorical
questions.
You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
comers is good and acceptable?
> > > > > 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.
So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
therefore, accept is as fact.
> > > > 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?
In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
are indeed 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.
Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
points generated may have very little value from person to person.
That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
limited value.
> The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> opinions.
Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
What are the other factors? That "fact" is correct, but the other
part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
> > > 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."
I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
gasket." Hilariously wrong.
> Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
discussing, or would you like to start a new thread about green
balloons?
> > 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 . . .
>
> > > > > 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.
Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> 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.
The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
brake wear are parallel in what way?
> > > 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.
All by itself? Probably not.
> Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem to
> be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
> > > 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.
And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
and a head gasket?"
Not one damn thing, of course.
One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
-> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
> > > 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.
Well, it's been fun playing with you.
> I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
As long as it takes.
> Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
for me, hmmm?
Spider
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Because I didn't ask. Next.......
>
> Nice circular reasoning.
>
> You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
> an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
> "bigger turbo and head gasket."
Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email. And
regarding my suggestion of the possibility that a 150 motor could be made a
225 with a bigger turbo and uprated head gasket wasn't too far off the mark,
as you yourself said that basic mods like this could get it up to 210.
Astravanman > > Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit
more, that'd be a
Astravanman > > bit less bandwidth wasted.
>
Spider > Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
Spider > rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a
good
Spider > play. Keep it up.
Yes, but just a big load of headers at the top only serves to confuse
matters, neccessitating the need to scroll up and down to keep on reminding
oneself of who posted what. The ideal way is to do what I've done above,
but most of the time it isn't neccessary, as a lot of the time replies are
just between two posters, and even if not, it's not always important who
exactly posted each comment - it's mainly the comment itself (and the
replies to it) that are of more importance.
> > It wasn't
> > an opinion. It was a suggestion.
>
> That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
> makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
> be helpful.
It does actually. I like to help people.
> Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
> would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
> just boggles my mind.
Jeez.......pot, kettle, black. There's nothing like making an issue out of
something so bloody minor.
> Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
> learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
Ah, thanks - it's nice to know you care so much.
Peter
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Because I didn't ask. Next.......
>
> Nice circular reasoning.
>
> You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
> an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
> "bigger turbo and head gasket."
Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email. And
regarding my suggestion of the possibility that a 150 motor could be made a
225 with a bigger turbo and uprated head gasket wasn't too far off the mark,
as you yourself said that basic mods like this could get it up to 210.
Astravanman > > Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit
more, that'd be a
Astravanman > > bit less bandwidth wasted.
>
Spider > Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
Spider > rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a
good
Spider > play. Keep it up.
Yes, but just a big load of headers at the top only serves to confuse
matters, neccessitating the need to scroll up and down to keep on reminding
oneself of who posted what. The ideal way is to do what I've done above,
but most of the time it isn't neccessary, as a lot of the time replies are
just between two posters, and even if not, it's not always important who
exactly posted each comment - it's mainly the comment itself (and the
replies to it) that are of more importance.
> > It wasn't
> > an opinion. It was a suggestion.
>
> That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
> makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
> be helpful.
It does actually. I like to help people.
> Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
> would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
> just boggles my mind.
Jeez.......pot, kettle, black. There's nothing like making an issue out of
something so bloody minor.
> Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
> learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
Ah, thanks - it's nice to know you care so much.
Peter
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
Note: follow-up set to alt.autos.audi
> > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> >
> > It could be.
>
> Prove it.
So you're saying that putting a bigger turbocharger, with a higher boost
pressure, and an uprated head gasket, will *not* increase the power output
of an engine?
The mind boggles......
Peter
> > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> >
> > It could be.
>
> Prove it.
So you're saying that putting a bigger turbocharger, with a higher boost
pressure, and an uprated head gasket, will *not* increase the power output
of an engine?
The mind boggles......
Peter
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<hLiRa.10648$ju6.202547@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> Note: follow-up set to alt.autos.audi
>
> > > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> > >
> > > It could be.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> So you're saying that putting a bigger turbocharger, with a higher boost
> pressure, and an uprated head gasket, will *not* increase the power output
> of an engine?
So, to save face, you've stooped to putting words in my mouth. It's a
lovely straw man, but of course I never said any such thing.
"In addition to my other post, there surely must be a way to uprate
the
engine to 225bhp, as it's the same basic engineas the Audi TT, isn't
it.
I'd have thought a chip, and an uprated head gasket would be all
that's
needed, but I may be wrong."
You haven't the faintest idea of how to get to 225 from 150. No, a
turbo and head gasket alone WILL NOT SUFFICE.
Maybe you should just own up to the last five words of your statement
above, and just call it good, hmm?
> The mind boggles......
Indeed. It's been a long time since I have seen someone make such a
big fool of themselves in USENET.
Spider
> Note: follow-up set to alt.autos.audi
>
> > > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!
> > >
> > > It could be.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> So you're saying that putting a bigger turbocharger, with a higher boost
> pressure, and an uprated head gasket, will *not* increase the power output
> of an engine?
So, to save face, you've stooped to putting words in my mouth. It's a
lovely straw man, but of course I never said any such thing.
"In addition to my other post, there surely must be a way to uprate
the
engine to 225bhp, as it's the same basic engineas the Audi TT, isn't
it.
I'd have thought a chip, and an uprated head gasket would be all
that's
needed, but I may be wrong."
You haven't the faintest idea of how to get to 225 from 150. No, a
turbo and head gasket alone WILL NOT SUFFICE.
Maybe you should just own up to the last five words of your statement
above, and just call it good, hmm?
> The mind boggles......
Indeed. It's been a long time since I have seen someone make such a
big fool of themselves in USENET.
Spider
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf5e86$b0js9$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307161238.49c4312b@posting.google.c om...
> [snip]
[snipped]
> > You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
> >
> > The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
> > comers is good and acceptable?
I see you're having difficulty answering this very simple question. In
your hurry to appear witty and morally superior, I guess it must have
"slipped your mind."
> > > > Then you are an ***.
> > >
> > > Your opinion and not a fact.
> >
> > So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
> > therefore, accept is as fact.
>
> So you're basing your knowledge on insufficient facts? And accepting it?
Do I need to post those netiquette URLs for you? The ones that say
posting private e-mail is quite rude?
> > > So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> >
> > In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
> > are indeed wrong.
>
> We've barely discussed technical matters!
That is quite true. You have insisted on making it an argument about
who can post what where. My focus has been, and will continue to be,
Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of
the subject, BTW.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
> > points generated may have very little value from person to person.
> > That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
> > limited value.
>
> ROFL! You can twist and turn but you can't shake it.
Another nice non sequitur. You can't dispute the facts, I see.
> > > The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> > > opinions.
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> >
> > > If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> > > is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> >
> > What are the other factors?
>
> To name a few, how many cold start, how many long heat soaks the engine has,
> how it's drive, how long the donk spends at high revs (in other words, the
> total number of engine revolutions during the 75,000 kilometres).
Throttle opening (hard acceleration) etc., etc.
The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of
magnitude.
> > That "fact" is correct, but the other
> > part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
> > opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
>
> Baseless opinion?
Reading comprehension?
> > > 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."
> >
> > I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
> > a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
> > in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
> > gasket." Hilariously wrong.
>
> When you replied to me, you wrote about the facts of the matter, not the
> actual facts
I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you be more
explicit?
> > > Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> >
> > Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
> > discussing,
>
> I've spent most of my posts discussing "netiquette" with a net nanny
LOL. I guess when you've run out of things to say, an ad hominem
argument is your last solace. Bravo.
> the
> fact that we're talking about VW products does seem all rather irrelevant.
Since you are trying to take a stance of moral superiority, this
surprises you why?
> You seem full of your own self-importance.
You are nothing if not ironic. LOL!
> Perhaps you feel better after
> teaching these ruffians what it's all about?
Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my
place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
[snip]
> > Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
> > it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
> > brake wear are parallel in what way?
>
> Here's a clue: the car is for driving.
So you have no concrete answer. Yet above, you're whining about lack
of technical discussion. Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > All by itself? Probably not.
>
> Did I use the word, "just."
Ah, the losing side must always turn pedantic in the end. Notice I
never accused you of saying "just." Just to be clear.
> Being pedantic isn't going to get you out of a
> hole.
More irony. My favorite part of USENET.
> *sighs* I suppose I should say, "remapping the ECU, exchanging the
> turbocharger for a larger one, and leaving it at that" and would that make
> you feel better?
It might, if that's all it took. But it requires *more than that.*
Twist and turn at your leisure, but a "chip and a headgasket" (the
original claim made by Peter,) or a "turbo and a headgasket" will not
get you from 150 to 225. I'm sorry if those facts are uncomfortable.
Next time, maybe you should defend someone with a little more solid
footing? Just a "suggestion." LOL!
> So is it *impossible* to take the 1.8T-150 up to producing 225 PS by just a
> turbocharger. Course, the process would be much easier with an ECU remap.
> Ten a penny these days, heh.
A chip, a new turbo and a headgasket might, together, get you close.
The stock exhaust, I think, might cause problems. Heat increases in
the intake due to insufficient charge cooling might make it
impossible.
> > > Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem
> to
> > > be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> >
> > And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
> > last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
>
> Heh heh heh heh. My speciality isn't in wheezy VW 1.8s, as you may have
> guessed (or know, have you done any research). For this donk, I'd go down
> the tried and tested route of a water chargecooler, remap the ECU, and leave
> the turbocharger well alone. But ultimately, on something of this size,
> it's more hassle than it's worth and replacing the vehicle with a more
> powerful one is preferable. Slot the donk into a smaller car, where it's
> one of the upper engines, is a different argument.
Indeed. The A4 is more suited to 1.8T tuning, and even then, by the
time you can get S4 numbers, you have probably spent S4 money. All
the better to just get the S4, hmmm?
BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
as you might have guessed by now.
> > Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
>
> www.netnanny.org perhaps?
Humorous, in your puerile way...
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
> > suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
> > and a head gasket?"
>
> Did I make this suggestion? I did not.
You are de facto defending it. Now you are going to wash your hands
of the whole mess?
LOL!
> > Not one damn thing, of course.
>
> Actually, it's very relevant, take off your blinkers.
You have yet to show how. Please, enlighten me, O Learned One.
> > One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
> > -> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
> >
> > Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
>
> It can be done, of course, but at the expense of what gives the 1.8T-150
> it's appeal.
Agreed.
> The tunability is only because it has the turbocharger, as an
> engine the 20 valve 1.8 is rather . . . well . . . limited in appeal. You
> can tune just about any turbocharged engine and get good results without
> spending a lot of money. Going from 150 to 300 PS is fine as far as it
> goes, but the rest of the A6 car won't be up to it.
Agreed, again. A 1.8T with 300HP would be a driveability nightmare.
But that's not really what I have been posting about, now is it?
> That's relevant, unless you don't think it irresponsible to slap a 300 PS
> engine in a car built for 150 PS (and, no, don't give me that "it's an Audi
> waffle, the upper models have differences to cope with the extra power).
My issue has never been with the premise of the thread. You and I
both know it. Your side-issues aside, the desireability of this is
not of any issue, and has nothing at all to do with the technical
issue of getting the 150HP motor to 225HP. I realize that you wish to
focus on the desireability part, but that argument disappears quickly
because I happen to agree with you.
Any more red herrings you wish me to dismiss while we're here?
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, it's been fun playing with you.
>
> So do this for kicks?
Why else does one come to USENET, if not for discussion? I remember
someone said that to me once, but I just can't remember who it was...
> > > I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
> >
> > As long as it takes.
>
> We'll see who gets bored first, then.
I find your petty moralizing plenty tedious.
> > > Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
> >
> > Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
> > for me, hmmm?
>
> Right, nothing to do at work, patrol Usenet, heh heh heh.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that this is all I do. Too
bad that isn't true, hmmm?
> I try to be
> productive at work without distractions.
Oddly enough, I am productive at work, and this is not really a
distraction. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, I will certainly
not attempt to stop you.
Spider
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307161238.49c4312b@posting.google.c om...
> [snip]
[snipped]
> > You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
> >
> > The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
> > comers is good and acceptable?
I see you're having difficulty answering this very simple question. In
your hurry to appear witty and morally superior, I guess it must have
"slipped your mind."
> > > > Then you are an ***.
> > >
> > > Your opinion and not a fact.
> >
> > So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
> > therefore, accept is as fact.
>
> So you're basing your knowledge on insufficient facts? And accepting it?
Do I need to post those netiquette URLs for you? The ones that say
posting private e-mail is quite rude?
> > > So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> >
> > In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
> > are indeed wrong.
>
> We've barely discussed technical matters!
That is quite true. You have insisted on making it an argument about
who can post what where. My focus has been, and will continue to be,
Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of
the subject, BTW.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
> > points generated may have very little value from person to person.
> > That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
> > limited value.
>
> ROFL! You can twist and turn but you can't shake it.
Another nice non sequitur. You can't dispute the facts, I see.
> > > The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> > > opinions.
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> >
> > > If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> > > is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> >
> > What are the other factors?
>
> To name a few, how many cold start, how many long heat soaks the engine has,
> how it's drive, how long the donk spends at high revs (in other words, the
> total number of engine revolutions during the 75,000 kilometres).
Throttle opening (hard acceleration) etc., etc.
The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of
magnitude.
> > That "fact" is correct, but the other
> > part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
> > opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
>
> Baseless opinion?
Reading comprehension?
> > > 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."
> >
> > I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
> > a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
> > in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
> > gasket." Hilariously wrong.
>
> When you replied to me, you wrote about the facts of the matter, not the
> actual facts
I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you be more
explicit?
> > > Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> >
> > Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
> > discussing,
>
> I've spent most of my posts discussing "netiquette" with a net nanny
LOL. I guess when you've run out of things to say, an ad hominem
argument is your last solace. Bravo.
> the
> fact that we're talking about VW products does seem all rather irrelevant.
Since you are trying to take a stance of moral superiority, this
surprises you why?
> You seem full of your own self-importance.
You are nothing if not ironic. LOL!
> Perhaps you feel better after
> teaching these ruffians what it's all about?
Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my
place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
[snip]
> > Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
> > it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
> > brake wear are parallel in what way?
>
> Here's a clue: the car is for driving.
So you have no concrete answer. Yet above, you're whining about lack
of technical discussion. Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > All by itself? Probably not.
>
> Did I use the word, "just."
Ah, the losing side must always turn pedantic in the end. Notice I
never accused you of saying "just." Just to be clear.
> Being pedantic isn't going to get you out of a
> hole.
More irony. My favorite part of USENET.
> *sighs* I suppose I should say, "remapping the ECU, exchanging the
> turbocharger for a larger one, and leaving it at that" and would that make
> you feel better?
It might, if that's all it took. But it requires *more than that.*
Twist and turn at your leisure, but a "chip and a headgasket" (the
original claim made by Peter,) or a "turbo and a headgasket" will not
get you from 150 to 225. I'm sorry if those facts are uncomfortable.
Next time, maybe you should defend someone with a little more solid
footing? Just a "suggestion." LOL!
> So is it *impossible* to take the 1.8T-150 up to producing 225 PS by just a
> turbocharger. Course, the process would be much easier with an ECU remap.
> Ten a penny these days, heh.
A chip, a new turbo and a headgasket might, together, get you close.
The stock exhaust, I think, might cause problems. Heat increases in
the intake due to insufficient charge cooling might make it
impossible.
> > > Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem
> to
> > > be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> >
> > And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
> > last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
>
> Heh heh heh heh. My speciality isn't in wheezy VW 1.8s, as you may have
> guessed (or know, have you done any research). For this donk, I'd go down
> the tried and tested route of a water chargecooler, remap the ECU, and leave
> the turbocharger well alone. But ultimately, on something of this size,
> it's more hassle than it's worth and replacing the vehicle with a more
> powerful one is preferable. Slot the donk into a smaller car, where it's
> one of the upper engines, is a different argument.
Indeed. The A4 is more suited to 1.8T tuning, and even then, by the
time you can get S4 numbers, you have probably spent S4 money. All
the better to just get the S4, hmmm?
BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
as you might have guessed by now.
> > Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
>
> www.netnanny.org perhaps?
Humorous, in your puerile way...
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
> > suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
> > and a head gasket?"
>
> Did I make this suggestion? I did not.
You are de facto defending it. Now you are going to wash your hands
of the whole mess?
LOL!
> > Not one damn thing, of course.
>
> Actually, it's very relevant, take off your blinkers.
You have yet to show how. Please, enlighten me, O Learned One.
> > One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
> > -> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
> >
> > Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
>
> It can be done, of course, but at the expense of what gives the 1.8T-150
> it's appeal.
Agreed.
> The tunability is only because it has the turbocharger, as an
> engine the 20 valve 1.8 is rather . . . well . . . limited in appeal. You
> can tune just about any turbocharged engine and get good results without
> spending a lot of money. Going from 150 to 300 PS is fine as far as it
> goes, but the rest of the A6 car won't be up to it.
Agreed, again. A 1.8T with 300HP would be a driveability nightmare.
But that's not really what I have been posting about, now is it?
> That's relevant, unless you don't think it irresponsible to slap a 300 PS
> engine in a car built for 150 PS (and, no, don't give me that "it's an Audi
> waffle, the upper models have differences to cope with the extra power).
My issue has never been with the premise of the thread. You and I
both know it. Your side-issues aside, the desireability of this is
not of any issue, and has nothing at all to do with the technical
issue of getting the 150HP motor to 225HP. I realize that you wish to
focus on the desireability part, but that argument disappears quickly
because I happen to agree with you.
Any more red herrings you wish me to dismiss while we're here?
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, it's been fun playing with you.
>
> So do this for kicks?
Why else does one come to USENET, if not for discussion? I remember
someone said that to me once, but I just can't remember who it was...
> > > I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
> >
> > As long as it takes.
>
> We'll see who gets bored first, then.
I find your petty moralizing plenty tedious.
> > > Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
> >
> > Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
> > for me, hmmm?
>
> Right, nothing to do at work, patrol Usenet, heh heh heh.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that this is all I do. Too
bad that isn't true, hmmm?
> I try to be
> productive at work without distractions.
Oddly enough, I am productive at work, and this is not really a
distraction. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, I will certainly
not attempt to stop you.
Spider