Mike Smith

Gez wrote:

>
> "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com <mailtoneactor1@aol.com>> wrote in
> message news:20030930161705.01014.00000068@mb-m29.aol.com...
> > << Sorry, I refer to the V6 3.2 being fitted to the current UK TT. >>
> >
> > That's VW's engine. Audi just borrowed it because it was designed for
> the Golf
> > Platform, and is the only six cylinder engine besides VW's 2.8 VR6
> that could
> > be made to fit in the TT. Don't forget the TT starts life on a Golf
> platform.
>
> I beg to differ.


Care to be more specific as to what you differ with? AFAIK the VR6 was
indeed a VW design, and the TT platform was indeed derived from the VW
A4 (not Audi A4, Golf/Jetta IV) platform.

--
Mike Smith

Steve Grauman

<< I wouldn't contest the MK V origins but the people at Audi UK have said that
this is a new and collaborative platform
and if as you say it is more of an VW thing it's strange that the VW Golf
sales have been falling off in Europe >>

Golf sales slowing in Europe has little, if anything, to do with the fact that
development of the MKV platform was handled primarily by VW with input from
Audi. VW needs the new platform to make the Golf competitive again.

<< My point being the Golf should have been the first vehicle to use the
platform and not the A3, it needed it more. >>

I agree, as stated above. VW needing the platform more than Audi doesn't back
up your claim that it was a joint-project.

<< As I have said it's in the brand name, the image is so much stronger than
the Golf. >>

I've heard/read otherwise from people living in the UK, some of which have told
me that the Golf is Europe's best selling compact.

<< The World leader
in the all wheel drive market is Quattro from Audi >>

Quattro may be the best system around, but I think Subaru outsells Audi.

<< the A3 will appear early next year with 300+ bhp >>

The A3 will include VW's 3.2 VR6 in the lineup, making the same 250Hp that the
TT VR6 and Golf R32 get. The S3 is slated to also use this engine, making 280
Hp. The fact that Audi has latched on so heavily to a VW designed engine may
say something.

<< the Audi designed and superb DSG Transmission. >>

Are you sure the DSG came from Audi? I think the European market R32 appeared
with it first.

<< In case you have forgotten, Audi have based the design of the interior of
the A3 on elements of the TT, >>

The TT seems to have quite a split reputation in Europe, with some looking at
it as a cool design excercise, while others tend to link it to homosexual men.
This play by Audi to steal TT design elements for the A3 interior could be a
great move, or kill them.

<< From what I have seen of the new Golf interior pictures only, it appears as
drab as my 8 month old model. >>

The A3 and Golf seem to have a very similar interior to me.

<< I have driven the 140 tdi new A3 and in everyway it is superior to my Golf.
>>

But the A3 you drove was probably the new MKV version, and you're comparing it
to an MKIV Golf.

<< Agreed four pots are important to the EU Market >>

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that 4-bangers in general were
inportant to the EU market (although, this is true). I was saying that Audi
needs to keep the 1.8T in production for the EU market because insurance and
petrol costs are higher there, and dropping the 1.8T would mean sacrificing
sales to those who won't be able to afford fueling and insuring the new 2.0.
Here in the U.S. the 1.8T will likely be dropped after the 2.0T debuts.

<< I suspect the 2.0T is a hybrid of the FSI Audi engine. >>

This is true. It's Audi's 2.0 litre FSI fitted with a turbo system by VW.

<< I haven't driven the new E class but I do appreciate it is a step up in
build quality from anything they have thrown together in recent times >>

It's certainly a step up, just not a great step up.

<< More like committing Business suicide, I agree it represents good practice
to always strive for excellence but they cannot hope to compete against these
big hitters in the high end of the market. >>

This is an opinion widely shared. But it doesn't change your original claim
that VW would *never* try to copete in the luxury market aganist MB, Audi, and
BMW.

<< Buyers in this range of cars, discerning or otherwise will always gravitate
to the brand strength. >>

VW has brand strength, they just don't have an image as a luxury car maker.

<< Hot off the press release in the UK. >>

VW's UK website still shows it, and in 2 different seating confugurations.

<< X5 does extremely well as does Range Rover and to a lesser degree Lexus>>

Car and Driver magazine feels that the Toureag is the best luxury suv on the
market. CAR seemed to feel the same in their test of it aganist the X5 and
ML430. In addition, I find your info. odd seeing as all the UK reviews of the
RX300 I read seemed pretty poor. Although I like it just fine, and my mother
loves hers.

Steve Grauman

<< Hey, just admit that it's non-technical and move on with your life.
Defending the term seems kinda silly. >>

I'm not defending the term. I'm defending myself aganist a fellow poster who
seems ever-ready to nit-pick.

Gez

Hi Mike.

I have since questioned my source more closely about origin of the current
3.2TT Engine and they seem unsure, however looking closely at the make up of
the parts other than the block compared with the VW V6 it is a very, very
different animal and distant relation sharing very few compnents. Head
design for starters looks to be fundementally different, if I am looking at
the right sketches.
I agree with you re: the platform used for the TT.
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:vnmr1vkq5i54e2@news.supernews.com...
> Gez wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com <mailtoneactor1@aol.com>> wrote in
> > message news:20030930161705.01014.00000068@mb-m29.aol.com...
> > > << Sorry, I refer to the V6 3.2 being fitted to the current UK TT. >>
> > >
> > > That's VW's engine. Audi just borrowed it because it was designed for
> > the Golf
> > > Platform, and is the only six cylinder engine besides VW's 2.8 VR6
> > that could
> > > be made to fit in the TT. Don't forget the TT starts life on a Golf
> > platform.
> >
> > I beg to differ.
>
>
> Care to be more specific as to what you differ with? AFAIK the VR6 was
> indeed a VW design, and the TT platform was indeed derived from the VW
> A4 (not Audi A4, Golf/Jetta IV) platform.
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>

Spider

"Gez" <braytak@sg1-1.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message news:<blgjrv$kk4$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Hi Mike.
>
> I have since questioned my source more closely about origin of the current
> 3.2TT Engine and they seem unsure, however looking closely at the make up of
> the parts other than the block compared with the VW V6 it is a very, very
> different animal and distant relation sharing very few compnents.

I think it depends on which V6 you happen to be looking at. The VR6
design (sort of an offset inline set-up, 15 degrees of angle between
cyl. banks) is VW's. The "normal" V6, with two banks of three
cylinders, 60 degrees (IIRC) between banks - that's Audi. If you look
at the new 24-valve head as compared to the old 12-valve head, yes,
they are going to be substantially different.

> Head
> design for starters looks to be fundementally different, if I am looking at
> the right sketches.

In order to get up to the higher HP, they went to 4 valves/cyl. IIRC,
in addition to the displacement increase. The original motor was
172HP.

The new 24-valve head got put to use in the Eurovan with the 2.8L
motor (204HP), right? Somebody will correct me if I am wrong on this.

Spider

Gez

Hi Spider.

I think you've got it there. Which one is fitted to the TT, is it the
Classic V6 Audi. I am certain it is not the VR6 engine.

Gez.
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0310021014.2d2bd587@posting.google.c om...
> "Gez" <braytak@sg1-1.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<blgjrv$kk4$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Hi Mike.
> >
> > I have since questioned my source more closely about origin of the
current
> > 3.2TT Engine and they seem unsure, however looking closely at the make
up of
> > the parts other than the block compared with the VW V6 it is a very,
very
> > different animal and distant relation sharing very few compnents.
>
> I think it depends on which V6 you happen to be looking at. The VR6
> design (sort of an offset inline set-up, 15 degrees of angle between
> cyl. banks) is VW's. The "normal" V6, with two banks of three
> cylinders, 60 degrees (IIRC) between banks - that's Audi. If you look
> at the new 24-valve head as compared to the old 12-valve head, yes,
> they are going to be substantially different.
>
> > Head
> > design for starters looks to be fundementally different, if I am looking
at
> > the right sketches.
>
> In order to get up to the higher HP, they went to 4 valves/cyl. IIRC,
> in addition to the displacement increase. The original motor was
> 172HP.
>
> The new 24-valve head got put to use in the Eurovan with the 2.8L
> motor (204HP), right? Somebody will correct me if I am wrong on this.
>
> Spider

Steve Grauman

<< I think you've got it there. Which one is fitted to the TT, is it the
Classic V6 Audi. I am certain it is not the VR6 engine. >>

You're wrong. The "old" Audi V6 is the 2.8 litre, 30 valve V6 currently used in
the Passat. The newer Audi V6 is the 3.0 litre, 30 valve V6 used in the current
A4 and A6. The VR6 engines, in various displacments, are ALL VW engines. The
original VR6 was the 2.8 litre, 12 valve 174Hp unit Spider was talking about.
It was the only 6 cylinder in the MKIII GTi, MKIII Jetta, and Corrado, as well
as pre-2001 MKIV GTis and Jettas. In 2001, the VR6 was updated to a 24 valve
head, and bumped up to 201Hp, although displacment has remained the same. The
3.2 VR6 was designed *by VW* for use in the R32 Golf. The narrow angle (where
the VR designation come from in the first place) is the only way either of the
VR6s will fit into any car built on the Golf platform. Talk of a TT-S (as in
S4, not Spyder) had been going about since the TT's introduction, and Audi felt
that they needed to deliver on a higher performance variant of the car. The 3.2
VR6 VW had developed proved to be the perfect choice. Audi would've had to
spend millions developing an engine that could fit in the TT's engine bay
(remember, the TT is based on the Golf platform!), and why bother when VW had
already done the work? I don't know who you've been talking to, but the 3.2 VR6
is a VW engine, as are *all* VR6s, and Audi is simply borrowing it for the TT.

Mike Smith

Gez wrote:

> Hi Spider.
>
> I think you've got it there. Which one is fitted to the TT, is it the
> Classic V6 Audi. I am certain it is not the VR6 engine.

No, I'm pretty sure it is. Remember, the TT platform is based on the
Golf/Jetta IV platform, which is designed for small transverse engines
rather than large longitudinal ones. The Audi V6 would probably not fit
in the TT's engine bay, whereas the narrow angle of the VR6 would (tightly).

--
Mike Smith

Spider

"Gez" <braytak@sg1-1.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message news:<blhrmk$l4b$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Hi Spider.
>
> I think you've got it there. Which one is fitted to the TT, is it the
> Classic V6 Audi. I am certain it is not the VR6 engine.

The longitudinal V6 would not be able to fit in the TT's engine bay.
The VR6 was designed for transverse mounting, and will fit (snug, to
be sure) into the TT.

My Google search found that the parameters "TT" "3.2" and "DSG" give a
load of info on the upcoming TT-S. I do not recall if the Audi
website was included.

Spider

Kcvwdoc

To: "Gez" <braytak@sg1-1.fslife.co.uk>
Re: Re: The A4 and the impending MKV Passat...
By: "Gez" <braytak@sg1-1.fslife.co.uk> to alt.autos.audi on Thu Oct 02 2003 08:42 pm

> I think you've got it there. Which one is fitted to the TT, is it the
> Classic V6 Audi. I am certain it is not the VR6 engine.

It's a version of the VR6 design.


--- Synchronet 3.10L-Win32 NewsLink 1.43
* Friends of Bill W - Raytown,MO - telnet://friendsofbillw.dyndns.org