"Andy R" <meltedbutter@Screwspambtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bf98vv$pos$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307180802.1c22b524@posting.google.c om...

[snip]

> As far as I am aware you can chip it straight off to about 190BHP which will
> cost you about £400 ish.

Cheaper on this side of the Pond, but that's about right.

> or you can spend around (I think) 2.5k and get it
> to 225 or even up to 250-260bhp. 40bhp for 400 is certainly better value,
> but I imagine 250bhp in a A3 would be pretty quick.

Yup. For that 2.5k, you get quite a bit of extra kit, including
intake and exhaust, I would imagine. Bigger turbo, etc.

Spider

 

"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf9dd6$cl15o$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307180839.7315d005@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf5e86$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."
>
> Ho hum. Have we not just left this party?

I guess you have. So, since you refuse to answer the question, I will
continue to assume that you do indeed.

Which makes your whining about my demeanor quite ironic.

> > > > > > 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?
>
> Well you can do, but is there not a more relevant newsgroup for this sort of
> behaviour?

I don't know. Since the offense was committed in a.a.audi, it seems
reasonable to discuss it there.

Perhaps your whining about my "net-nanny"ness belongs more properly in
alt. ?

> > You have insisted on making it an argument about
> > who can post what where.
>
> It takes two to argue.

More unintended irony. LOL.

> > My focus has been, and will continue to be,
> > Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
>
> Shullbit it has been!

You can attempt to recast it as you wish, but any other interpretation
is wishful thinking.


> Now you're trying to ram home your own beliefs,
> opinions, facts, whatever you decide to call them.

Hardly.

> > Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of
> > the subject, BTW.

> > > 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.
>
> And there are more bits, too, but we could debate that for a long while.
> And this would get very boring.

You're already there, I'm afraid.

> > The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of
> > magnitude.
>
> But you cannot disupte the point I made, yes?

Sure I can. Brake pad life is highly variable, contingent on a very
large number of different factors. Timing belt life is not. Whether
of not the stealership says that they last 200k km, they should
actually be replaced at 100k km. It is very unlikely to get life
shorter than this. Possible, but unlikely. The life span of brakes
has such a large discrepancy between high and low as to be
unpredictable as to life span. And we haven't even brought into play
whether it's stock or aftermarket.

You picked a poor analogy. Sorry.

[snip]

> /okay, okay, so that's a cheap jibe/

Just more of a ****-take. If you were as interested in discussion as
you claim, well, cheap jibes wouldn't be on the menu. Hypocrite.

> > > > > 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.
>
> Run out of things to say?

Yes - are you having difficulty with the English language?

> > Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my
> > place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
>
> Not any more. Indeedy, I think you know your place.

[rolls eyes]

Sure.


> > > 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.
>
> No, no, I was being lazy; if you don't drive the car, both will deterioate
> over time. If you do drive the car, both will deterioate, but the rate of
> wear will depend on how the car is driven.

Each relatively independent of one another.

It seems unlikely that brake pads would wear out after having sat for
some indeterminate time.


> > 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.*
>
> Well, you see, here's the rub, in that I don't believe you.

That's fine. You don't have to take my word for it - go and find the
kit that makes the HP, and I'll admit I was wrong.


> And you're all
> for laughing at the suggestion, but you know, I remain unconvinced as to
> your own technical knowledge.

That's fine too - but you have done not one thing to show I am wrong
in any way. I'll wait breathlessly for confirmation, LOL.

> > 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.
>
> They're not uncomfortable.

Since you seem to be in a state of disbelief, I would say that they
are indeed uncomfortable.

> I'm sure that many people appreciate that there
> are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged
> donk. The above suggestion is one alternative.

Except with this motor, it isn't really an alternative. A chip and a
headgasket aren't going to do it, no matter how much you wish them to.
A turbo and a headgasket MIGHT, if you are willing to sacrifice
drivability and durability. Frankly, I do not see how, without
remapping the chip, that the car would actually make 225 before
high-rev lean-out would grenade the motor.

> Unfortunately, I don't have
> the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do just a
> turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be
> done.

You're quite certainly a fool, then. You obviously have no idea the
steps it takes to make a drivable turbo motor.

Unless, of course, all you want is 225. But that would seem to lie
outside of the spirit of the original poster, now wouldn't it?
Terrible how those glib remarks come back to bite, huh?

> > 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.
>
> No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.

The more you squeeze it, the more air heats, and the less dense it
becomes, requiring more squeeze, etc. It's not a linear relationship.

Besides - you were carping on what the original poster said - now you
are just being pedantic in order to save face.

I absolutely love it.

> > 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?
>
> Spot on.
>
> > BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
> > as you might have guessed by now.
>
> But it's not avoiding the issue, though.

It certainly is. You focus on the original post when it suits your
fancy, then change later in likewise fashion. I do notice these
things.

Just a chip and a headgasket will not get you to 225. Just a turbo
and a headgasket will not get you to 225 either. Until you can find
evidence otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind.


> > 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.
>
> Yeah, Usenet wouldn't be usenet without the arguments, heh.

I thought you said it was here for discussion? Hmmm.


Spider

 

> Not to mention these wonderful things called corners . . . Audi seem hell
> bent on making their cars drive well in a straight line, but I've yet to
> experience a cooking model Audi that's been any fun in twisties.

/reminder to self/

Get a test drive of an A6 2.5TDi-140 SE Avant and ensure that I like the way
it drives before setting my heart on getting one.

Peter

 

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307210735.4b5d7d69@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9dd6$cl15o$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307180839.7315d005@posting.google.c om...
> > > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bf5e86$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]
[more snippage]
> > > > *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.*
> >
> > Well, you see, here's the rub, in that I don't believe you.
>
> That's fine. You don't have to take my word for it - go and find the
> kit that makes the HP, and I'll admit I was wrong.

> > And you're all
> > for laughing at the suggestion, but you know, I remain unconvinced as to
> > your own technical knowledge.
>
> That's fine too - but you have done not one thing to show I am wrong
> in any way. I'll wait breathlessly for confirmation, LOL.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > They're not uncomfortable.
>
> Since you seem to be in a state of disbelief, I would say that they
> are indeed uncomfortable.



> > I'm sure that many people appreciate that there
> > are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged
> > donk. The above suggestion is one alternative.
>
> Except with this motor, it isn't really an alternative. A chip and a
> headgasket aren't going to do it, no matter how much you wish them to.
> A turbo and a headgasket MIGHT,

Thank you.

> if you are willing to sacrifice
> drivability and durability. Frankly, I do not see how, without
> remapping the chip, that the car would actually make 225 before
> high-rev lean-out would grenade the motor.
>
> > Unfortunately, I don't have
> > the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do
just a
> > turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be
> > done.
>
> You're quite certainly a fool, then. You obviously have no idea the
> steps it takes to make a drivable turbo motor.

You think?

> Unless, of course, all you want is 225.

Nothing else was discussed, so yes, all we want is that magic 225.

> But that would seem to lie
> outside of the spirit of the original poster, now wouldn't it?

Heh heh, I think that all of this discussion hits that spot.

> Terrible how those glib remarks come back to bite, huh?
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.
>
> The more you squeeze it, the more air heats, and the less dense it
> becomes, requiring more squeeze, etc. It's not a linear relationship.

Yup.

> Besides - you were carping on what the original poster said - now you
> are just being pedantic in order to save face.

Errrrrr, no. Saving face isn't a bother of mine.

> I absolutely love it.
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > Spot on.
> >
> > > BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
> > > as you might have guessed by now.
> >
> > But it's not avoiding the issue, though.
>
> It certainly is. You focus on the original post when it suits your
> fancy, then change later in likewise fashion. I do notice these
> things.

And I notice that you keep on noticing it.

> Just a chip and a headgasket will not get you to 225. Just a turbo
> and a headgasket will not get you to 225 either.

You said above that it might, now you're telling me that it won't, eh?

> Until you can find
> evidence otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yeah, Usenet wouldn't be usenet without the arguments, heh.
>
> I thought you said it was here for discussion? Hmmm.



--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

 

"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfk3o4$fq5as$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307210735.4b5d7d69@posting.google.c om...
> > "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf9dd6$cl15o$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message


> > > I'm sure that many people appreciate that there
> > > are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged
> > > donk. The above suggestion is one alternative.
> >
> > Except with this motor, it isn't really an alternative. A chip and a
> > headgasket aren't going to do it, no matter how much you wish them to.
> > A turbo and a headgasket MIGHT,
>
> Thank you.

It's nice that you want to ignore the qualifier. Notice what I say
below...

> > if you are willing to sacrifice
> > drivability and durability. Frankly, I do not see how, without
> > remapping the chip, that the car would actually make 225 before
> > high-rev lean-out would grenade the motor.

Again, you ignore what is inconvenient.

> > > Unfortunately, I don't have
> > > the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do
> just a
> > > turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be
> > > done.
> >
> > You're quite certainly a fool, then. You obviously have no idea the
> > steps it takes to make a drivable turbo motor.
>
> You think?

No, I *know.*

> > Unless, of course, all you want is 225.
>
> Nothing else was discussed, so yes, all we want is that magic 225.

You haven't been paying attention, then.

> > But that would seem to lie
> > outside of the spirit of the original poster, now wouldn't it?
>
> Heh heh, I think that all of this discussion hits that spot.

For *you* it does. Being a pedantic is easy on USENET, where
you're a whole continent and ocean away.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.
> >
> > The more you squeeze it, the more air heats, and the less dense it
> > becomes, requiring more squeeze, etc. It's not a linear relationship.
>
> Yup.

Then you agree with the implication that getting to 225 in this
fashion might actually be impossible, due to the limitations of the
system?

> > Besides - you were carping on what the original poster said - now you
> > are just being pedantic in order to save face.
>
> Errrrrr, no. Saving face isn't a bother of mine.

It must be, since you continue to drone on....

> > It certainly is. You focus on the original post when it suits your
> > fancy, then change later in likewise fashion. I do notice these
> > things.
>
> And I notice that you keep on noticing it.

A droll non-response.

> > Just a chip and a headgasket will not get you to 225. Just a turbo
> > and a headgasket will not get you to 225 either.
>
> You said above that it might, now you're telling me that it won't, eh?

Reading comprehension, or just reading what you want to read?

Spider