A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the 140
bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges etc????

Cheers,

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<EcT%a.15045$yl6.4654@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the 140
> bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges etc????

I am quite certain we've had this discussion before, but let me repeat
- google.com is your friend.

A web search with the following parameters brought a link:

audi, 2.5, TDI, 140HP;
http://www.audifans.com/archives/1995/07/msg00753.html

I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.

Good luck.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

In message <73da2590.0308171959.7537391f@posting.google.com >
beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:

> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<EcT%a.15045$yl6.4654@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the 140
> > bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges etc????

[Snip]

> I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
> can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.

This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter has
already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header for
a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder, is
whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.

--
Peter Bell - peter@bellfamily.org.uk

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the
140
> > bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges etc????
>
> I am quite certain we've had this discussion before, but let me repeat
> - google.com is your friend.
>
> A web search with the following parameters brought a link:
>
> audi, 2.5, TDI, 140HP;
> http://www.audifans.com/archives/1995/07/msg00753.html
>
> I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
> can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.

And how exactly is that of any help? FWIW I did have a brief try with
google, but didn't have a lot of time, so thought I'd post a request here.

I am able enough to tell whether or not an engine is 4 cylinder or 6
cylinder by looking at it, but there was never a 2.5TDI engine made in 4-pot
guise, and the 6-pot engines didn't come along until the newer model A6s in
1997, and this is a 95/M reg (first of the 140bhp models), so a very slim
(read non-existant) chance of being a freak "new engine in old model car"
situation that occasionally happens.

Also, as an aside, is the 5-pot 2.5TDI a V5 or straight-5 design?

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > > Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the
140
> > > bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges
etc????
>
> > I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
> > can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.
>
> This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter has
> already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header for
> a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder, is
> whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.

You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have found this
page:

http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp

......which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the badge
(assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:1i80b.15560$yl6.12320@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

> I am able enough to tell whether or not an engine is 4 cylinder or 6
> cylinder by looking at it, but there was never a 2.5TDI engine made in
4-pot
> guise, and the 6-pot engines didn't come along until the newer model A6s
in
> 1997, and this is a 95/M reg (first of the 140bhp models), so a very slim
> (read non-existant) chance of being a freak "new engine in old model car"
> situation that occasionally happens.

You posted this in July. If you look in Google, though, you'll find my reply
on the subject of engine codes. It was posted after 29 July, because that
was when I returned from holiday and saw your posting :-) The 140 bhp code
is AEL.

> Also, as an aside, is the 5-pot 2.5TDI a V5 or straight-5 design?

It's a straight five - 2460cc

Jonathan

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> You posted this in July. If you look in Google, though, you'll find my
reply
> on the subject of engine codes. It was posted after 29 July, because that
> was when I returned from holiday and saw your posting :-) The 140 bhp code
> is AEL.
>
> > Also, as an aside, is the 5-pot 2.5TDI a V5 or straight-5 design?
>
> It's a straight five - 2460cc

Cheers Jonathan - you posted that reply on 7th August and I can see why I
missed it, as around that time (or possibly a bit before) my hard disk on my
desktop packed up and I switched to using the laptop, and I probably just
clicked 'catch up' on the audi group and forgot to look back. Most useful
info - cheers.

Out of interest what do you drive?

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<b190b.15612$yl6.9729@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the
> 140
> > > > bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges
> etc????
>
> > > I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
> > > can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.
> >
> > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter has
> > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header for
> > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder, is
> > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
>
> You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have found this
> page:
>
> http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
>
> .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the badge
> (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).

Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!

My apologies for not knowing by magic of which model year you wished to know.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

Peter Bell <peter@bellfamily.org.uk> wrote in message news:<d3a9d8234c.peter@iyonix.earley.fourcom.com>. ..
> In message <73da2590.0308171959.7537391f@posting.google.com >
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<EcT%a.15045$yl6.4654@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Just wondering, how would I go about determining that this car is the 140
> > > bhp version, and not the 115?? Any distinguishing marks/badges etc????
>
> [Snip]
>
> > I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
> > can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.
>
> This has to be one of the least helpful replies!

Indeed? I got him to actually look up the info, which was my point,
in case you missed it.

Since I didn't know which model year he wanted to know about, I took a
stab at it. If you or he don't like it, you are certainly both
welcome to stuff it.

Hope that clears up the confusion,

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter has
> > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header for
> > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder, is
> > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> >
> > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have found
this
> > page:
> >
> > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> >
> > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the badge
> > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
>
> Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!

And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I originally
posted, hence tapping into other people's knowledge with the hope of the
answer being there when I got back (now remind me what the point of usenet
was again?). No useful answer was there, so I then found a semi-useful
answer on the web, then a bit later a genuinely useful answer appeared. But
thank you for your continued interest in my posts all the same.

> My apologies for not knowing by magic of which model year you wished to
know.

Don't worry. It'll come. The clue was in "5-cylinder" - they put the last
of the 5-pot diesel lumps in the old shape A6s.

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<2kb0b.15727$yl6.11371@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...

> Cheers Jonathan. Most useful info - cheers.
>
> Out of interest what do you drive?
>
> Peter

You may not be too surprised to learn that I drive one of the 140 bhp
A6 5-cyl diesels. Mine's a front-wheel-drive 95N Estate. The quattro
model uses the same engine, IIRC, and may be worth hunting for. Mine
had done 100k when I bought it just over two years ago, and it's now
moved on to 185k. On a 4000-mile round trip to Italy with 5 adults it
averaged 45 mpg at fast (85-95) cruising speeds and with the aircon on
full tilt all the time. You'll find plenty of people out there who
have done far more miles than that, and probably at better economy.
They're good solid middle-aged (the cars, I mean!) buys. The fairest
thing I can say is that I was thinking of getting rid of mine, but
I've decided not to.

Regards

Jonathan

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.

Yes. That's the point of usenet.

> And then, when they do
> answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
>
> If that's not arrogant, what is?

Arrogance.

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > > Indeed? I got him to actually look up the info, which was my point,
> > > in case you missed it.
> >
> > Don't flatter yourself
>
> I'm not doing anything of the kind. Tech info of the sort you
> required is generally widely available and easy to look up, if all the
> relevant parameters are known. That's why it's easier for *you* to
> look up something than it is for me. Taking a chance in a low-post
> rate forum such as this is kinda dumb, for a question of this kind.

Funny then, that the only answer I got from doing a google search was of
limited use (just describing what the badge would look like, which wouldn't
neccessarily be conclusive), and the only really useful answer I got was
from a contributor to this forum.

> > > Since I didn't know which model year he wanted to know about, I took a
> > > stab at it. If you or he don't like it, you are certainly both
> > > welcome to stuff it.
> > >
> > > Hope that clears up the confusion,
> >
> > I'd recommend you take reading classes.
>
> So that I might determine, somehow, that you had a 1996 car in mind?
> Where was that little bit of info in your original post? Since I'm
> having trouble finding it, it must be because I can't read, LOL.

It wasn't neccessarily a 1996 car I had in mind - it was anything with the
140bhp five cylinder two and a half litre turbocharged direct injection
diesel engine, which was used from January 1995 to August 1997. The fact
that I mentioned 5-cylinder 140bhp diesel would have been enough to imply
that, and if it wasn't, then you could have taken your own advice and used
google.

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> You may not be too surprised to learn that I drive one of the 140 bhp
> A6 5-cyl diesels. Mine's a front-wheel-drive 95N Estate. The quattro
> model uses the same engine, IIRC, and may be worth hunting for.

I'd like the quattro, but to be honest, as it's a full-time quattro (you
can't switch it from 4wd to 2wd can you?) I'd rather have the better economy
of the 2wd version.

> Mine
> had done 100k when I bought it just over two years ago, and it's now
> moved on to 185k. On a 4000-mile round trip to Italy with 5 adults it
> averaged 45 mpg at fast (85-95) cruising speeds and with the aircon on
> full tilt all the time. You'll find plenty of people out there who
> have done far more miles than that, and probably at better economy.
> They're good solid middle-aged (the cars, I mean!) buys. The fairest
> thing I can say is that I was thinking of getting rid of mine, but
> I've decided not to.

How's yours been reliability-wise? The only horror stories I've heard are
of cambelt problems (brought on by a seized water pump), but from what I've
read (was browsing through quite a few threads on honestjohn.co.uk last
night), it was a recall (though I might not be remembering this bit right),
and basically it was recommended past a certain date that a new water pump
would be fitted with the cambelt, and as long as it's been done after a
certain time then it should be fine. Sorry if that really makes little
sense, but if it does, do you know when the improved water pump was first
available?

That's basically the selfsame model I'm getting (the one I'm going to be
looking at is an M reg with 135k on the clock, and full Audi service history
up to the last service at 130.5k back in May

Have you done your own servicing, or taken it to a main dealer, or have you
used a specialist? I'll be doing basic things myself (oil changes, filters
etc.) but taking it to a main dealer for cambelts and any other specialised
things. If you've done your own servicing, is there an easy way to reset
the service indicator?? (I believe they have one of these) as it'd be handy
to be able to use that to monitor the quality of the oil.

Anyway, sorry to bombard you with questions, but any advice you've got would
be appreciated.

Cheers,

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:4dw0b.15429$Kx1.239369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

> I'd like the quattro, but to be honest, as it's a full-time quattro (you
> can't switch it from 4wd to 2wd can you?) I'd rather have the better
economy
> of the 2wd version.

No, like all quattros it's permanent 4WD. The economy penalty is probably
about 5-10%

> How's yours been reliability-wise? The only horror stories I've heard are
> of cambelt problems (brought on by a seized water pump), but from what
I've
> read (was browsing through quite a few threads on honestjohn.co.uk last
> night), it was a recall (though I might not be remembering this bit
right),
> and basically it was recommended past a certain date that a new water pump
> would be fitted with the cambelt, and as long as it's been done after a
> certain time then it should be fine. Sorry if that really makes little
> sense, but if it does, do you know when the improved water pump was first
> available?

This is basically the same potential problem with all five-cylinder Audi
engines, petrol and diesel. The cambelt drives the water pump as well as the
camshaft, so if the water pump seizes, it breaks the belt. Result - pistons
hit valves.

> Have you done your own servicing, or taken it to a main dealer, or have
you
> used a specialist? I'll be doing basic things myself (oil changes,
filters
> etc.) but taking it to a main dealer for cambelts and any other
specialised
> things.

I've tended to do the odd-numbered ones (130, 150 etc) myself, as it's
basically just an oil and filter change. I've usually used a main dealer for
the 160 etc but I'll probably start doing it all myself now - except for the
belts, which are a pain as the access is tight. The fuel and air filter
changes are quite easy.

> If you've done your own servicing, is there an easy way to reset
> the service indicator?? (I believe they have one of these).

In theory you need the special tool, though I believe there are pattern ones
available. I just ignore the flashing, as it only goes on for about one
minute on start-up.

Generally on reliability it's been fine. I expect it will probably suffer
the usual Audi problem of seized rear calipers or handbrake mechanism,
though so far it has not. This is actually an update of what is basically a
1982 design, and that applies for good and ill. To be fair, some of the
weaknesses of the A100 have been eliminated, but some persist - e.g. only a
two-point centre rear belt. Conversely, there isn't much electronic wizardry
to go wrong.

The SE, with leather trim and climate control, is probably worth finding.

HTH

Jonathan

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> This is basically the same potential problem with all five-cylinder Audi
> engines, petrol and diesel. The cambelt drives the water pump as well as
the
> camshaft, so if the water pump seizes, it breaks the belt. Result -
pistons
> hit valves.

Well surely any engine with a cambelt driven water pump.

> > Have you done your own servicing, or taken it to a main dealer, or have
you
> > used a specialist? I'll be doing basic things myself (oil changes,
filters
> > etc.) but taking it to a main dealer for cambelts and any other
specialised
> > things.
>
> I've tended to do the odd-numbered ones (130, 150 etc) myself, as it's
> basically just an oil and filter change. I've usually used a main dealer
for
> the 160 etc but I'll probably start doing it all myself now - except for
the
> belts, which are a pain as the access is tight. The fuel and air filter
> changes are quite easy.

A friend was telling me that he thinks that there's a big undertray that
needs to be taken off to do oil changes - is this true? Have you just left
it off?

> > If you've done your own servicing, is there an easy way to reset
> > the service indicator?? (I believe they have one of these).
>
> In theory you need the special tool, though I believe there are pattern
ones
> available. I just ignore the flashing, as it only goes on for about one
> minute on start-up.
>
> Generally on reliability it's been fine. I expect it will probably suffer
> the usual Audi problem of seized rear calipers or handbrake mechanism,
> though so far it has not. This is actually an update of what is basically
a
> 1982 design, and that applies for good and ill. To be fair, some of the
> weaknesses of the A100 have been eliminated, but some persist - e.g. only
a
> two-point centre rear belt. Conversely, there isn't much electronic
wizardry
> to go wrong.

Is the handbrake mechanism a drum-inside-the-disc type jobbie, like the
Carlton (don't know if you're familiar with them) ?

> The SE, with leather trim and climate control, is probably worth finding.

Oh yes. Leather is sadly the only thing missing from the one I'm getting,
but it's got everything else - it's the SE spec, and it's got climate +
aircon, and cruise control, which is basically exactly what I was after.
I've phoned up about countless A6s (being after an SE 140bhp model with
cruise) and they've either been sold, only had the 115bhp engine, or not had
cruise. I've finally found one, and now I'm going to get it before someone
else does!! Sounds mint as well. Ideally I'd like a nice cream leather
interior, but that can easily be bought and bolted in at a later date (or,
if I'm feeling flush, I may get the seats retrimmed).

That brings me onto a little gripe I have with Audis (and the more prestige
brands in general) - there are so many options and you can never guarantee
what you're getting just by the model (well you can to an extent, but I'll
explain). When I was looking for a Carlton Estate to replace my old
battered up one (rusty shed, that had been smacked in the side) I wanted one
with all the toys - front fogs, electric everything, fuel computer, cruise,
and ideally leather. Basically all I had to do was find a CDX (no guarantee
of leather, but everything else as standard). Ok, so the only thing not
standard with the A6 is cruise, but basically it would have been a whole lot
easier if cruise was a standard part of the SE spec.

Also, out of interest, how much does oil (enough to do an oil change) and
filter cost from an audi dealer (genuine parts) ?

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
>
> If that's not arrogant, what is?
>
> Spider

Give it a rest. You failed to read the title of the original post so your
clever reply/put-down fell a bit flat. But you did post a link you thought
would be helpful - good for you. Can we move on now please?

Rach :)

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:ycx0b.15485$Kx1.240502@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

> A friend was telling me that he thinks that there's a big undertray that
> needs to be taken off to do oil changes - is this true? Have you just
left
> it off?

True, getting it back on is the worst part of the job, ideally requiring
about five hands. I bet there are a lot of older A4s and A6s out there
without them. I keep mine on, though.

> Is the handbrake mechanism a drum-inside-the-disc type jobbie, like the
> Carlton (don't know if you're familiar with them) ?

No, it's a Girling (??) caliper and the design is similar in most (if not
all) rear disc-braked VWs and Audis of that age. The handbrake cable is
attached to a lever on the caliper which operates the piston manually.
There's a seal where the mechanism enters the caliper, and in the end it
goes and the piston seizes. This tends to be a weakness of these cars and
even if the calipers are OK the discs and pads often don't last as long on
the rear as on the front. Mark II Golf GTIs suffer in a similar way. Not
helped by all the crud being thrown up by the front wheels straight on to
the rear brakes. I know this is the same in theory for all cars but it seems
especially bad on VWs and Audis.

Exchange calipers are available from independent specialists such as German
Swedish and French. Ensure that you are sitting down before enquiring about
the price of genuine OE calipers from a main dealer...

> Also, out of interest, how much does oil (enough to do an oil change) and
> filter cost from an audi dealer (genuine parts) ?

Not sure. Try German and Swedish - www.gsfcarparts.com - who certainly do
the real thing as well as cheapos. But the parts desks at some dealers are
only too happy to do a deal. They vary. In the midlands, Autohaus in
Northampton always used to be excellent.

Jonathan

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bhu9a3$an$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> >
> > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Spider
>
> Give it a rest.

Who made you Queen of USENET?

Ahh, OK. Good, well - run along, then.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<2dw0b.15427$Kx1.239369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
>
> Yes. That's the point of usenet.

You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.

> > And then, when they do
> > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> >
> > If that's not arrogant, what is?
>
> Arrogance.

And you're filled with it.

HTH,

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter
has
> > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header
for
> > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder,
is
> > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > >
> > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
found
> > this
> > > > page:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > >
> > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
badge
> > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > >
> > > Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!
> >
> > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
originally
> > posted
>
> But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
>
> If that's not arrogant, what is?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
information? In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
question. Doing you see what i'm getting at?

Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter nonsense,
theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little thing
in order to try and mask your stupidity.

I await your insults....

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> >
> > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
>
> You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.

Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
point of tedium or something?

My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
information - if I have a question that I'd like an answer to, then I'll
post it and await a answer (hopefully a useful one). If anyone else wants
to, then they can. If I feel I have something worth contributing to a
thread, then I'll post it up. Simple really. Hardly self-important.

> > > And then, when they do
> > > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Arrogance.
>
> And you're filled with it.

What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter
> has
> > > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header
> for
> > > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder,
> is
> > > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
> found
> this
> > > > > page:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > > >
> > > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
> badge
> > > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > > >
> > > > Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!
> > >
> > > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
> originally
> > > posted
> >
> > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> >
> > If that's not arrogant, what is?
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> information?

It is.

> In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> question.

That's correct.

> Doing you see what i'm getting at?

Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.

The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
*probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
non-synth.

Peter and I have discussed this before - you're coming in a bit late.

In any case, there is a remedy for those who feel negatively toward my
ideas - its called "learning to use your newsreader."

> Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter nonsense,
> theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little thing
> in order to try and mask your stupidity.
>
> I await your insults....

The irony is delicious.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<sBO0b.15979$Kx1.251986@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> > >
> > > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
> >
> > You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.
>
> Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
> point of tedium or something?

Takes two to tango, sir.

> My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> information

It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
done it before.

But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
valuable than someone elses'?

"Post a little question, wait around for someone to answer." No work
for me, and I the info I get is free. Nice deal for me.

> > > > And then, when they do
> > > > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > > >
> > > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> > >
> > > Arrogance.
> >
> > And you're filled with it.
>
> What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?

Please explain how that applies in this case.

My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308201331.12d81b52@posting.google.c om...
> "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think
Peter
> > has
> > > > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject
header
> > for
> > > > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5
cylinder,
> > is
> > > > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the
OP,
> > > > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
> > found
> > this
> > > > > > page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
> > badge
> > > > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means that my message has actually been received!
Halleluia!
> > > >
> > > > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
> > originally
> > > > posted
> > >
> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> > information?
>
> It is.
>
> > In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> > question.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > Doing you see what i'm getting at?
>
> Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
>
> The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
> your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
> nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
> for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
> there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
> independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
> be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
> Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
> *probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
> authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
> octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
> non-synth.
>
The answers to everything (within reason) are outside Usenet, but they're
also available within. Despite what you may believe, that gives people a
choice to how they want to find the answer to their question. The useful
thing about Usenet is you can post a question, let people argue of the
answer (or something completely off topic...) and by the time you next look
hopefully the correct answer will have emerged. Whereas something like
google, you have to shift thru all the static info, without being able to
ask the authors any further questions in order to validate their point.
I'm not saying that anyone elses time is more valuable than anyone elses,
you dont have to post an answer, you could have ignored it. If everyone
ignored Peter he would have been forced to Google it when he had some spare
time, but surely your first port of call should be the easiest option,
unless of course you like making things hard for yourself.

> Peter and I have discussed this before - you're coming in a bit late.

I know, but i like a good arguement :)
>
> In any case, there is a remedy for those who feel negatively toward my
> ideas - its called "learning to use your newsreader."
>
> > Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter
nonsense,
> > theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little
thing
> > in order to try and mask your stupidity.
> >
> > I await your insults....
>
> The irony is delicious.

I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308200740.3457a5a2@posting.google.c om...
> "Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bhu9a3$an$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > > answer, you piss and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> > >
> > > Spider
> >
> > Give it a rest.
>
> Who made you Queen of USENET?
>
> Ahh, OK. Good, well - run along, then.
>
> Spider

And who appointed you chief w*nker? Ah, ok. You won that title hands down,
on merit. Keep digging

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi0rp0$46qmr$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308201331.12d81b52@posting.google.c om...
> > "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...

> > > Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> > > information?
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > > In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> > > question.
> >
> > That's correct.
> >
> > > Doing you see what i'm getting at?
> >
> > Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
> >
> > The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
> > your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
> > nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
> > for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
> > there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
> > independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
> > be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
> > Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
> > *probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
> > authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
> > octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
> > non-synth.
> >
> The answers to everything (within reason) are outside Usenet, but they're
> also available within.

"Answers" does not imply "accurate answers." Ref. "Octane" and "synth
vs. non-synth."

> Despite what you may believe, that gives people a
> choice to how they want to find the answer to their question.

What I believe has nothing to do with anything. What I know is that
people who are lazy come to USENET, drop their questions, and expect
correct answers. As I have pointed out, not all questions are equal.

> The useful
> thing about Usenet is you can post a question, let people argue of the
> answer (or something completely off topic...) and by the time you next look
> hopefully the correct answer will have emerged.

Costing you nothing. No time, no effort, no nothing. Lazy and
arrogant attitude.

> Whereas something like
> google, you have to shift thru all the static info, without being able to
> ask the authors any further questions in order to validate their point.

Ah, but at least you have looked. You have made an effort to answer
your own question, and come up confused.

"My manual says that to get the lightbulb out, I should turn the
socket anticlockwise, but when I do, it turns 5mm and stops. Any
hints on how to get the bugger to move?"

Rather than:

"How do I get the lightbulb out of my Type XX?"

The first instance showed that the person actually read, and tried to
do the thing, but was stymied. The second one says "solve my problem
for me, I am too lazy to think for myself." It also invites such
comments as "RTFM," and "take it to your mechanic" - just noise.


> I'm not saying that anyone elses time is more valuable than anyone elses,

No, of course those things aren't being said. Nobody wants to give
the impression that they think they are better than anyone else.


> you dont have to post an answer, you could have ignored it.

Which has nothing at all to do with the first part of the sentence.


> If everyone
> ignored Peter he would have been forced to Google it when he had some spare
> time, but surely your first port of call should be the easiest option,
> unless of course you like making things hard for yourself.

Right - a nice, tight google search, and then a posting that says:

"Hey, URL 1 says that this car should have this badging, but URL 2
says different. What is the real deal?"

> > > I await your insults....
> >
> > The irony is delicious.
>
> I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.

An adult would be eating crow.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<ss71b.976$L15.436@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to
> the
> > > point of tedium or something?
> >
> > Takes two to tango, sir.
>
> Indeed it does.

Then, for the benefit of those who are not quite as on-the-ball, maybe
you should quit posting replies, if you find it "tedious."

> > > My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> > > information
> >
> > It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
> > your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
> > tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
> > place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
> > for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
> > done it before.
> >
> > But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
> > you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
> > valuable than someone elses'?
>
> Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I did
> do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive answer
> (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> tailgate).

I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?

> So I would have still needed to ask the question.

It depends on how thorough your search was.

> Sure, it
> might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings

If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
parameters as to excluse false-positives.

> but it's a
> lot easier to spend my time doing something more important

Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
the attitude I despise.

Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
all at odds.

> If more people helped each other in this way, then
> we'd all save a lot of time.

"Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
it comes at the expense of others...

> > > > > Arrogance.
> > > >
> > > > And you're filled with it.
> > >
> > > What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
> >
> > Please explain how that applies in this case.
>
> Because your attitude is that of "why should I help him on a public forum
> designed for such a purpose, when he hasn't even bothered to try every other
> conceivable option first"

If that's what I actually thought, then, yes, it would be arrogant.
But I have never even suggested such a thing, and trying to re-image
it thus is just base dishonesty on your part.

> does come across as very arrogant. Others seem to
> agree.

Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.

> > My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
> > you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
> > my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
>
> I don't personally see the point of killfiles - if someone's got something
> to say I'd rather read it.

To say nothing of getting into a pissing match, hmm?

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I
did
> > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
answer
> > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > tailgate).
>
> I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?

No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
search. The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.

> > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
>
> It depends on how thorough your search was.
>
> > Sure, it
> > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
>
> If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> parameters as to excluse false-positives.

Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines. That's why I use
usenet.
Let's look at the facts for a minute. I post a question. You post an
answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question. A little while
later, someone other than me points this fact out. A while later other
different people point out that you are being a pedantic twat. A similar
amount of time later, and someone else posts a useful answer.

> > but it's a
> > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
>
> Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> the attitude I despise.

Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.

I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
perse. I don't even know most of the other posters on usenet, so I wouldn't
be able to judge anyway. I just look at it this way - if they consider it
too much of an inconvenience to post a reply, then they need not bother - no
skin off my nose. If they don't mind helping, then I'll show my
appreciation. Simple really.

> Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> all at odds.

<yawn>

And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
are a very well documented affair, are they? I don't have a manual to hand,
as I don't yet own an A6.

> > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > we'd all save a lot of time.
>
> "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> it comes at the expense of others...

Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
bother, would they.

> Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.

That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
they're all wrong, and you are right.

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
>
> Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?

Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing. I have hardly ever used this
wonderful information technology and I am indeed a novice. I think you also
started the "bitch<ing> at posters whose content is not to yor (sic) liking"
with your unhelpful and smartarse remark in response to AstraVanMan's
original post, followed by your ridiculous attempts to defend your pride and
to patronise me and the other posters. Given the form you have displayed so
far, I'm surprised and a little disappointed you didn't feel moved to have a
pop at the question I posted here recently.

> You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> comparison.

As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
superior comments on other posters' efforts. I would feel stirred to respond
to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
"USENET." I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.

> > Keep digging
>
> Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> nonetheless.

Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
averse to helping you dig your hole. I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
I have brightened up your little computer life.

> Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?

When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.

Kind regards

Rachael

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an
infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.

Dip me in tar and roll me in feathers. I should have said "a large number
of monkeys..."

An infinite number would get the job done in zero time. Unfortunately, since
there's only one born every minute we can't get together an infinite number,
though AOL seems to be working on that.

Cheers Rachael

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

<snip>
>
> Spider

I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a bad
day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all the
time? You must be very lonely if you are!

Goodbye

Good luck Peter!

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bi3qlt$igi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
> >
> > Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> > you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
>
> Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing.

No, actually you did. By butting in to offer your high-and-mighty
"wisdom." Just sit down, shut up, and apply your filters and be done
with it.

> > You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> > comparison.
>
> As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.

So, instead of following your own advice, you ironically jump right
into the mud. Hypocrite.

> However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
> superior comments on other posters' efforts.

Your feelings of inferiority are not my concern.

> I would feel stirred to respond
> to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
> "USENET."

No, like all those folks that have tons of "electronic courage" you
would sit quietly by while a discussion went on.

But I'm glad that you wish to imagine otherwise.

> I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.

What was that about superiority, again?

I love irony - it's really the best part of USENET.

> > > Keep digging
> >
> > Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> > nonetheless.
>
> Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
> averse to helping you dig your hole.

Except I am not in any way digging any "hole." See, when you're in
over your head, it's best to bow out as gracefully as possible.
That's your free clue.

> I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
> I have brightened up your little computer life.

Ah, yes, a little more of that irony that I love so...

> > Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
>
> When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
> sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.

I comprehend just fine, but thanks for yet more irony.

You should have paid attention to that "whoosh!"

> Kind regards

No, really, the pleasure has been all mine.

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<L4c1b.492$MS5.9837@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I
> did
> > > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
> answer
> > > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > > tailgate).
> >
> > I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> > am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
>
> No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
> subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
> search.

So, my original comment was right on the money. Thanks for the
admission.

> The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.

That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
make your argument any stronger.

The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
of that you are having difficulty understanding.

> > > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
> >
> > It depends on how thorough your search was.
> >
> > > Sure, it
> > > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
> >
> > If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> > to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> > parameters as to excluse false-positives.
>
> Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines.

You are not pardoned. You obviously know how to type, so narrowing
parameters just isn't that hard. It doesn't take much expertise, just
a little, tiny, almost-not-worthy-of-mentioning bit of work.


> That's why I use
> usenet.

Because you're lazy and arrogant, yeah I got that already.

> Let's look at the facts for a minute.

Like the "fact" you posted above? THis ought to be rich...

> I post a question. You post an
> answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question.

Yet I took time and effort to try and help - which is more than you
were willing to do for yourself. Instead of being gracious, you
decide that you need to be holier-than-thou over the whole issue.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.

[snipped]

What other uninformed fools on USENET think of my postings is
irrelevant to me. If they want to engage in a flamewar, well, that's
fine with me.

> > > but it's a
> > > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
> >
> > Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> > are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> > than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> > the attitude I despise.
>
> Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
> Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.

1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.

My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
for yourself.

> I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
> perse.

That's not what you previously implied. Either you are just fooling
yourself, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, your
admission of "doing more important things" really says all that needs
to be said, and proves my point completely.

> > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > all at odds.
>
> And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
> are a very well documented affair, are they?

Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
information, I would say "yes."

> I don't have a manual to hand,
> as I don't yet own an A6.

Nor would I expect you to in this case. By your own admission, you
just jumped right in and posted, assuming that you'd get your answer
with no effort on your part. I am amazed that you think that this
doesn't paint you in a selfish light.

> > > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > > we'd all save a lot of time.
> >
> > "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> > it comes at the expense of others...
>
> Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
> bother, would they.

That's not the point, but it's an excellent attempt at obfuscation.

> > Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> > It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
>
> That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
> they're all wrong, and you are right.

The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
just dismissing their opinions as the piss-takes that they are.
Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.

The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
is simply astounding.

LOL!

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bi5dgp$5eih5$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing
better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a
bad
> day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all
the
> time? You must be very lonely if you are!

He does it all of the time, probably gets his kicks from it, heh heh!

> Goodbye
>
> Good luck Peter!



--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308220849.511d72ce@posting.google.c om...
> "Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bi3qlt$igi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
> > >
> > > Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> > > you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
> >
> > Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing.
>
> No, actually you did. By butting in to offer your high-and-mighty
> "wisdom." Just sit down, shut up, and apply your filters and be done
> with it.
>
> > > You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> > > comparison.
> >
> > As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
>
> So, instead of following your own advice, you ironically jump right
> into the mud. Hypocrite.
>
> > However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
> > superior comments on other posters' efforts.
>
> Your feelings of inferiority are not my concern.
>
> > I would feel stirred to respond
> > to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
> > "USENET."
>
> No, like all those folks that have tons of "electronic courage" you
> would sit quietly by while a discussion went on.
>
> But I'm glad that you wish to imagine otherwise.
>
> > I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> > say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an
infinite
> > number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> > Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
>
> What was that about superiority, again?
>
> I love irony - it's really the best part of USENET.
>
> > > > Keep digging
> > >
> > > Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> > > nonetheless.
> >
> > Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm
not
> > averse to helping you dig your hole.
>
> Except I am not in any way digging any "hole." See, when you're in
> over your head, it's best to bow out as gracefully as possible.
> That's your free clue.
>
> > I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
> > I have brightened up your little computer life.
>
> Ah, yes, a little more of that irony that I love so...
>
> > > Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
> >
> > When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
> > sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
>
> I comprehend just fine, but thanks for yet more irony.
>
> You should have paid attention to that "whoosh!"
>
> > Kind regards
>
> No, really, the pleasure has been all mine.
>
> Spider

blah blah blah

Comprehension.......exactly which part of the phrase "A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp
(5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6 cylinder
engines? Or is there something in it that I, the other contributors to this
"discussion" and the rest of the English speaking world have missed?

Is it not high time you took your hand off it and climbed back into your
tree? Now how do I do this? Messages.....block sender.....ah yes

Rachael x

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
business.
>
> That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> make your argument any stronger.
>
> The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> of that you are having difficulty understanding.

The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
quick reply. I wouldn't expect someone to go and research something for
me - I'd only expect them to post an answer that they already knew about, so
it wouldn't take much of their time at all. Anyway, I notice Jonathan
Morton (the one person that did post an answer that was bang on what I
required) didn't begrudge helping me out (even though he'd posted it
before!), so I can't see where the problem is.

> Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.

As do I find yours.

> 1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
> to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.

Don't mention it.

> My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
> actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
> for yourself.

Well bless your little cotton socks for trying.

> > > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > > all at odds.
> >
> > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
engines
> > are a very well documented affair, are they?
>
> Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> information, I would say "yes."

Well, found the information via a post of someone else.

> > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
it -
> > they're all wrong, and you are right.
>
> The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> just dismissing their opinions as the piss-takes that they are.
> Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.

The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
attitude. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
that sentence might come to be disproven.

> The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> is simply astounding.

And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.

Peter

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi5dgp$5eih5$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up

I thought you liked a good argument? Sheesh - people have no
fortitude any more.

> you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing

Wrong on both counts. I guess you should try a be a bit more
perceptive next time, hmmm?

> Were you just having a bad
> day when you started this arguement

As I recall, you flamed me first, Carl. Is your memory slipping?


> or are you really that pathetic all the
> time?

Pathetic, heh. I love irony.


> You must be very lonely if you are!

Nope, not lonely in the least. Thanks for playing, better luck next
time!

> Goodbye

Going so soon? We just got to the good part, LOL!

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<dev1b.2027$L15.1397@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> > > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
> business.
> >
> > That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> > make your argument any stronger.
> >
> > The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> > respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> > information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> > of that you are having difficulty understanding.
>
> The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
> quick reply.

Which is a minute more than you spent even bothering to look for what
you were after. Why are you so important that you should just expect
others to spend *any* time giving you free info?

> so I can't see where the problem is.

The problem is that you are lazy. The "exchange" of info you keep
talking about seems to be a one-way street. Interesting.

> > Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> > innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
>
> As do I find yours.

Considering I have not proclaimed innocence anywhere, that's an
interesting response.

> > > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
> engines
> > > are a very well documented affair, are they?
> >
> > Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> > information, I would say "yes."
>
> Well, found the information via a post of someone else.

No, you found badging info via google. Unless, of course, that was
another fabrication on your part.

> > > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
> it -
> > > they're all wrong, and you are right.
> >
> > The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> > to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> > just dismissing their opinions as the piss-takes that they are.
> > Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
>
> The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"

No, it typifies the truth. A few Johnny-come-latelys that have
offered no useful info, but instead have decided to flame have no
relevance at all. Again, I at least gave some info. It was even
correct, if not terribly helpful. And these others have offered what,
exactly? Where is your righteous indignation, hypocrite?

> I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
> that sentence might come to be disproven.

You're in control of how and when you respond. If you're done, don't
respond. Jeez, do I have to tell you how to do every damn thing?

> > The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> > search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> > have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> > is simply astounding.
>
> And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
> thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.

Wrong again, Peter. You'd think by now you'd be tired of being wrong.
My point was to teach you a lesson. I don't think you've learned it
well yet, but you may come to grow tired of my "slagging" your lazy
ass off, and actually put some effort in some information "exchange."

Spider

Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
 

> > Comprehension.......exactly which part of the phrase "A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp
> > (5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6
cylinder
> > engines?
>
> And exactly what useful information have YOU imparted, Queeny? None?
> Right in one.

Just about the same amount as the information you imparted.

> You missed the part where you butted in to a conversation to try and
> be a Net Cop. Just plain stupid.

Which is basically all you've done in this thread.

Peter