What I want vs. what the reality could support

"AD" > wrote in message
...
On 19 �нв, 19:44, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> "AD" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Call me a pervert, but I want a V8, around 2.0 liters, AWD layout with
> > rearward bias and the seats that have lateral support on one
> > hand and in which you could move in the other. Lack of static
> > electricity discharges is a plus. Let's see, 55 profile tires for
> > summer on R15 or R16 and around 60 on R15 or R14 for winter.
>
> > Since no such thing exist my heart whispers 325xi, but my wallet tells
> > me A4 quattro with something motivating it in the 1.6 - 2.4 range.
> > The former 4 banger being hard to find (also have doubts 1.6 could run
> > A/C well)
> > and the latter guzzling quite a lot of gas despite being 2 pots short
> > of the desired
> > pot count i might just have to suppress my disdain towards turbo.
> > Maybe NVH of an audi four bangers is not that bad
> > though i never heard any raves about their engines.
>
> > Looks like A4 is the way to go, primary because (official) bmw
> > services in this part of urop are ripoffs
> > and vw services are plentiful. Sigh.
>
> > Talk me out of this
>
> A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> Why would you think a 2.0L 4-cylinder can drive an A/C, but a 1.6L can't?

had a 2.0L 4 pot protege -> A/C was working fine, the engine was
anything but smooth as expected
from a 4 banger that was not through the honda treatment (adding lots
of complexity in the process).

on 1,6L i read of nothing but problems with A/C performance (chevrolet
mostly)


<JS>
You are complaining of the performance of a Mazda and a Chevrolet on a BMW
board where you are asking an opinion of an Audi?

What's up with that?

BMW makes a very nice I6 that fits your needs. The 330xi or the 325xi are
current cars in the E90 chassis, and also exist in the E46 chassis -- both 3
Series cars. I don't know if you can get an xi (AWD) in the 5 Series or not,
but I think not. In any case, BMW's I6 is a fine motor that will deliver
plenty of silky smooth power, and can be had in an AWD format. You can also
go for the straight RWD format of the 3 Series or the 5 Series if the 3 is
too small.

</JS>

"AD" > wrote in message
...
On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> >> Ferrari made one.
>
> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>
> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
> cc-related taxation laws.
>
> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
> engine, it was.

Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
How much fuel did it gulp then?

1600 27-32mpg
2000 28-32mpg

Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.

IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
rear wheel would fold under the car.

Most Triumphs only had fatal (for the car) flaws, such as rust (all models),
clogging injection (2500PI), boiling over (Stag), faulty steering (Toledo),
poor build (TR7) etc. etc.

"AD" > wrote in message
...
On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> >> Ferrari made one.
>
> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>
> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
> cc-related taxation laws.
>
> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
> engine, it was.

Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
How much fuel did it gulp then?

1600 27-32mpg
2000 28-32mpg

Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.

IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
rear wheel would fold under the car.

Most Triumphs only had fatal (for the car) flaws, such as rust (all models),
clogging injection (2500PI), boiling over (Stag), faulty steering (Toledo),
poor build (TR7) etc. etc.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote:

>
>"AD" > wrote in message
...
>On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>>
>> >> Ferrari made one.
>>
>> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>>
>> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
>> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
>> cc-related taxation laws.
>>
>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
>> engine, it was.
>
>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
>How much fuel did it gulp then?
>
>1600 27-32mpg
>2000 28-32mpg
>
>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>
>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>rear wheel would fold under the car.

That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
it will spin out if you do the same thing.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote:

>
>"AD" > wrote in message
...
>On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>>
>> >> Ferrari made one.
>>
>> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>>
>> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
>> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
>> cc-related taxation laws.
>>
>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
>> engine, it was.
>
>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
>How much fuel did it gulp then?
>
>1600 27-32mpg
>2000 28-32mpg
>
>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>
>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
>rear wheel would fold under the car.

That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as
the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
it will spin out if you do the same thing.

On Jan 24, 8:26*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:

> > Why would you think a 2.0L 4-cylinder can drive an A/C, but a 1.6L can't?
>
> had a 2.0L 4 pot protege -> A/C was working fine, the engine was
> anything but smooth as expected
> from a 4 banger that was not through the honda treatment (adding lots
> of complexity in the process).
>
> on 1,6L i read of nothing but problems with A/C performance (chevrolet
> mostly)
>
> <JS>
> You are complaining of the performance of a Mazda and a Chevrolet on a BMW
> board where you are asking an opinion of an Audi?
>
> What's up with that?
>
I don't see how 1.6L in audi is fundamentally different from that in a
different car
as plebeian as you imply mazda and chevrolet are (unless i read too
much into your response)
Automakers, with rare exceptions for honda s2000, aren't exactly eager
to extract the most power out of the lowest displacement.

That might have something to do with the fact that
1. the target audience is not exactly looking for the cutting edge
dynamics
2. you could just as well accomplish the same with the proper gearing
and throwing
the 6th cog into works.

But, needless to say, one got to ask the question: what is the
threshold where
there's just not enough power for a/c to be effective and the
anecdotal evidence
points somewhere in the 1.6 to 2.0 range.

I'm considering a 1.6 mill in A4 because the $4/gallon gas might be
history
in the heavily screwed up US metro areas such as silicon valley and NY
but it's very real where i live. That coupled with the perception that
1.8T is not
the best engine audi had to offer. The perception in my neck of woods
is that 1.6 is bulletproof due to the simplicity inherent to its
design.
The locals could not say the same about the bmw 4 pots even though
given that I want an xi trim I'd have to pony up for 2.5 I6 anyway
which I was considering before i dug for the service part of the
equation (see below).

> BMW makes a very nice I6 that fits your needs. The 330xi or the 325xi are
> current cars in the E90 chassis, and also exist in the E46 chassis -- both 3
> Series cars. I don't know if you can get an xi (AWD) in the 5 Series or not,
> but I think not. In any case, BMW's I6 is a fine motor that will deliver
> plenty of silky smooth power, and can be had in an AWD format. You can also
> go for the straight RWD format of the 3 Series or the 5 Series if the 3 is
> too small.

[long rant about my views on service]
I want an awd sedan for my current purposes (don't want an suv or a
crossover).
hence 5 is out of the picture for now: no awd and complex electrics ->
I must
have mentioned that bmw service around here is vastly inferior to
that of vw in terms of avalilability and quality.

Me thinks i'd have to do with A4 or A6 quattro primarily because of
the
puny official bmw service in minsk. There are 6 or 7 official vw
services
in the city of 2 million and one official bmw service that reputedly
rips people off (it's good to be the only game in town i suppose).

I definitely don't want to be stranded with no options for service if
the relationship with the singular bmw service won;t work. And being
the picky ******* that i'm the chances of that are high: the locals
just don't seem to buy into the "customer is always right, even
when he is wrong". I don't think most of the businesses around here
can spell "l-o-n-g s-a-l-e". Hey! Make a buck! Quick!

thanks

On Jan 24, 8:26*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:

> > Why would you think a 2.0L 4-cylinder can drive an A/C, but a 1.6L can't?
>
> had a 2.0L 4 pot protege -> A/C was working fine, the engine was
> anything but smooth as expected
> from a 4 banger that was not through the honda treatment (adding lots
> of complexity in the process).
>
> on 1,6L i read of nothing but problems with A/C performance (chevrolet
> mostly)
>
> <JS>
> You are complaining of the performance of a Mazda and a Chevrolet on a BMW
> board where you are asking an opinion of an Audi?
>
> What's up with that?
>
I don't see how 1.6L in audi is fundamentally different from that in a
different car
as plebeian as you imply mazda and chevrolet are (unless i read too
much into your response)
Automakers, with rare exceptions for honda s2000, aren't exactly eager
to extract the most power out of the lowest displacement.

That might have something to do with the fact that
1. the target audience is not exactly looking for the cutting edge
dynamics
2. you could just as well accomplish the same with the proper gearing
and throwing
the 6th cog into works.

But, needless to say, one got to ask the question: what is the
threshold where
there's just not enough power for a/c to be effective and the
anecdotal evidence
points somewhere in the 1.6 to 2.0 range.

I'm considering a 1.6 mill in A4 because the $4/gallon gas might be
history
in the heavily screwed up US metro areas such as silicon valley and NY
but it's very real where i live. That coupled with the perception that
1.8T is not
the best engine audi had to offer. The perception in my neck of woods
is that 1.6 is bulletproof due to the simplicity inherent to its
design.
The locals could not say the same about the bmw 4 pots even though
given that I want an xi trim I'd have to pony up for 2.5 I6 anyway
which I was considering before i dug for the service part of the
equation (see below).

> BMW makes a very nice I6 that fits your needs. The 330xi or the 325xi are
> current cars in the E90 chassis, and also exist in the E46 chassis -- both 3
> Series cars. I don't know if you can get an xi (AWD) in the 5 Series or not,
> but I think not. In any case, BMW's I6 is a fine motor that will deliver
> plenty of silky smooth power, and can be had in an AWD format. You can also
> go for the straight RWD format of the 3 Series or the 5 Series if the 3 is
> too small.

[long rant about my views on service]
I want an awd sedan for my current purposes (don't want an suv or a
crossover).
hence 5 is out of the picture for now: no awd and complex electrics ->
I must
have mentioned that bmw service around here is vastly inferior to
that of vw in terms of avalilability and quality.

Me thinks i'd have to do with A4 or A6 quattro primarily because of
the
puny official bmw service in minsk. There are 6 or 7 official vw
services
in the city of 2 million and one official bmw service that reputedly
rips people off (it's good to be the only game in town i suppose).

I definitely don't want to be stranded with no options for service if
the relationship with the singular bmw service won;t work. And being
the picky ******* that i'm the chances of that are high: the locals
just don't seem to buy into the "customer is always right, even
when he is wrong". I don't think most of the businesses around here
can spell "l-o-n-g s-a-l-e". Hey! Make a buck! Quick!

thanks

On Jan 24, 8:20Â*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> "AD" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 20 �нв, 01:05, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
>
> > "Dean Dark" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> > > Ferrari made one.
>
> > That's 250cc per cylinder. I've had lawn mowers with bigger cylinders than
> > that. Seems to me that a 2L V8 would need to turn lots of RPMs.
>
> to make a lot of power -> something I do not crave. I'm thinking an I6
> or an I7
> turbodiesel from a truck line would have suited me ok, but i don't
> think those
> things are smooth and i don't like volvo at all; hence 740 is out of
> the picture
>
> <JS>
> I don't get it. You are all over the ballpark. There is no such thing (for

I am. I have narrowed it down to 325xi, A4 torsen and A6 torsen. Looks
like bmw is out due
to service consideration (see another posts). With audi the choice of
engines is
bewildering and 1.6 might not be easy to find. Hence am trying to
get as many points of view on the engine part of the equation as
possible.
I guess I should stop crossposting to a.a.b but I somehow suspect you
are
on a.a.b side of things.

> any practical reason) of a 2L V8. You can get a very nice 2.5L I6 and some
> very smooth 3L V6s. You can also get good 2L 4-cylinders. So, you can get
> smooth, and you can get 2L and you can get V8, but you can't get a smooth 2L
> V8.
>
> Now, you have abandoned your dream list and switched gears to some
> monstrosity of a diesel that is not smooth and smells bad, and if you are in
> the USA, buying fuel is a challenge.
>
For better or worse I moved out of the states. Lived the slogan "make
america better! leave!" :-)
Diesel is plentiful and cheap around here but the quality is probably
worse that in the states
(and it used to be even worse before now from what i hear)

In silicon valley i saw no shortage of diesel pumps at the gas
stations but i assume you
are talking about rural areas. Still, I saw plenty of turbodiesel
pickups while down there,
they've got to get their juice somewhere.

Aside from the refineries not tuned for equal gas/diesel output the
all american aversion to diesels
stems from smell and rough idle or there is more to it than that?

On Jan 24, 8:20Â*pm, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> "AD" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 20 �нв, 01:05, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
>
> > "Dean Dark" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> > > Ferrari made one.
>
> > That's 250cc per cylinder. I've had lawn mowers with bigger cylinders than
> > that. Seems to me that a 2L V8 would need to turn lots of RPMs.
>
> to make a lot of power -> something I do not crave. I'm thinking an I6
> or an I7
> turbodiesel from a truck line would have suited me ok, but i don't
> think those
> things are smooth and i don't like volvo at all; hence 740 is out of
> the picture
>
> <JS>
> I don't get it. You are all over the ballpark. There is no such thing (for

I am. I have narrowed it down to 325xi, A4 torsen and A6 torsen. Looks
like bmw is out due
to service consideration (see another posts). With audi the choice of
engines is
bewildering and 1.6 might not be easy to find. Hence am trying to
get as many points of view on the engine part of the equation as
possible.
I guess I should stop crossposting to a.a.b but I somehow suspect you
are
on a.a.b side of things.

> any practical reason) of a 2L V8. You can get a very nice 2.5L I6 and some
> very smooth 3L V6s. You can also get good 2L 4-cylinders. So, you can get
> smooth, and you can get 2L and you can get V8, but you can't get a smooth 2L
> V8.
>
> Now, you have abandoned your dream list and switched gears to some
> monstrosity of a diesel that is not smooth and smells bad, and if you are in
> the USA, buying fuel is a challenge.
>
For better or worse I moved out of the states. Lived the slogan "make
america better! leave!" :-)
Diesel is plentiful and cheap around here but the quality is probably
worse that in the states
(and it used to be even worse before now from what i hear)

In silicon valley i saw no shortage of diesel pumps at the gas
stations but i assume you
are talking about rural areas. Still, I saw plenty of turbodiesel
pickups while down there,
they've got to get their juice somewhere.

Aside from the refineries not tuned for equal gas/diesel output the
all american aversion to diesels
stems from smell and rough idle or there is more to it than that?

On Jan 24, 10:05*pm, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"AD" > wrote in message
> ....
> >On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote:
> >> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing?
>
> >> >> Ferrari made one.
>
> >> >Didn't that one explode a lot?
>
> >> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built
> >> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty
> >> cc-related taxation laws.
>
> >> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The
> >> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little
> >> engine, it was.
>
> >Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory.
> >How much fuel did it gulp then?
>
> >1600 27-32mpg
> >2000 28-32mpg
>
> >Imperial gallons from Parkers guide.
>
> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside
> >rear wheel would fold under the car.
>
> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner,
> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as
> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because
> it will spin out if you do the same thing.

In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD...
massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer"