Re: Thought I'd seen it all...

["Brandon Wilson" <brandon@eicsoftware.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hussey <vfrboy@home.net>
To: <jettaglx@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Thought I'd seen it all...


> Mike VanAmburgh wrote:
>
> > > 172 horses out a 2.8L six cylinder is pretty pathetic,
> >
> > Can you think of another 2.8 litre 12V motor that puts out 172 hp?  172
> > hp is respectable for the VR6, especially since it dates back to 92.
>
> 12Valve ... no.  But plenty of 2.8L 24 Valve engines are crushing the 172
> mark, not to mention also providing more torque.
>
> > GM was lucky to get 155-160 hp out of their 3.1 in 92.  :-)
>
> GM was, is, and always will be an American engine maker, torque means a
> whole lot more to them than peak horsepower, so it's not really a fair
> comparison.  What about Audi's 190HP 2.8?  Or BMW's 190HP 2.8?  They both
> make more torque and get better mileage in heavier cars.  So what's the
> deal?
>
> Bill
> '98 GLX


PRICE!!!!  These are VW.  "A poor mans BMW"  If you want to go pay twice as
much for that BMW or that Audi to get 15 more horse power and 20 lbs. more
of torque be my guest!!   I will take the VW and bank the rest!!  All and
all for the price the VR6 is a very nice engine!!

Brandon Wilson