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

[Mike VanAmburgh <vwvr6r@fiber.net>]

Bill Hussey wrote:
> 
> 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.

You're right, which is why I stressed 12V.  It's obvious that a 24V
motor will put out more than a 12V motor.  Maybe some day VWoA will
decide to bring over the 204 hp 24V 2.8 V6 that Europe gets to enjoy.

> 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?

What's the deal?  Lack of multivalve, which you know.  As far as economy
goes, the VR6 is a gas hog, but I would imagine VR6 cars are geared
differently than others.  I'm guessing, but VR6 cars probably rev higher
at cruising speed compared to BMW/Audi, etc.  My Jetta gets 28 mpg
cruising at 80ish on average, which isn't too far off the mark of the
newer technology motors.  My Scirocco 16V only gets slightly better
mileage than the VR6, mainly because it revs at 4000 rpm at 80 mph
compared with the Jetta's ~3400 rpm.  :-) 

Don't forget that the 190 hp 'Audi' 2.8 is also found in the new
Passats.  

-Mike