Things Most Likely To Go Wrong

[big_kev]

 

umm needs more than a pile of paper (some of which disagree with you) and a mechanic to counter, sales brochures, TIS ans Elsawin :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

need better than that - much better

 

can't really see any future in this thread now :lol:

 

 

I missed the TIS information it seems to have dissapeared from the thread can someone repost it please.

 

thanks

[AndeeeH]

TIS.doc'TIS here, as requested. :ph34r: Andy.

[NikpV]

I'm sure we can find the back of an old cigarette packet used by an alhambra mechanic with the 'correct' torque figures on :lol: or failing that the last will and testament of a ford dealership manager who had a divine revelation on a trip to loudres to cure his guilty concience on mis-selling a galaxy to a widow on the basis of inaccurate torque figures. :ph34r: :ph34r: :lol:

[AndeeeH]

I know it is from a Galaxy brochure but they do say 'a picture is worth a thousand words' and it might help the less intellectual amongst us to understand the differing power curves for some of the engines, both petrol and diesel. :blink: Andy

[big_kev]

TIS.doc'TIS here, as requested. :blink: Andy.

 

Thank Andy, I must have missed this earlier when it was posted ( unless one of the other guys was telling porkies ).

 

Any how this looks like the classic document where the information is not available at time of going to print and they just use what they have.

 

The figure for the ASZ engine appears to be correct, however the AUY and the ASZ1( is this the correct code ? ) are just copied from the ASZ as this was the only one that had the information available at the time.

 

Also on a point of note please bear in mind the earlier AFN engines generate their maximum torque at around 2400rpm......just thought I would mention this.

 

Just popping off to watch the football..........dont tell me the score..

 

Also I have just received an email with some updated info. more of this later

[AndeeeH]

TIS_2.docHere's the data for the MK 1: Andy.

[big_kev]

EEC and EC what are these then I see them regularly quoted after the torque figures.

 

Contrary to popular belief , I don't know it all and if anyone can fill me in ( yeh I know ) on this I will be most grateful.

 

Thanks Kev

[Guest wolfie]

EEC and EC what are these then I see them regularly quoted after the torque figures.

 

Contrary to popular belief , I don't know it all and if anyone can fill me in ( yeh I know ) on this I will be most grateful.

 

Thanks Kev

 

 

 

European Economic Community.... directives and regulations ...blah blah blah.....

 

the one in question is EEC directives 93/116/EC to do with fuel consumption

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e...19940102-en.pdf

 

knock yourself out, there is some real interesting stuff in there :blink:

[big_kev]

TIS_2.docHere's the data for the MK 1: Andy.

 

Lo0k slightly high but only slightly.

I would agree with these, they are near enough to be believable.

 

I am also assuming these were taken at 2400 rpm ?

 

European Economic Community.... directives and regulations ...blah blah blah.....

 

the one in question is EEC directives 93/116/EC to do with fuel consumption

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e...19940102-en.pdf

 

knock yourself out, there is some real interesting stuff in there :(

 

read the document ( well glaced at it ) thought I talked carp...( I know this may get a reply ).

However could not find any reference at all to torque !

There was a bit where you had to state the BHP but no mention at all of torque.

 

Have I missed something or does the EEC thingy have no bearing on torque measurements, does it just look nice on the documentation?

[big_kev]

I think to regain any credibility

 

What you mean I had some previously :(

[NikpV]

I think to regain any credibility

 

What you mean I had some previously :D

 

 

only until you started to post :( :( :) :)

[big_kev]

I think to regain any credibility

 

What you mean I had some previously :D

 

 

only until you started to post :( :) :) :D

 

I deserved that :(

[big_kev]

I take it that my case is settled then

[AndeeeH]

I take it that my case is settled then

 

No! the men in white coats are still looking into it. :o Andy.

[NikpV]

I thought you took your case with you :lol:

[big_kev]

I see we have to resort to personal abuse ( granted most of it is justified ).

 

The last bit of useful info on this subject was from wolfie ( baby ! )

Who seemed to agree with me.

 

Enough said on this now I think I won the arguement and hopefully made several members aware of the true figures.

 

Kev

[tim-spam]

I really cannot believe that you are still trying to argue your case - you don't have a case to argue. I think it really is time to accept that you're in a hole, and that it would be a good idea to stop digging.

 

Still, if you really want to continue, go ahead - good entertainment (the comments about the Audi A4 were pretty amusing too).

 

By the way, the last figures you nearly believed are those for the earlier TDI 90 and TDI 110 engines, which had lower torque outputs than the later engines. Also, if you read them properly, you will notice that the maximum torques were quoted at 1900rpm and not 2400rpm.

[big_kev]

I really cannot believe that you are still trying to argue your case - you don't have a case to argue. I think it really is time to accept that you're in a hole, and that it would be a good idea to stop digging.

 

 

I think that as no one has come up with any other figures aother than wolfie ( baby ) and myself.

That it is clear I am correct and that the different engines 115,130 and 150BhP have different torques at 1900rpm.

All other people have done is just quote some printed figures with no reasoning behind them.

 

Show me some evidence that these figures are correct, a logical arguemnt to support them !

 

I thought not !

 

 

Still, if you really want to continue, go ahead - good entertainment (the comments about the Audi A4 were pretty amusing too).

 

 

I thought the comments about the Audi A4 were amusing too...pity it wasn't me that posted them

 

read the thread !

 

 

By the way, the last figures you nearly believed are those for the earlier TDI 90 and TDI 110 engines, which had lower torque outputs than the later engines. Also, if you read them properly, you will notice that the maximum torques were quoted at 1900rpm and not 2400rpm.

 

Hence my comment that they were actually taken at 2400rpm.

 

English language is not your strong point is it ?

[tim-spam]

The figures I have ( these are the real figures ) are shown below

 

1995 66kw=202Nm

1996 81kw=225Nm

2000 66kw=240Nm

2000 85kw=285Nm

2001 96kw=310Nm

2001 110kw=320Nm2005 103kw 2.0l =320Nm

and a little bogie at the end, which I will put my hand up and say I dont know why this is seprate, please enlighten me.

 

2001 85kw 6 speed =310Nm

The red figures above refer to the TDI engines as fitted to the Sharan, Alhambra and Galaxy from 2000 - 2006, and, as you say, are correct, if a little prophetic - the TDI 130 and TDI 150 were not yet available in 2001. The 85kW engine with 285Nm of torque refers to engine code AJM, which was fitted to some versions of the Golf and Bora. The 85kW engine with 310Nm of torque refers to engine code AUY, and has (yes, you may have guessed it) a different torque curve.

 

The figures that I have quoted are the same, and are taken from the owner's manuals that come with the car, and, yes, they are in print - what else would you expect? You will also find the same figures quoted in the TIS, Elsawin, Bentley, RTA, etc. This is because these are the figures quoted by the manufacturer. Now, unless everyone is going to test one of each engine on a dynamometer themselves, what else would you expect? However, VAG's competitors will have done this, and if the figures were incorrect, you can bet that this would have been drawn to the attention of various interested bodies.

 

Now, in order to achieve european type approval, the manufacturer has, by law, to accurately measure the maximum power and torque capabilities of the engine (amongst many other things) and submit this information as part of the technical construction file. This file also has to include the operator's manual (ie: the book supplied with the car). If the basic data is incorrect, the manufacturer is breaking the law. If the data in the operator's manual is not consistent with that in the rest of the technical construction file, there is no way that the authorities will grant type approval. How do I know this? It's part of my job.

 

If you can read and interpret basic english, and have read my previous posts, you will understand exactly how the engines can have the same (or very similar) maximum torque capability, and different maximum power outputs. If you do not wish to understand this, there is nothing anyone else can do about it - you will continue to waste time trying to convince yourself and others that your misconceived ideas are valid.

[El Dingo]

Does anybody want to buy an Audi A4?

 

It has 230Nm of torque, or is that 219 ftlb? Oh, hang on, that's not right.

Now, let me see. V=rw, P=VI CosPhi, Sigma Your Mate In The Engine Room...

[El Dingo]

 

Still, if you really want to continue, go ahead - good entertainment (the comments about the Audi A4 were pretty amusing too).

 

 

Thanks! :)

I've had much amusement with many of your posts in this thread too. :lol:

[tim-spam]

Does anybody want to buy an Audi A4?

Lots of people - nice car, especially the TDI's...

[NikpV]

Does anybody want to buy an Audi A4?

Lots of people - nice car, especially the TDI's...

 

apparently overboosted though :) :lol:

[El Dingo]

Does anybody want to buy an Audi A4?

Lots of people - nice car, especially the TDI's...

 

apparently overboosted though :) :lol:

 

If only it was the 2.0T I'd love it... :)

 

Trouble is, it's all torque and no action. :lol:

Those torque curves say it all.

A tractor engine in a sports saloon.

[NikpV]

Does anybody want to buy an Audi A4?

Lots of people - nice car, especially the TDI's...

 

apparently overboosted though :lol: :)

 

A tractor engine in a sports saloon.

 

but does it suit your driving style ???? :lol: