Things Most Likely To Go Wrong

[big_kev]

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.

 

 

Finally a bit of sense has been posted.

 

Yes I know the figuresare correct, thank you for agreeing with me.

 

Also contrary to popular theories I am not a prophet, or seer or oracle.

One assumes that the engines were built and tested before the vehicles were released into the wild.

 

If the 130 and 150 Tdi were not available until 2002 when do you think the vehicles were actually built ( the weekend before ! ).

Most likely this would have been some time before they went on sale and 2001 would seem correct.

[tim-spam]

Finally a bit of sense has been posted.

 

Yes I know the figuresare correct, thank you for agreeing with me.

Another corker from bk.

 

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

Audi A4 2.0 TDI:

Top speed = 138mph

0 - 60mph = 8.9 seconds

 

How much action do you need? Oh sorry, I forgot, you've probably stalled it....

[El Dingo]

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 ???? :)

 

(he he he)

It should be blindingly obvious, if you had read the course notes. Stay behind after class.

(Have you finished term yet Nik? :lol: )

[El Dingo]

Another corker from bk.

 

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

Audi A4 2.0 TDI:

Top speed = 138mph

0 - 60mph = 8.9 seconds

 

How much action do you need? Oh sorry, I forgot, you've probably stalled it....

 

(I'm not BK, by the way. There are/have been multiple identities on this site, but I'm not one of them. :lol: )

 

About 6.9 would be good for me (like my old car)!

I wish the 0-60 for the A4 was nearer 8.9 - it's quoted as 9.7 seconds (the 170PS version achieves 8.6s). Have you ever driven one? Try pulling away very quickly at a junction - it has a tendency to either bog down or try to spin the wheels (at which point the traction control reduces the power to just enough so that the car can limp away). My colleague does complain about stalling his... (:) )

(IMO this car would suit the DSG 'box better, but that was not available in VAG 'in-line' installations when I got the car.)

Not to say that the 1.9TDi isn't a nice engine in a Galaxy (to sort of get back to the OP :lol: ) just nowhere near as nice as any of the petrol engines, especially the Mk2 V6. Assuming that you're not driving on a limited budget, don't have any *really* strong feelings about global warming, and actually enjoy driving (which doesn't have to be fast, or tearing away at the lights), the V6 is the one to go for. The 2.3 isn't a bad compromise, but I still wish I had a V6.

[tim-spam]

Firstly, I never said or implied that you were bk - read the post.

 

I have driven the Passat 2.0TDI, and found it to be very good indeed - I certainly had no problem moving away gently or briskly. Having read various road tests of the A4 2.0TDI, I can only conclude that it must be similarly good to drive, although I guess that there will always be one or two who just don't get on with it. I agree that, for those who find smooth driving difficult, the DSG would be a good option.

 

Regarding the 0 - 60mph times measured by road testers, these are usually a little faster than the 0 - 100kph times quoted by the manufacturers, and anyway there is not really a huge difference between 8.9 and 9.7 - after all, there will be variations between cars, days and drivers which can lead to differences at least as great as that. But I would still not describe 9.7 seconds as 'no action'.

 

As regards the diesel versions being 'nowhere near as nice to drive' as the petrol versions - well, shall we just say, "yet another corker, but this time not from bk"?

[El Dingo]

Firstly, I never said or implied that you were bk - read the post.

 

I have driven the Passat 2.0TDI, and found it to be very good indeed - I certainly had no problem moving away gently or briskly. Having read various road tests of the A4 2.0TDI, I can only conclude that it must be similarly good to drive, although I guess that there will always be one or two who just don't get on with it. I agree that, for those who find smooth driving difficult, the DSG would be a good option.

 

Regarding the 0 - 60mph times measured by road testers, these are usually a little faster than the 0 - 100kph times quoted by the manufacturers, and anyway there is not really a huge difference between 8.9 and 9.7 - after all, there will be variations between cars, days and drivers which can lead to differences at least as great as that. But I would still not describe 9.7 seconds as 'no action'.

 

As regards the diesel versions being 'nowhere near as nice to drive' as the petrol versions - well, shall we just say, "yet another corker, but this time not from bk"?

 

Not BK - OK. :lol: I misread that.

 

Passat is nicer to drive. The A4 is quite a different car, especially ride on S-line versions is bordering on poor, the engine is noisier and more abrupt in character (better Nik?).

 

Regarding the 0-60 times? He he he, I like this thread... 9.7s is nearly fast asleep.

 

Glad to be of service with another corker :lol:. No let's not just say that - the petrol versions really are nicer to drive. :)

[NikpV]

(he he he)

It should be blindingly obvious, if you had read the course notes. Stay behind after class.

(Have you finished term yet Nik? ;) )

 

 

:) :lol: :)

 

unfortunately not, I am now sitting in front of a year 12 physics class whilst they completely ignore me teaching resistivity/conductivity but appearto find the units of conductivity amusing (seimens) B) :lol:

[El Dingo]

(he he he)

It should be blindingly obvious, if you had read the course notes. Stay behind after class.

(Have you finished term yet Nik? B) )

 

 

:) :lol: :)

 

unfortunately not, I am now sitting in front of a year 12 physics class whilst they completely ignore me teaching resistivity/conductivity but appearto find the units of conductivity amusing (seimens) :P :lol:

 

;)

 

I can imagine! You must be off by Wednesday, though?

[tim-spam]

Passat is nicer to drive. The A4 is quite a different car, especially ride on S-line versions is bordering on poor, the engine is noisier and more abrupt in character (better Nik?).

 

Regarding the 0-60 times? He he he, I like this post... 9.7s is nearly fast asleep.

The Passat has the same "overboosted" engine though...

 

If 9.7 seconds is nearly fast asleep, you must sleep pretty soundly driving your Galaxy - sounds dangerous to me....

[NikpV]

(he he he)

It should be blindingly obvious, if you had read the course notes. Stay behind after class.

(Have you finished term yet Nik? :) )

 

 

:lol: :) :P

 

unfortunately not, I am now sitting in front of a year 12 physics class whilst they completely ignore me teaching resistivity/conductivity but appearto find the units of conductivity amusing (seimens) ;) B)

 

:P

 

I can imagine! You must be off by Wednesday, though?

 

 

5.30 wednesday finish :lol:

[El Dingo]

Passat is nicer to drive. The A4 is quite a different car, especially ride on S-line versions is bordering on poor, the engine is noisier and more abrupt in character (better Nik?).

 

Regarding the 0-60 times? He he he, I like this post... 9.7s is nearly fast asleep.

The Passat has the same "overboosted" engine though...

 

If 9.7 seconds is nearly fast asleep, you must sleep pretty soundly driving your Galaxy - sounds dangerous to me....

 

Oh no it doesn't. Same lump yes. The installation is different (in-line v. transverse for a start), and I guess the engine management is different, as they do feel different to drive.

 

There's nothing as dangerous as a bored driver. :lol:

[tim-spam]

Oh no it doesn't. Same lump yes.

Very seasonal I know, but...Oh yes it does. You appear to be contradicting yourself anyway - probably all that petrol.

 

The Passat does indeed have a transverse engine, as does the Sharan etc, but it is the same engine with the same torque curve. If mounting it transversely makes such a difference, it rather scuppers your original argument concerning the problems you seem to have driving the A4 being relevant to the TDI Sharan etc.

Believe me, my A4 TDi is nearly the same engine as the Galaxy TDi

 

 

There's nothing as dangerous as a bored driver.

Oh yes there is - a driver that's fast asleep....

[mumof4]

I got lost in this thread about 100 or so posts ago...anyone got a map?.. :lol: :)

[El Dingo]

Oh no it doesn't. Same lump yes.

Very seasonal I know, but...Oh yes it does. You appear to be contradicting yourself anyway - probably all that petrol.

 

The Passat does indeed have a transverse engine, as does the Sharan etc, but it is the same engine with the same torque curve. If mounting it transversely makes such a difference, it rather scuppers your original argument concerning the problems you seem to have driving the A4 being relevant to the TDI Sharan etc.

Believe me, my A4 TDi is nearly the same engine as the Galaxy TDi

 

 

There's nothing as dangerous as a bored driver.

Oh yes there is - a driver that's fast asleep....

 

The installation is different (in-line v. transverse for a start), and I guess the engine management is different, as they do feel different to drive.

 

(Selective as well as patronising? :P )

 

Bored is just as dangerous IMO. Much harder to spot than fast asleep. :lol:

[Bigjeeze]

No the most dangerous drivers are those with Kalashnikovs and the will to use them!!

 

 

 

(Bournemouth ain't what it used to be you know!!)

[AndeeeH]

I got lost in this thread about 100 or so posts ago...anyone got a map?.. :lol: :P

 

Better phone Neil for directions again. :P :lol: Andy.

[El Dingo]

(I'm going to stop before I get moderated :lol: )

[mumof4]

I got lost in this thread about 100 or so posts ago...anyone got a map?.. :P :lol:

 

Better phone Neil for directions again. :P :D Andy.

 

:P .. :lol: Haven't done that for a while.....since i hit the M25 and went the wrong way round.. :P :P

 

(I'm going to stop before I get moderated :P )

 

 

Moderated???Noooooooooooooooooo.....as if i'd do that.... :P :P :P

[big_kev]

I got lost in this thread about 100 or so posts ago...anyone got a map?.. :lol: :lol:

 

I would offer directions.....but

 

Do you think for one minute that I know which planet I'm on , never mind which post

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm going to stop before I get moderated <_< )

 

Moderated ?

 

Whats that mean then ?

[Guest gooner52]

it means santa has taken your christmas box away :lol: :lol: <_< ;)

 

or some of it :P B)

[big_kev]

it means santa has taken your christmas box away :lol: :lol: <_< ;)

 

it means santa has taken your christmas box away ;) B) :P :P

 

 

Let them try !

 

Santa is prepared

 

 

[Guest gooner52]

santa looks tool`ed up there

 

boy them heavy`s look nasty ;) ;) :angry: :lol:

[AndeeeH]

santa looks tool`ed up there

 

boy them heavy`s look nasty :D :D :rolleyes: :D

 

Definately "no torque.....all action" :D :D Andy.

[big_kev]

 

Definately "no torque.....all action" :blink: :lol: Andy.

 

 

Low torque but high BRp !

[El Dingo]

Sorry, I'll own up now - I was just teasing... <_<