04-26-2006, 10:19 PM
Whats up with the 78HP per Liter engine?
Honda cranked 120HP per liter on the S2000.
Honestly 250HP for a sports car seems weak to me. The 2008 Infiniti G35 speculates to have 335-345HP which seems to fit in the same class as the MK2 TT. Will the 3.2 receive a boost of HP?
04-26-2006, 10:54 PM
With 161ft lbs of torque at 6500rpms, the S2K can't pull skim off rice pudding below 6000rpms. Great fun in a canyon, but not fun to drive around town or combine with heavier cars or awd.
The TT should have a torquey 280/300hp 3.6 liter V6 option around the time the Infiniti lands. The '07 Infiniti sedan with the 3.5 is expected to have 300hp with how much torque and at what rpm?<ul><li><a href="http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB25&Number=68090808&page =0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1">klik</a></li></ul>
...<font color="003366"> It was an absolute torque vacuum of an engine under its hood. That even goes for the current 237HP 2.2L version that was put to address the torque deficit. Great for canyon carving and the occasional motoring tan but little else. By the way, the current S2000's 107HP/l is not all that impressive compared to a couple of recent German machines. And with less than 74 lb.-ft/l of torque to move its 2855lb avoirdupois we're not talking a machine that likes to, er, launch.
Trust me, a second generation TT with 302HP (DIN) under its hood is a mighty nice car to toodle around in. Year 'round.</font>
...<font color="003366"> Farmington Hills (tech center) rather than Nashville, says the phase two engine peak torque is actually down from the current G35 coupe level. Seems they did that "spin it faster for more HP" trick that GM's been doing lately. Didn't drop a lot but he said its enough and the peak became <i>somewhat more inaccessible</i> (his phrase). I believe that's a euphemism for "achieved at higher RPM."
Whatcha doing slummin' in these parts? Work related?</font>
04-27-2006, 07:33 PM
The problem is... why spend 45K for $32K Audi A3 3.2. You are getting the exact same car for 12k more. The audi A3 and Golf MK5 and Audi TT MKII share the same platform. I think it would be a good idea if Audi made a seperation performance wise between the 3 models.
04-27-2006, 07:52 PM
Yes, dabbling in something for work;-)
04-27-2006, 07:58 PM
and the Passat. PQ35 vs PQ45 chassis.
It also sees a substantial use of aluminum that helps with overall weight and weight distribution, making it the sportier choice over the other two more "practical" cars. The narrower A3 and GTi cannot fit the 3.6 VR6 and the DSG under the hood, so we won't see the R36 and S3 based on that. They also can't hope to match the TT's handling moves thanks to the new TT getting a mostly aluminum front end.
Instead we get the R32 (again) and the S3 (265hp turbo 4) won't bother coming. The Golf chassis is undergoing a nose job in which the front of the entire car is being reworked structurally to fit the 3.6 and DSG. That will be the MK VI chassis.
If you do some homework, you'll find the cars very different.
05-01-2006, 11:12 AM
HP is what determines acceleration. You're saying "torque," but comparing HP. As soon as you say "torque at x rpm," you're talking about horsepower.
05-04-2006, 09:10 PM
Love Audi's and they are great cars but they falling behind in the HP wars. Cars for 1/2 the price or 2/3 are getting more HP. Yes, it's not everything but nice to be able keep up on the street. Rice Rocket's like the WRX or STI can make most Audi's look silly. I don't like the boy racer look but they are fast. Don't mean to offend any one but the true hurts!!! Mostly my pride and wallet because spent 10 to 15 grand for car that not that fast. At least I can beat another Audi on the track.
Go Speed Racer, Go!!!