On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:01:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:13:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.

Oh, I'm sorry cue sarcasm alert. I just assumed that you were
talking about the NEW model, not a year old car.

I am - it's not on sale yet, you cretin.

Oh, I see. You can talk about motors that aren't even out yet (and
"Frenchs" can claim things about their crankshafts), but I can't
assume that you are talking about the version that is due out shortly.

Any 2005 model is at this point an old model, now that the new line is
announced.

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................

You're joking, of course. Bragging rights in a go-kart. Cool. The
standards of the Brits has fallen quite low.

Thanks for once again confirming that you know nothing about cars -
and what makes the special ones special.

I guess it's the lack of an enclosure. Or storage space. Of course, as
long as you don't have a passenger, you can just about fit a briefcase
in the passenger seat.

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember?

It *is* the same engine, you ignorant ****, it just has bigger holes
in it!

Oh, so now boring the engine out keeps it the "same motor", especially
when it comes to specs and performance. Cool. Amazing how flexible you
engineering types have gotten. As we know 3.2 = 3.6 every time.

It improves the performance, but It's the same engine. I've never
known anyone who actually knows about cars to consider that a bored
and/or stroked motor is *different* in any significant way, aside from
sheer output. Going from a two-valve to a four-valve head with
variable camshaft timing and FSI is another matter.

"Improves the performance". ISN"T THAT THE WHOLE POINT that we've been
going round and round about? The point that you deny time after time -
that VAG has positioned Audi differently by providing "better" specs
and "better" performance. This is again something that Porsche did
with the INDEPENDENTLY tweaked Cayenne motor.

And your last point - it's the same block, remember? Nothing else is
supposed to matter. Point is, these are two different motors. Period.