Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[amigov6]

Modern diesels have one hell of a punch but in a very short rev range, so you'll always catch up & when you do it's surprising how quickly you do it. Migs are long legged so enjoy the v6 growl & watch out for your licence!!!

[sounds2k]

3) Omega has a V6 with a cast iron block up front. Not sure what the Passat has but the only way the Omega's engine could be heavier is with cast iron heads!

well as far as I know, only the honda diesel engines are alloy, so the VW TDI would have a cast iron block too ...

[cem_devecioglu]

2 days ago a  2.5 liter passat tdi ( 2 red "DI")  try racing with me ..(not TLGP)

I beat..But the driver was ...

[TheBoy]

1) It's front wheel drive so no propshaft, diff, simpler rear suspension, smaller gearbox, shorter bonnet

Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?

[Kevin Wood]

Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?

No doubt related to the old audi 80/100/Coupe. They had longitudinal FWD. Placed a shedload of weight out way in front of the front wheels, especially with the 5 pot engines

Can't recall what they handled like. Badly, I'd imagine.

Kevin

[Paul M]

1) It's front wheel drive so no propshaft, diff, simpler rear suspension, smaller gearbox, shorter bonnet

Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?

That's because they're designed for the quattro system. It's easier to keep the engine longitudinal in FWD, than to try and fit a quattro system to a transverse engine. Same reason the 80/90 etc had longitudinal engines.

Incidentally the A3/TT have transverse engines because they're not available with proper quattro -- instead they get the crappy Haldex system.

[Paul M]

Hi all.
Not really sure if this is in the right forum so will apologise now if it is'nt. I am growing increasingly disillusioned by the performance of my Omega. its a 1996 3.0 auto Elite saloon.
It has been serviced regular, runs on branded fuel (Total mostly) but I am finding more often than not that 1.9 diesel Passats are more than a match when pulling off & more responsive overall. I know they now have 6 speed manual boxes which means shorter gearing but uses power much better when required.
I would have thought 208bhp was quite impressive when compared to 170 but i see on here the miggy produces 199 lbs of torque compared to the VW's 258. Is this most likely due to the fact it has a turbo or does the autobox hinder performance as greatly as I think, kick down seems more like a volume control rather than an acceleration tool.  May just be my driving style as I am not the Stig.  
Just raised this as a debate to see if others suffer the same. Also are manuals more responsive to throttle changes?
Thanks in advance
Jez

Even in manual form the 3.0 isn't amazingly quick, it's a heavy car as you state. One issue is the gearing being high, the manual is much better in this regard but still not brilliant. A manual with a higher diff ratio (for lower overall gearing) would be ideal, but it means you're revving higher when cruising.

Diesels always produce more torque and at lower revs, which means it's much easier to stay in the power band without shifting down. But ultimately horsepower is what you need for acceleration, as you can lower the gearing and thus reduce the load multiplication on the engine.

You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).

Oh and diesel blocks tend to be heavy as they have to be stronger to deal with the high pressures caused by the high compression ratio. Modern cars always tend to be heavier than the model they replace, probably a combination of extra safety gubbins and more equipment. Often they grow a little in size too.

[Martin_1962]

Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?

No doubt related to the old audi 80/100/Coupe. They had longitudinal FWD. Placed a shedload of weight out way in front of the front wheels, especially with the 5 pot engines

Can't recall what they handled like. Badly, I'd imagine.

Kevin

Strange idea - so much better to lose the front diff and use a prop shaft

[Kevin Wood]

Strange idea - so much better to lose the front diff and use a prop shaft

My thoughts exactly. They were almost there but... No!

Kevin

[TheBoy]

You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).

The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap.  The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).

The newer software does reduce the amount of 'slip' on the TC as well.

However, a manual, properly driven should be faster, engines considered identical.  For a start, its not easy to quickly launch an auto, as the box will reach stall point at around 2k.

[Paul M]

You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).

The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap.  The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).

Yes but over the course of the entire run the manual is almost perfectly geared for 0-60 (at least on the 3.0) as 2nd tops out around 65 MPH. The gap between 1st and 2nd isn't that big so if you shift up around 6400 RPM it stays right in the power band. Only one gear change required. If it were a 0-70 run then there wouldn't be much in it as you'd need another gear change on the manual, about 0.5s when gunning it.

[TheBoy]

You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).

The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap.  The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).

Yes but over the course of the entire run the manual is almost perfectly geared for 0-60 (at least on the 3.0) as 2nd tops out around 65 MPH. The gap between 1st and 2nd isn't that big so if you shift up around 6400 RPM it stays right in the power band. Only one gear change required. If it were a 0-70 run then there wouldn't be much in it as you'd need another gear change on the manual, about 0.5s when gunning it.

Yes, agreed.  I reckon the 20 - 80, the auto may even win.  But my point was, with the better software, the auto isn't far behind on a 0-60, with most of the lost ground on initial pull away....

[Chopsdad]

Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/

I know my place in life  

[Tony H]

Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/

I know my place in life  

With the improved power to weight ratio of your Omega due to the spotless engine bay that alone should be worth half a second off your 0 - 60 time

[Chopsdad]

Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/

I know my place in life  

With the improved power to weight ratio of your Omega due to the spotless engine bay that alone should be worth half a second off your 0 - 60 time

The extra slippy exterior helps with the drag co-efficient too But it's still slow :-/