A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!

Page 1 of 2  
Does anybody know how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is definately needed.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Take a look at this list: http://www.qstuning.co.uk/list_for_car.asp?car ¦18
You can get much more than 240hp if you are willing to spend more than £3000. :)
--
Jone Tytlandsvik
http://tytlandsvik.no
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I find my A6 1.8T Multi to be well sorted for power, It all depends on where you catch the Turbo, sometimes you can shove the pedal down and nothing happens but select the right gear and get the revs right and the thing rockets away.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This reply got send directly to me as an email. Just thought I'd post it to the group. Obviously some people don't realise that usenet isn't just for experts, it's for anyone and everyone to freely post opinions and ideas, even if they might not know all of the facts.

Well what exactly are the differences between the 150bhp and 225bhp versions of the engine then?
Is it just a bigger turbo, and uprated head gasket? Or are slightly lower compression pistons fitted? If it's just these things that make it different, but it's the same basic block and head design, then it *is* the same basic engine. If not, then I was completely wrong, but no need to get arsey about it.
Peter
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you get the author's permission first?

USENET also has a set of conventions for use. These conventions include avoiding posting private e-mails without permission, and how to order one's posts for logical reading (avoiding top-posts.) If you would like, I can supply you with a long list of URLs that deal with netiquette.
The answer to the questions posed about the differences between the 150 and 225HP 1.8T has been gone over several HUNDRED times in this forum alone! That is why you use a search engine - to get answers to questions.
Start with www.google.com, and click on the web tab and do a search. If you do not get answers, click on the groups tab and search there. While you are there, use the search string "netiquette top posting".
I am still unclear as to why you would offer an opinion on something that you obviously know very little about. "Because it's there"?
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it to

Why does this matter?

If it makes you happier, please do, however I suspect you'd be taking up bandwidth.

/holds up hands to make a "W" shape/
Yeah, whatever, buddy.

So where, precisely, does it state that one has to be a mechanic, or a qualified technician, to respond to a post? Usenet is about communication. If you just tell people, "oh, use a search engine" to every query, what's the point in having a DISCUSSION board, eh?
Or did that bit escape?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So I am guessing that you think that this is good and acceptable? Posting private e-mail is one of the greater "sins" in USENET. But according to you, it should just be free-for-all. Where is the value in that?

What get's posted in a public forum, available and readable by all who have access is quite different from private messages meant for one and only one. Unless you are willing to post all the contents of your inbox in public for comment, I will suppose, again, that you are exercizing your hyperbole skills.

I suggest you read what I wrote, instead of inventing something. Read it again carefully.

One that makes sense? One where USENET holds some sort of value, even if that value is small? You advocate some sort of random, worthless interaction that isn't worth the time spent. The end result of that view is a very quiet USENET.

Facts are facts. Technical questions that have specific, concrete answers (like the differences between a 150 and 225HP 1.8T) are really not subject to "opinion." Either the answer is right, or it's wrong. THere is no room for opinion on a technical question. If you asked "how many km between timing belt replacements on a 1.8T" and got a bunch of opinions, how valuable would that be toward answering your question? Only the FACT of the proper interval is helpful.

Or, they could go and find the right answer, and post that instead. Being helpful, instead of merely being opinionated.

What would make me happy is for you or Peter to answer to question posed.
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can I just take a bit of time out to reply to these first ten lines of unsnipped headers? This was at the top of a post from you, who criticised me for top-posting (which I did not) and general lack of netiquette. This makes you a complete hypocrite, so if you're posting up unneccessary advice to others, could you please take some of it yourself?

And just randomly emailing someone and insulting them is perfectly ok, I suppose........

Yes, you're right. The original question was "Does anybody know how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is definately needed".
That doesn't look like a desperately technical question to me.

The right answer would be to get a car with more power in the first place. A car of that size with a 150bhp turbo engine (with the inevitable lag) bolted to an auto gearbox, is not going to be quick. If the OP wants more power, then the best answer would not be to fuck about with his current car (which would at best only produce slight improvements), but to get a more powerful version. There are plenty available.
Peter
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can, but you'd be wrong (again.) Quoting without attribution sucks just as bad as not trimming posts properly. Show me a netiquette FAQ that suggests quoting without attribution.

No, I don't think it is (but another nice strawman.)
How do two wrongs make a right?

I have not, nor am not, talking about the original question. I am talking about your half-baked response. It's a nice attempt to steer the discussion away, but I don't fall for those tactics.

I did not notice you posting that opinion. But another nice try at diversion.

Oh, indeed.

Then, the suggestion to get a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" was what?
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

kilometres
about
Talking of that, I'm yet to get one clear answer about the cambelt interval on my Fiesta, but I'll discuss that over on uk.rec.cars.maintenance, where there are less wankers.
Well, and the fact that it's quite blatantly OT to talk about Fords on an Audi group!
Peter
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obviously, you are having difficulty with the meaning of "alt.*"
Here's a link for you to try:
www.google.com
Have fun.
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your reading skills are in question.
You will notice that a question was asked, and I notice that you did not answer.

Then you are an ass.

I thought as much.

Wrong again. I suppose it's fun to just have a piss-take, but your proposal makes much less sense than mine.

That's wonderful. I do not share your values. And they do nothing to enlighten on technical matters.

Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer." A data point to be considered with all the others. They are not opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot distinguish between the two.

But that does not imply anywhere that the data points are reduced to mere opinion.

The question is not how *I* get from 150 -> 225. It's how *Audi* gets there. And there is only one way. How others might do it - well, that's really not under discussion.
What does escape me is how the answer "a bigger turbo and a head gasket" is meaningful in any way, other than just shuttling electrons around.

Really? How many ways does Audi make the 1.8T 225HP?

There is a TSB from Audi that gives a lower number than the manual. IIRC, it's about 75k km. *That* would be the correct answer. The others would be, uhhh, "not correct."

Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the methods!

Which brings me back to my question for you, up at the top of this post.

Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly as worthless as you wish to paint my postings.

100% strawman BS.
I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor, put-upon fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the info.
Are you nearly through with your piss-take, sir?
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

thought
You and I both are ignoring questions.

and
Your opinion and not a fact.

So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?

answer.
So what you're saying is that, when it comes to something like this, there are a great many facts. The brake pad question cannot be answered without opinions. If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there is to is" this fact may be incorrect.

Errrrr, no, did you read the original post, which said, "Does anybody know how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto without spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is definately needed."
Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.

Read on . . .

on
before
100,000
kilometres
about
T'others would be opinions on known experience.
So what's the difference between a belt change and new brake pads? One has more obvious wear. If either breaks, it's probably bad news for the car.

to
torque
So you're now saying that replacing the turbocharged for a larger variant in the family wouldn't up the poke from 150 to 225 PS, or thereabouts.
Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS. Seem to be missing the final 15 PS, eh.

why
If you want a 300 PS car, buying a 150 PS and then fannying about with it to get it up to the equivalent* is almost certainly going to cost you more than simply going out and buying the 300 PS car.
*and I don't just mean the engine.
/sarcasm/ Surely, somebody as sophisticated and intelligent as you would understand this?

how
I'm almost through. I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up. Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet, heh.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
to
I believe there was a slight typo there, Dervy!
Peter
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hardly. Point out where I am ignoring anything but rhetorical questions.
You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET comers is good and acceptable?

So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must, therefore, accept is as fact.

In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you are indeed wrong.

Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data points generated may have very little value from person to person. That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with limited value.

Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!

What are the other factors? That "fact" is correct, but the other part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.

I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head gasket." Hilariously wrong.

Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are discussing, or would you like to start a new thread about green balloons?

Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.

The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to brake wear are parallel in what way?

All by itself? Probably not.

And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.

And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo and a head gasket?"
Not one damn thing, of course. One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150 -> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.

Well, it's been fun playing with you.

As long as it takes.

Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good for me, hmmm?
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[snipped]
I see you're having difficulty answering this very simple question. In your hurry to appear witty and morally superior, I guess it must have "slipped your mind."

Do I need to post those netiquette URLs for you? The ones that say posting private e-mail is quite rude?

That is quite true. You have insisted on making it an argument about who can post what where. My focus has been, and will continue to be, Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of the subject, BTW.

Another nice non sequitur. You can't dispute the facts, I see.

Throttle opening (hard acceleration) etc., etc.
The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of magnitude.

Reading comprehension?

I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you be more explicit?

LOL. I guess when you've run out of things to say, an ad hominem argument is your last solace. Bravo.

Since you are trying to take a stance of moral superiority, this surprises you why?

You are nothing if not ironic. LOL!

Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
[snip]

So you have no concrete answer. Yet above, you're whining about lack of technical discussion. Tsk, tsk.

Ah, the losing side must always turn pedantic in the end. Notice I never accused you of saying "just." Just to be clear.

More irony. My favorite part of USENET.

It might, if that's all it took. But it requires *more than that.* Twist and turn at your leisure, but a "chip and a headgasket" (the original claim made by Peter,) or a "turbo and a headgasket" will not get you from 150 to 225. I'm sorry if those facts are uncomfortable. Next time, maybe you should defend someone with a little more solid footing? Just a "suggestion." LOL!

A chip, a new turbo and a headgasket might, together, get you close. The stock exhaust, I think, might cause problems. Heat increases in the intake due to insufficient charge cooling might make it impossible.

Indeed. The A4 is more suited to 1.8T tuning, and even then, by the time you can get S4 numbers, you have probably spent S4 money. All the better to just get the S4, hmmm?
BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things, as you might have guessed by now.

Humorous, in your puerile way...

You are de facto defending it. Now you are going to wash your hands of the whole mess?
LOL!

You have yet to show how. Please, enlighten me, O Learned One.

Agreed.
Agreed, again. A 1.8T with 300HP would be a driveability nightmare. But that's not really what I have been posting about, now is it?

My issue has never been with the premise of the thread. You and I both know it. Your side-issues aside, the desireability of this is not of any issue, and has nothing at all to do with the technical issue of getting the 150HP motor to 225HP. I realize that you wish to focus on the desireability part, but that argument disappears quickly because I happen to agree with you.
Any more red herrings you wish me to dismiss while we're here? ;)

Why else does one come to USENET, if not for discussion? I remember someone said that to me once, but I just can't remember who it was...

I find your petty moralizing plenty tedious.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that this is all I do. Too bad that isn't true, hmmm?

Oddly enough, I am productive at work, and this is not really a distraction. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, I will certainly not attempt to stop you.
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ho hum. Have we not just left this party?

it?
Well you can do, but is there not a more relevant newsgroup for this sort of behaviour?

Thank you.

It takes two to argue.

Shullbit it has been! Now you're trying to ram home your own beliefs, opinions, facts, whatever you decide to call them.

fast
A
has,
the
And there are more bits, too, but we could debate that for a long while. And this would get very boring.

But you cannot disupte the point I made, yes?

anybody
without
Reading comprehension?
/okay, okay, so that's a cheap jibe/

Run out of things to say?

irrelevant.
Not any more. Indeedy, I think you know your place.

One
No, no, I was being lazy; if you don't drive the car, both will deterioate over time. If you do drive the car, both will deterioate, but the rate of wear will depend on how the car is driven.

but
power
method.
methods!
make
Well, you see, here's the rub, in that I don't believe you. And you're all for laughing at the suggestion, but you know, I remain unconvinced as to your own technical knowledge.

They're not uncomfortable. I'm sure that many people appreciate that there are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged donk. The above suggestion is one alternative. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do just a turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be done.

just a

remap.
No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.

Seem
down
leave
it's
Spot on.

But it's not avoiding the issue, though.

Thanks! :)

as
with
more
You
PS
Audi
Yeah, Usenet wouldn't be usenet without the arguments, heh.

opinion
put-upon
info.
heh.
No, I'm sure it doesn't.

You're lucky, then, in that respect. I've deliberately turned off my usenet and private email access, because I find it a big distraction. So I'm kinda envious if you can do it; I can't.
/the above isn't a distraction, it's an observation, and it's not intended otherwise/
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess you have. So, since you refuse to answer the question, I will continue to assume that you do indeed.
Which makes your whining about my demeanor quite ironic.

I don't know. Since the offense was committed in a.a.audi, it seems reasonable to discuss it there.
Perhaps your whining about my "net-nanny"ness belongs more properly in alt. asshole?

More unintended irony. LOL.

You can attempt to recast it as you wish, but any other interpretation is wishful thinking.

Hardly.
You're already there, I'm afraid.

Sure I can. Brake pad life is highly variable, contingent on a very large number of different factors. Timing belt life is not. Whether of not the stealership says that they last 200k km, they should actually be replaced at 100k km. It is very unlikely to get life shorter than this. Possible, but unlikely. The life span of brakes has such a large discrepancy between high and low as to be unpredictable as to life span. And we haven't even brought into play whether it's stock or aftermarket.
You picked a poor analogy. Sorry. [snip]

Just more of a piss-take. If you were as interested in discussion as you claim, well, cheap jibes wouldn't be on the menu. Hypocrite.

Yes - are you having difficulty with the English language?

[rolls eyes]
Sure.

Each relatively independent of one another.
It seems unlikely that brake pads would wear out after having sat for some indeterminate time.

That's fine. You don't have to take my word for it - go and find the kit that makes the HP, and I'll admit I was wrong.

That's fine too - but you have done not one thing to show I am wrong in any way. I'll wait breathlessly for confirmation, LOL.

Since you seem to be in a state of disbelief, I would say that they are indeed uncomfortable.

Except with this motor, it isn't really an alternative. A chip and a headgasket aren't going to do it, no matter how much you wish them to. A turbo and a headgasket MIGHT, if you are willing to sacrifice drivability and durability. Frankly, I do not see how, without remapping the chip, that the car would actually make 225 before high-rev lean-out would grenade the motor.

You're quite certainly a fool, then. You obviously have no idea the steps it takes to make a drivable turbo motor.
Unless, of course, all you want is 225. But that would seem to lie outside of the spirit of the original poster, now wouldn't it? Terrible how those glib remarks come back to bite, huh?

The more you squeeze it, the more air heats, and the less dense it becomes, requiring more squeeze, etc. It's not a linear relationship.
Besides - you were carping on what the original poster said - now you are just being pedantic in order to save face.
I absolutely love it.

It certainly is. You focus on the original post when it suits your fancy, then change later in likewise fashion. I do notice these things.
Just a chip and a headgasket will not get you to 225. Just a turbo and a headgasket will not get you to 225 either. Until you can find evidence otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind.

I thought you said it was here for discussion? Hmmm.
Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[more snippage]

that
:)
Thank you.

just a

You think?

Nothing else was discussed, so yes, all we want is that magic 225.

Heh heh, I think that all of this discussion hits that spot.

Yup.
Errrrrr, no. Saving face isn't a bother of mine.

And I notice that you keep on noticing it.

You said above that it might, now you're telling me that it won't, eh?

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message> > > I'm sure that many people appreciate that there

It's nice that you want to ignore the qualifier. Notice what I say below...

Again, you ignore what is inconvenient.

No, I *know.*

You haven't been paying attention, then.

For *you* it does. Being a pedantic asshole is easy on USENET, where you're a whole continent and ocean away.

Then you agree with the implication that getting to 225 in this fashion might actually be impossible, due to the limitations of the system?

It must be, since you continue to drone on....

A droll non-response.

Reading comprehension, or just reading what you want to read? Spider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.