I am quite certain we've had this discussion before, but let me repeat
- google.com is your friend.
A web search with the following parameters brought a link:
audi, 2.5, TDI, 140HP;
I think, if you look very closely at the engine within the car, you
can determine if it's a 4-cyl. or 6-cyl. lump.
This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter has
already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header for
a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder, is
whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
Peter Bell - email@example.com
You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have found this
.....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the badge
(assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I originally
posted, hence tapping into other people's knowledge with the hope of the
answer being there when I got back (now remind me what the point of usenet
was again?). No useful answer was there, so I then found a semi-useful
answer on the web, then a bit later a genuinely useful answer appeared. But
thank you for your continued interest in my posts all the same.
Don't worry. It'll come. The clue was in "5-cylinder" - they put the last
of the 5-pot diesel lumps in the old shape A6s.
Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
point of tedium or something?
My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
information - if I have a question that I'd like an answer to, then I'll
post it and await a answer (hopefully a useful one). If anyone else wants
to, then they can. If I feel I have something worth contributing to a
thread, then I'll post it up. Simple really. Hardly self-important.
What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
done it before.
But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
valuable than someone elses'?
"Post a little question, wait around for someone to answer." No work
for me, and I the info I get is free. Nice deal for me.
Please explain how that applies in this case.
My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
Then, for the benefit of those who are not quite as on-the-ball, maybe
you should quit posting replies, if you find it "tedious."
I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
It depends on how thorough your search was.
If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
parameters as to excluse false-positives.
Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
the attitude I despise.
Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
all at odds.
"Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
it comes at the expense of others...
If that's what I actually thought, then, yes, it would be arrogant.
But I have never even suggested such a thing, and trying to re-image
it thus is just base dishonesty on your part.
Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
To say nothing of getting into a pissing match, hmm?
So, my original comment was right on the money. Thanks for the
That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
make your argument any stronger.
The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
of that you are having difficulty understanding.
You are not pardoned. You obviously know how to type, so narrowing
parameters just isn't that hard. It doesn't take much expertise, just
a little, tiny, almost-not-worthy-of-mentioning bit of work.
Because you're lazy and arrogant, yeah I got that already.
Like the "fact" you posted above? THis ought to be rich...
Yet I took time and effort to try and help - which is more than you
were willing to do for yourself. Instead of being gracious, you
decide that you need to be holier-than-thou over the whole issue.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
What other uninformed fools on USENET think of my postings is
irrelevant to me. If they want to engage in a flamewar, well, that's
fine with me.
1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.
My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
That's not what you previously implied. Either you are just fooling
yourself, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, your
admission of "doing more important things" really says all that needs
to be said, and proves my point completely.
Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
information, I would say "yes."
Nor would I expect you to in this case. By your own admission, you
just jumped right in and posted, assuming that you'd get your answer
with no effort on your part. I am amazed that you think that this
doesn't paint you in a selfish light.
That's not the point, but it's an excellent attempt at obfuscation.
The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
just dismissing their opinions as the piss-takes that they are.
Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
is simply astounding.
The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
quick reply. I wouldn't expect someone to go and research something for
me - I'd only expect them to post an answer that they already knew about, so
it wouldn't take much of their time at all. Anyway, I notice Jonathan
Morton (the one person that did post an answer that was bang on what I
required) didn't begrudge helping me out (even though he'd posted it
before!), so I can't see where the problem is.
As do I find yours.
Don't mention it.
Well bless your little cotton socks for trying.
Well, found the information via a post of someone else.
The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
attitude. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
that sentence might come to be disproven.
And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.
Which is a minute more than you spent even bothering to look for what
you were after. Why are you so important that you should just expect
others to spend *any* time giving you free info?
The problem is that you are lazy. The "exchange" of info you keep
talking about seems to be a one-way street. Interesting.
Considering I have not proclaimed innocence anywhere, that's an
No, you found badging info via google. Unless, of course, that was
another fabrication on your part.
No, it typifies the truth. A few Johnny-come-latelys that have
offered no useful info, but instead have decided to flame have no
relevance at all. Again, I at least gave some info. It was even
correct, if not terribly helpful. And these others have offered what,
exactly? Where is your righteous indignation, hypocrite?
You're in control of how and when you respond. If you're done, don't
respond. Jeez, do I have to tell you how to do every damn thing?
Wrong again, Peter. You'd think by now you'd be tired of being wrong.
My point was to teach you a lesson. I don't think you've learned it
well yet, but you may come to grow tired of my "slagging" your lazy
ass off, and actually put some effort in some information "exchange."
Give it a rest. You failed to read the title of the original post so your
clever reply/put-down fell a bit flat. But you did post a link you thought
would be helpful - good for you. Can we move on now please?
Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing. I have hardly ever used this
wonderful information technology and I am indeed a novice. I think you also
started the "bitch<ing> at posters whose content is not to yor (sic) liking"
with your unhelpful and smartarse remark in response to AstraVanMan's
original post, followed by your ridiculous attempts to defend your pride and
to patronise me and the other posters. Given the form you have displayed so
far, I'm surprised and a little disappointed you didn't feel moved to have a
pop at the question I posted here recently.
As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
superior comments on other posters' efforts. I would feel stirred to respond
to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
"USENET." I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
averse to helping you dig your hole. I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
I have brightened up your little computer life.
When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
Dip me in tar and roll me in feathers. I should have said "a large number
An infinite number would get the job done in zero time. Unfortunately, since
there's only one born every minute we can't get together an infinite number,
though AOL seems to be working on that.
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.