Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    Why do you say FI isn't the reason for improved performance? I always
    thought it would give better performance...
    
    Mark

    FI on Fords makes them thirsty around town but more efficient on long
    runs compared carb'd versions.
    
    Dave.

    FI does NOT automatically enhance your cars performance.... 
    
    Ferrari have been using webbers on their cars for years!! As a time served 
    motor vehicle engineer, who specialised on FI systems, I can confirm that 
    it is not always the case that FI improves performance. It is certainly 
    more efficient with regards to (MPG).
    
    John.
    

    
    But why does the original noter state that the performance improvements 
    are NOT due to the FI?
    
    You always get better performance if the engine is more efficient,
    don't you?
    
    Mark

    More MPG does add to more BHP!

Overall I average 39-40 mpg my Golf GTI, 45-47 on the motorway at a steady 130
kph (81 mph) - so it doesn't look as though they've made any modifications
before putting the engine in the Audi.

    .0�    I realise that the engine is probably straight out of the Golf GTI, but
    .0�    as a check, where there any "mods" done by Audi before fitting it into 
    
    In fact it's the other way round: Audi designed the engines and VW used
    them. BTW that's becoming less and less true those days. VW tend to
    make their own engines.
    
    .0�    Fuel injection is NOT the reason for increased performance....could it
    .0�    be......gear ratio's?, head/cam modifications?, lighter body?
    
    As noted above FI brings better MPG and, very often, better performance
    overall. In your case I believe the engine is more torquy and the gears
    might also be slower providing better acceleration.
    
    It's difficult to argue FI vs Carbs those days. For one reason, carbs
    are disappearing, but both systems take advantage of the modern
    electronic ignition systems. Carbs will still give better engine
    response : when you open, you feel the change. FI tends to smooth
    things. 

    Hi,
    
    Yes, I agree that the FI will deliver the "punch" lower down, but what
    I am trying to understand is:- 
    
    * Why is the 1.8I so "nippy" overall when compared to the 5 CYL 1.9
      unit. I kept the 1.9 tuned to the best of my ability (VAG dealer
      inc).
    
    My old coupe, 1921cc (CARB) pushed out 115BHP, the 1798cc (FI) pushes
    out 114BHP. The GTI Golf (1.8I) produces 110BHP....could it be the
    gear/diff ratios?
    
    Also:
    
    I had presumed that the engine in my Audi was a "bog" standard GTI Golf
    engine, but the 4BHP difference makes me wonder.
    
    John.
                                   

    I know that the audi's get bigger throttle bodies than the VW's.
    
    The throttle body is the bit in which the two butterfly valves sit,
    which are opened to let air be sucked into the engine as you press the
    throttle.
    
    The larger of the two valves (opened over the very last inch of
    accelerator travel) varies in size according to the engine
    installation.
    
    i.e.  Audi is bigger than a MKII GTI is bigger than
    	  a MK1 1.8 GTI is bigger than a MK1 1.6 GTI.
    
    A bigger body is a great modification to MK1 golfs.  Reputed to gain a
    good few BHP and a bit of torque.  It certainly makes the engine feel
    more powerful.
    
    Rob.

I've got a US spec GTI with the 1.8 ltr 4cyl and I've also driven the 5cyl
Audi engine in a friend's 4000q.  Basically the same engine plus one cyl.
The GTI engine will pull higher revs (6700+) while the 5cyl runs out of
breath around 5500.  Basically the 5cyl has more torque but not the top end
punch of the 4cyl.  Of course, I'm comparing them in two cars that differ in
weight by about 1000lbs....

4cyl - 1.8 ltr - 90bhp
5cyl - 2.2 ltr - 110/115bhp?

Dave

RE: .9 by IRNBRU::WILSON
    
>>    My old coupe, 1921cc (CARB) pushed out 115BHP, the 1798cc (FI) pushes
>>    out 114BHP. The GTI Golf (1.8I) produces 110BHP....could it be the
>>    gear/diff ratios?

My GTI in Switzerland is quoted at 115 bhp. The more recent one with catalytic
converters are quoted at 109 bhp.

I just bought an Audi 4000CS Quattro and so far it seems to be amazing.

Fuel economy for the past 150 miles has run out at abour 42 mpg (imperial)
and the performance is, to say the least, sparkling.  The book quotes it
at 130 BHP (SAE).  It's not sad thirsty as my Spider, goes faster and is
quieter ....... but there's really no comparison between the two :-)  Only
gripe is that headroom is MUCH better in the Alfa than the Audi, but the Audi
seat does go down to accomodate me.

Comparing with VW - and my wife's (ex) Rabbit (Golf).  That had the basic
1.8l engine, and turned in around 35 mpg overall, but it's performance
was rather pathetic.  Mind you, after 90,000 miles it wasn't expected to
be too good.

Anoyone any experience with the Quattro?  I think it's the same model as the
80 Quattro in the UK.

Brian