Which is the better engine and why?

[Welshbeef]

Audi RS2 2.2ltr 5 cyl 315bhp single turbo
Audi RS4 B5 2.7ltr v6 380bhp bi turbo

Looking at the bhp per ltr the 2.2 just wins by 3bhp per ltr so nothing in it really I gues one is an older engine so producing higher specific output per ltr is more impressive. But engineering wise which is better and why?

[Dave Hedgehog]

The rs4 engine is a monster (I owned no 11) take off from 120 is ballistic

But nothing wails like a blown inline 5


You need both

[Superhoop]

I don't know about which is better (although technology wise, it's probably the V6 due to its age) but for the sound, give me the 5 pot any day

ETA http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hEK7POxpVeE

Edited by Superhoop on Saturday 11th August 13:47

[Watchman]

This is quite a good explanation of power strokes and how the power strokes overlap in engines with more than 4-cylinders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-five_engine

It also explains the vibrations associated with 5-cyl engines.

Technically a 6-cylinder engine is better if packaging and economy wasn't a factor but they often are, and as people have noted, a 5-cylinder engine does have a very interesting sound. My brother's chipped TD5 Defender had the only interesting-sounding diesel engine I've ever heard.

Also, doesn't the VAG I5 have slightly staggered cylinders, sort of like the VR6? That would improve the packaging even more and impact the vibrations/sound one way or the other.

[Marf]

Show me the dyno sheet for both and I'll give you an answer.

Gut feeling is I'd rather have the biturbo V6 as the AUC will likely be greater.

[300bhp/ton]

Welshbeef said:

Audi RS2 2.2ltr 5 cyl 315bhp single turbo
Audi RS4 B5 2.7ltr v6 380bhp bi turbo

Looking at the bhp per ltr the 2.2 just wins by 3bhp per ltr so nothing in it really I gues one is an older engine so producing higher specific output per ltr is more impressive. But engineering wise which is better and why?

oh yes, nothing, truly nothing but bhp/litre counts. All else is just a waste. Both of these are crap though, no VTEC see.... doh

[Marf]

300bhp/ton said:

oh yes, nothing, truly nothing but bhp/litre counts. All else is just a waste. Both of these are crap though, no VTEC see.... doh

Whatchu talkin 'bout Willis? The B5 engine has variable timing on the intake cam

[Mastodon2]

300bhp/ton said:

oh yes, nothing, truly nothing but bhp/litre counts. All else is just a waste. Both of these are crap though, no VTEC see.... doh

There is that condescending "I know better than you and I'm going to make you look like an idiot" attitude you got called out in another thread the other day. Are you trolling, or are you always this much fun?

[Watchman]

To be fair, bhp/litre for turbo engines isn't worth comparing because it's not really a reflection of the engineering - more the amount of boost applied.

[Scuffers]

the V6 is a work of art, first of the range designed buy Cosworth (when VAG brought them).

immensely strong engines, people have got silly power out of them and they have proven to be very reliable.

[mrmr96]

Marf said:

Show me the dyno sheet for both and I'll give you an answer.

Gut feeling is I'd rather have the biturbo V6 as the AUC will likely be greater.

That.

But also, please define what you mean by "better" else I'll tell you the winner per my definition, and someone else will use their definition. We'll both be right per our own definitions, but it hardly founds a sensible debate.

[Welshbeef]

Scuffers said:

the V6 is a work of art, first of the range designed buy Cosworth (when VAG brought them).

immensely strong engines, people have got silly power out of them and they have proven to be very reliable.

It seems that 600-650bhp is quite easy to get out of te B5 RS4 I'm uncertain of what bhp the RS2 can get to however I have seen both pushing 900bhp though that's extreme