The "What would you have done different" thread...

[kleung]

How's people's 220kw V6 FSI passat..Im thinking of upgrading in a year and moving back to petrol coz I long for that powar!
Is the performance of the V6 comparable to lets say a 335i BWM or a 135i BMW?
Or any cars that can do 0-100 in 5.6 secs? Im curious.

According to Redbook, the 2012 BMW 335i (3.0T 225kw/400nm 8sp dual clutch auto RWD @ $91,900+ORCs) does 0-100 in 5.5s. Exactly the same time as the 2012 VW Passat V6 FSI (3.6NA 220kw/350nm 6sp DSG AWD @ $55,990+ORCs).

Personally, I'd rather a NA rather than a turbo, even though it means less peak power. When I put my foot down, I want power NOW, not eventually.

Now, what about the V6 with a supercharger on it?

[MJW]

Kleung, can I assume you ahve never owned a recent turbo charged car? I can tell you from my experience that when I compare my V6 to my previous Mazda 6 MPS that if anything the V6 is "lazy" down low & really only makes good power over 4,000 rpm. In the MPS I would rarely need to take it much past that same RPM to get the same enjoyment. The V6 vs the MPS for low down torque also has the MPS a clear winner. What I absolutely love about the V6 is everything above 4,000 rpm. There is no way the MPS would have kept up.

I love the V6, but having said that, nothing quite compares to a decent turbo charged car for pure enjoyment.

According to Redbook, the 2012 BMW 335i (3.0T 225kw/400nm 8sp dual clutch auto RWD @ $91,900+ORCs) does 0-100 in 5.5s. Exactly the same time as the 2012 VW Passat V6 FSI (3.6NA 220kw/350nm 6sp DSG AWD @ $55,990+ORCs).

Personally, I'd rather a NA rather than a turbo, even though it means less peak power. When I put my foot down, I want power NOW, not eventually.

Now, what about the V6 with a supercharger on it?

[kleung]

Kleung, can I assume you ahve never owned a recent turbo charged car? I can tell you from my experience that when I compare my V6 to my previous Mazda 6 MPS that if anything the V6 is "lazy" down low & really only makes good power over 4,000 rpm. In the MPS I would rarely need to take it much past that same RPM to get the same enjoyment. The V6 vs the MPS for low down torque also has the MPS a clear winner. What I absolutely love about the V6 is everything above 4,000 rpm. There is no way the MPS would have kept up.

No, I haven't owned a turbocharged car. But I've driven a couple of turbo cars and come away underwhelmed each time. It's the turbo lag (however little/brief) that irritates me. Turbodiesels aside, I think the worst petrol-powered one I drove was the 4th generation Liberty GT I was looking at before I decided on the R36. You put your foot down, and while the power does come on eventually, it takes its sweet time to do so.

Even on paper, the VW 3.6l V6 outdoes the MPS in low down torque - the V6 is making its peak torque of 350nm by the time it hits 2400rpm, while you have to wait another 600rpm in the MPS to hit peak torque.

I love the V6, but having said that, nothing quite compares to a decent turbo charged car for pure enjoyment.

I don't disagree. For outright performance or enjoyment, a turbo is the way to go. But for everyday tractability, I think NA is still a better option. So I still stand by what I said in my last post - I want power NOW. Not eventually.

[MJW]

Fair points. Only thing further I would add is that you can compare cars all you want based on stats but until you have driven them side by side then it is hard to draw true comparisons. Although the MPS peak torque comes in 600 rpm later, it was definitely willing to rev to that mark faster & the added bonus of more torque. I suppose it also has to do with driving pleasure. It is very rare for a NA engine to give you the same mid range rush like a turbo which is much more usable in day to day driving.

Not that fuel economy is THE driving factor, but the MPS & most comparable turbo cars use much less fuel for a similar driving experience.

No, I haven't owned a turbocharged car. But I've driven a couple of turbo cars and come away underwhelmed each time. It's the turbo lag (however little/brief) that irritates me. Turbodiesels aside, I think the worst petrol-powered one I drove was the 4th generation Liberty GT I was looking at before I decided on the R36. You put your foot down, and while the power does come on eventually, it takes its sweet time to do so.

Even on paper, the VW 3.6l V6 outdoes the MPS in low down torque - the V6 is making its peak torque of 350nm by the time it hits 2400rpm, while you have to wait another 600rpm in the MPS to hit peak torque.



I don't disagree. For outright performance or enjoyment, a turbo is the way to go. But for everyday tractability, I think NA is still a better option. So I still stand by what I said in my last post - I want power NOW. Not eventually.

[MJW]

Not to mention the fact that turbo cars, like the MPS generally produce peak power a lot earlier. In the case of the MPS vs Passat V6, 190kw @ 5,500 rpm vs 220kw @ 6,600 rpm. In the real world I would much rather less power early rather than more power close to redline.

I am starting to sound like I hate the V6

No, I haven't owned a turbocharged car. But I've driven a couple of turbo cars and come away underwhelmed each time. It's the turbo lag (however little/brief) that irritates me. Turbodiesels aside, I think the worst petrol-powered one I drove was the 4th generation Liberty GT I was looking at before I decided on the R36. You put your foot down, and while the power does come on eventually, it takes its sweet time to do so.

Even on paper, the VW 3.6l V6 outdoes the MPS in low down torque - the V6 is making its peak torque of 350nm by the time it hits 2400rpm, while you have to wait another 600rpm in the MPS to hit peak torque.



I don't disagree. For outright performance or enjoyment, a turbo is the way to go. But for everyday tractability, I think NA is still a better option. So I still stand by what I said in my last post - I want power NOW. Not eventually.

[Lance B]

No, I haven't owned a turbocharged car. But I've driven a couple of turbo cars and come away underwhelmed each time. It's the turbo lag (however little/brief) that irritates me. Turbodiesels aside, I think the worst petrol-powered one I drove was the 4th generation Liberty GT I was looking at before I decided on the R36. You put your foot down, and while the power does come on eventually, it takes its sweet time to do so.

Even on paper, the VW 3.6l V6 outdoes the MPS in low down torque - the V6 is making its peak torque of 350nm by the time it hits 2400rpm, while you have to wait another 600rpm in the MPS to hit peak torque.

I came from a line of Subaru Liberties as well, the flat 6 3lt, and the lack of low end torque is what really annoyed me in city driving, so fatiguing and always having to rev the guts out of it to get it moving. Test drove the 2.5lt turbo job and that was not much better, good fun up high, but I could still see me getting annoyed with lack of low end grunt and being a fatiguing drive.

I then test drove the 3.2lt V6 VW wagon with DSG a few years back and that was it for me, like chalk and cheese and fell in love with the VW. You can drive the car lazy or give it a boot full and it was enjoyable no matter how you drove it, never fatiguing like the Liberty was. Since then, I've had 2x R36 wagon's and now about to get the V6 Highline wagon.

[kleung]

Not to mention the fact that turbo cars, like the MPS generally produce peak power a lot earlier. In the case of the MPS vs Passat V6, 190kw @ 5,500 rpm vs 220kw @ 6,600 rpm. In the real world I would much rather less power early rather than more power close to redline.

One little point - yes, a turbocharged engine will produce peak power earlier, but ONLY while on boost. The moment you back off the throttle, the boost pressure is lost, and you have to wait for the turbo to spool up again, whereas a NA engine will be making all the power it is capable of making, the moment you get on the throttle. And for me, that is the crux.

[cru22z]

So would the V6 win a stop light drag race

[R34]

Having bought my wife an 2007 Audi A4 convertible 3.2V6 all I can say is one thing I would do differently is never buy a VW "V6" again.
The Audi is a true V6 not this offset straight 6 with a single head.
I own both so I think it gives me the right to an opinion. The Audi 3.2 while only 188kW is a sweet sweet unit that will happily rev it's nuts off compared to the raucous VW unit.
I would prefer never to buy a NA engine again as I really miss the midrange grunt of a Turbo or supercharged engine.
A mate of mine has a 335i and I'd say the r36 wouldn't see which way it went (and that's without a $2k chip giving the 335 around 280kW)

[Steve]

Having bought my wife an 2007 Audi A4 convertible 3.2V6 all I can say is one thing I would do differently is never buy a VW "V6" again.
The Audi is a true V6 not this offset straight 6 with a single head.

My understanding is that the 3.2 V6 in the B7 Audi is the same engine as is in the R32, and shares a similar layout to that in the R36 - both have one head.

Agree re: the 335i. Fantastic car, shame the German pricing relative to the R36 didn't make it to Australia...