Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:50:54 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:21:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:18:35 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:41:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:qgpeh1ptl0kl85nmqvcrm2cnkqh5ev1kdq@4ax.com
>>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil
>>>>> <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
>>>>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the
>>>>>>> *same* car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you look at the motors. That has more than a
>>>>>> little to do with "performance".
>>
>>Since you're being pedantic about it, the above model designations are
>>for the base model in each case - with the *same* VW 3.2 V-6,
>>mysteriously derated from its usual 247 hp to 240 in the Touareg.
>
>Oh, NOW is "mysterious". Must be "hi-end-auto-magicks".

Nah, five'll get you ten it was at the insistence of the Porsche
marketing guys, and the reality is that they produce the same output
on a rolling road. After all, the *same* engine in the Audi A4, A6 and
A8 is rated at the *same* 247 HP, it's only in the Touareg that 7 HP
mysteriously go missing.

>>>>>> Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6
>>>>> VW petrol engine, they share the 'stump-pulling' VW
>>>>> 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel, and the W-12 VW has the same
>>>>> power output (but with no turbo lag) as the V-8 Cayenne
>>>>> Turbo S. Shame that you know so little about cars.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>*Non-existent* picture of the non-existent W12 Toureg:
>>>
>>>No such car.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5426
>>
>>Oh, so that picture is a fake, is it?
>
>No, no such car as "Toureg".

That shows the depth of your desperation, Vile. But then, we've all
known that for some time, little man.................

>>>Here's a picture of the non-existent Touareg diesel:
>>>http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/VolkswagenTouareg/IndexV10.htm
>>>
>>>Can you show me a picture of the Cayenne "Turbo S"?
>>>
>>>I doubt I'll be seeing Stewart admitting THAT mistake anytime soon.
>>
>>I doubt anyone was unaware of what I meant. Just more smoke and
>>mirrors to cover your basic ignorance, Vile.
>
>Still can't just say, "I was wrong". Proves my point. A real man can
>admit his error/s. Since YOU'RE the one usually being pedantic, it's
>kinda fun to hoist you on your own petard.

I fart in your general direction................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:16:10 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:

>In article <n6u5t7ek5nry.1dzky1anq98o2.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
>> > And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
>> > the same cars. Cool.
>>
>> Anybody know what he's talking about?
>
>Yes. And the European Ford Focus, too.

However, the difference is that the Touareg and Cayenne basically just
have noses and badges switched, however much smoke and mirrors Porsche
would like to employ to conceal that fact. Sensible folks buy the V-10
diesel Touareg and get awesome pulling power, with more real-world
overtaking thrust than even the Cayenne Turbo can muster.

Serously sensible folks buy a Ford pickup and a 'Vette Z06 for the
same cash...... 🙂
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:16:10 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <n6u5t7ek5nry.1dzky1anq98o2.dlg@40tude.net>,
>> Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
>>> > the same cars. Cool.
>>>
>>> Anybody know what he's talking about?
>>
>>Yes. And the European Ford Focus, too.
>
>However, the difference is that the Touareg and Cayenne basically just
>have noses and badges switched, however much smoke and mirrors Porsche
>would like to employ to conceal that fact. Sensible folks buy the V-10
>diesel Touareg and get awesome pulling power, with more real-world
>overtaking thrust than even the Cayenne Turbo can muster.

Oh, you mean they don't buy the Cayenne diesel that you were touting?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 2 Sep 2005 16:12:16 -0700, elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:

>NYOB says:
>> I don't think you're capable of lying convincingly so I won't
>> reciprocate. I think you truly believe in your "test".
>
>Mr. NYOB says:
>"As do most of the people and organization in the world who do any kind
>of
>work that involves human hearing. Cel phones, hearing aids, etc.."
> Which audio components did "most of the people and organisation"
>compare? Just a few names, quotes and results
>I said 2 days ago:
>In the future till you respond I'll just reprint what I said to you
>on August 30th:
>"But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
>(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
>else in audio (that had a positive outcome) He was challenged twice for
>a reference to a published
>report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
>the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twice (only
>to reemerge after a suitable interval. )
>Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
>"test" work? "
>On Aug. 31 we had another exchange:
>" How about cutting out the chit- chatting and "pointing out" some
>references to the ABX helping to recognise differences between
>anything and anything else in audio. If I "hair-split and deny", never
>mind me- the world is waiting with bated breath. Your grateful readers
>will be able to tell the grain from the jaw jaw chaff."
>By today the clam up count is up to 4 (four)
>Ludovic Mirabel.

Seems to me we should leave the poor deluded clown to combust
spontaneously. He seems to be in total meltdown and can't even format
an intelligible post anyomore................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:52:24 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>>>
>>>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.
>>
>>Apologies - that's for next year.
>
>Maybe you've heard something different (other than base speculation),
>but this from June of this year from Herr Riedel:
>
>"Porsche Doesn't Do Diesel
>We should do an alternative power concept for the Cayenne. The sports
>cars will continue to be only naturally aspirated and turbo gas
>engines. A Cayenne diesel is out. It wouldn't have the right driving
>characteristics, it doesn't fit our brand, and it isn't the right
>answer for the environment. Anyway, diesel is less than 20 percent of
>the world SUV market--why chase that small segment? We're looking at
>hybrid. But ours wouldn't be just a me-too vehicle; we wouldn't use an
>existing system. We've set the benchmark high, not just for
>consumption and emissions but for driving dynamics. We can't build a
>car that's dull to drive".
>
>Maybe it's a smokescreen, but that's the party line at the moment. As
>I said though, events of this week MIGHT force their hand, at least
>for the US market. I'm guessing that it will be hard enough to
>maintain the SUV market here in the US for all automaker, which is
>already taking a beating (as it should, IMHO). Of course, whether or
>not it's economic for them to retool for such a motor for such a small
>potential increase is questionable.

They don't have to 'retool', you cretin, the Touareg already uses that
motor. Are you forgetting that they are the *same* car?

>BTW, were you aware of the 500HP Cayenne, available as a special order
>or as a retrofit through Porsche dealers? On the off-chance that you
>didn't, here's the info:
>
>http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2040914.005/porsche/1.html
>
>I doubt that Porsche will EVER let VW equal their specs, even when
>sharing platforms, motors, or whatever. And that was the original
>point.

But of course they do, in the base models, which was my point - they
are the *same* vehicle, aside from the nose cones.

BTW, did you know that Burnt Fishtrousers, head of VAG Group, would
just *love* to drop the 650 HP twin-turbo version of the W-12 into the
Touareg, to blow the Porsche into the weeds? Of course, the marketing
boys will never let him do it, but a 200 mph Touareg blowing off
Ferraris and 911s would be quite a sight!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:22:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>>I doubt that Porsche will EVER let VW equal their specs, even when
>>sharing platforms, motors, or whatever. And that was the original
>>point.
>
>But of course they do, in the base models, which was my point - they
>are the *same* vehicle, aside from the nose cones.

Nope. Motors have different specs. You can endulge your fantasy about
"fake detuning" and all that, but your spinning just make you look
foolish, Lord Bumbershoot.

>BTW, did you know that Burnt Fishtrousers, head of VAG Group, would
>just *love* to drop the 650 HP twin-turbo version of the W-12 into the
>Touareg, to blow the Porsche into the weeds? Of course, the marketing
>boys will never let him do it,

There you go. That's the point, which you are only NOW finally coming
around to admit. What's stupid is the whole idea of such a vehicle
having over 400HP in the first place. It's something that a drunken
inbred such as yourself would embrace. People have also stuck big
block V8s in the back of old VW Beetles as well. Doesn't make it
particularly smart.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:431900ed.2422772@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> There's nothing certain about being a skeptic - you get
>> to be skeptical about things, and then you're skeptical
>> about your skepticism. Then you're skeptical of your
>> skepticism of your skepticism.

> And then you're admitted to a suitable institution.

No, you just stop! ;-)

>> In the case of ABX, we became skeptical of claims of
>> mind-blowing differences among good amps.

> Granted, some of the hyperbole in mags has been
> ridiculous. I recall writing an article back in the
> seventies about this where I cited a reviewer in Absolute
> Sound as claiming that the sound of one amp reminded him
> of butterscotch. Given that the aim of all amp designers
> is a straight wire with gain, and excluding massive
> incompetence, there can never have been "huge"
> differences.

>> Then we became
>> skeptical about the means we were using to test other's
>> claims about amps.

> Explanation?

We examined our tests from many directions, and really never
stopped trying to do a better job.

>> Perhaps the most irritating thing about ABX critics is
>> how smug and proud they often are, when all they do is
>> come up fresh with something that we hashed out 30 years
>> ago.

> If you're talking smug and proud, I fear that claim can
> too often be levelled at your side, Arnie.

It's easy to make claims, harder to prove them.

> I believe > that's the chief objection of most of your
> opponents.

> Too little doubt, remember.

How much doubt do you have about water seeking its own
level, and why?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:46:49 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:51:23 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:48:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>>>>> equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>>>>> manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>>>>> challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>>>>> to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>>>>> achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>>>>> performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>>>>> that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>>>>> plenty?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>>>>
>>>>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>>>>"performance".
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6 VW petrol
>>>>engine,
>>>
>>>Except that the Porsche gets 25 more HP out of the same motor. Sorry
>>>you don't know more about what you're talking about.
>>
>>Bullshit. The Porsche is rated at 247 HP (same as the rating for that
>>engine in all other VW and Audi cars in which it's used), while it's
>>rated at 240 in the Touareg, for no reason I can find. There is *no*
>>special Porsche tuning at work here, just some mysterious derating in
>>the Touareg (mebbe Porsche's marketing guys insisted?). Five'll get
>>you ten they'll be identical on a rolling road........
>
>Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?
>
>Oh it's you, that's why...
>
>"So why did Porsche develop a V6 engine? Well, in designing and
>constructing the unit-body chassis of the Cayenne, Porsche worked with
>parent company VW, who was co-developing the Touareg SUV. Although the
>3.2-liter V6 is snatched from the Touareg, Porsche engineers assure
>that extensive modification has been done to guarantee Porsche
>performance. For example, the new intake system uses continuously
>variable valve timing and two overhead camshafts. The exhaust has also
>been tweaked to bellow the familiar Porsche note. For towing, the
>cooling system was also enhanced to withstand pulling in high ambient
>temperatures.
>
>
>V6 Horsepower
>Porsche reports horsepower for its V6 version at 247 and torque at 228
>lb.-ft. A Touareg yields only 220 hp. but creates 225 lb.-ft. of
>torque. However, all that torque arrives later in the power band in
>the VW (3,200 rpm as opposed to 2,500 rpm in the Porsche), so Porsche
>can tout slightly better utility capabilities".
>
>Looks like VW has added another 20 HP though for 2005. Still less than
>the Porsche.

That engine - in current 3.2 size - has *always* produced 247 HP in
VWs and Audis. Don't believe everything the Porsche boys try to tell
you, Vile, they simply don't have the resources to develop serious new
engines (or indeed an SUV). At this point, we should note that FSI
technology is derived from the Audi R8 sports racers, which blew
Porsche totally off the worlds racetracks. If you want to be
associated with sporting success, buy Audi, not Porsche....

>>>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>>>
>>>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.
>>
>>Apologies - that's for next year.
>
>Still can't say the simple words, "I'm wrong". But thanks for the
>acknowlegement. I fully admit that I was wrong about some things as
>well. You should try the straightforward approach. Speaking of next
>year though, it's likely that Porsche will maintain a technical
>superiority, as they've not settled for the same specs on anything
>they've used from VW.

Actually of course, they have, since the 3.2 V6 is not modified at
all, despite being fitted with a 'boy racer' noisy exhaust system for
the Cayenne. BTW, It's *exactly* the same engine that's fitted to my
A3, so I do know something about its history.

>>> And since it's not a
>>>Pinkerton-approved "cutting-edge motor", who cares, right?
>>
>>Not 'cutting edge'? The engine that powers the latest Bentleys? the
>>world's only W-12? Are you *crazy*?! Ah, sorry, silly question.......
>
>According to you, it has to be 100 HP per liter, remember?

Ah, that's just for a *Pinkerton approved* cutting edge award, being
the world's only W-12 is enough for basic 'cutting edge' status! 🙂

> Funny how
>the words come back to haunt you. This is roughly the same percentage
>as Ford's engine that Imentioned as being cutting edge, although you
>correctly pointed out (or *I* found out later) that it was only 170 HP
>per 2 liter.
>
>>>>Shame that you know so little about cars.
>>>
>>>So you say. However, you've gotten just about everything wrong in this
>>>post.
>>
>>Nope, you have as ever lost all touch with reality. The Porsche
>>Cayenne and VW Touareg are the *same* car, and the base models share
>>the *same* VW engine. Only *you* are dumb enough to think otherwise.
>
>Now you are changing your story.
>
>"PS: The standard Cayenne's narrow-angle 3.2-liter V6 engine was
>developed by Volkswagen. Porsche did its own finish work for its
>version of the V6, which features variable timing for both the intake
>and exhaust valves for an impressive combination of smooth idling,
>good low-end torque and free-revving high-end horsepower". 6 more
>horsepower actually.
>
>They do NOT offer the exact same performance, regardless of how you
>spin it.

Sure they do, and BTW, it wasn't Porsche who did that work, it was VW,
to create the Mk IV Golf R32. I know this, because the same engine was
retained for my Mk V based Audi A3 3.2 DSG, which I'm about to go and
wash for the weekend.

Oh yes, and another thing. My A3 doesn't have the ground clearance of
the Cayenne, but otherwise it's got the same mud-plugging capacity -
and it's in every way *faster* than the V-8 Cayenne S...........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:50:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:46:49 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:51:23 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:48:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>>>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>>>>>> equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>>>>>> manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>>>>>> challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>>>>>> to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>>>>>> achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>>>>>> performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>>>>>> that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>>>>>> plenty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>>>>>"performance".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6 VW petrol
>>>>>engine,
>>>>
>>>>Except that the Porsche gets 25 more HP out of the same motor. Sorry
>>>>you don't know more about what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. The Porsche is rated at 247 HP (same as the rating for that
>>>engine in all other VW and Audi cars in which it's used), while it's
>>>rated at 240 in the Touareg, for no reason I can find. There is *no*
>>>special Porsche tuning at work here, just some mysterious derating in
>>>the Touareg (mebbe Porsche's marketing guys insisted?). Five'll get
>>>you ten they'll be identical on a rolling road........
>>
>>Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?
>>
>>Oh it's you, that's why...
>>
>>"So why did Porsche develop a V6 engine? Well, in designing and
>>constructing the unit-body chassis of the Cayenne, Porsche worked with
>>parent company VW, who was co-developing the Touareg SUV. Although the
>>3.2-liter V6 is snatched from the Touareg, Porsche engineers assure
>>that extensive modification has been done to guarantee Porsche
>>performance. For example, the new intake system uses continuously
>>variable valve timing and two overhead camshafts. The exhaust has also
>>been tweaked to bellow the familiar Porsche note. For towing, the
>>cooling system was also enhanced to withstand pulling in high ambient
>>temperatures.
>>
>>
>>V6 Horsepower
>>Porsche reports horsepower for its V6 version at 247 and torque at 228
>>lb.-ft. A Touareg yields only 220 hp. but creates 225 lb.-ft. of
>>torque. However, all that torque arrives later in the power band in
>>the VW (3,200 rpm as opposed to 2,500 rpm in the Porsche), so Porsche
>>can tout slightly better utility capabilities".
>>
>>Looks like VW has added another 20 HP though for 2005. Still less than
>>the Porsche.
>
>That engine - in current 3.2 size - has *always* produced 247 HP in
>VWs and Audis.

http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/2004/volkswagen/touareg/
2004 Volkswagen Touareg Performance & Efficiency Standard Features

- 3,189 cc 3.2 liters 6 V front engine with 84 mm bore, 95.9 mm
stroke, 11 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve
timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
- Premium unleaded fuel
- Multi-point injection fuel system
- Main 100 liter premium unleaded fuel tank
- Power: EEC and 164 kW , 220 HP @ 5,400 rpm; 225 ft lb , 310 Nm @
3,200 rpm

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=78
ENGINES/TRANSMISSIONS
3.2 V6 petrol (3,189cc): 162kW (220PS) at 5,800 rpm / 305Nm (225 lb
ft) torque at 3,200 rpm.

So much for your knowledge of "history".

>Don't believe everything the Porsche boys try to tell
>you, Vile, they simply don't have the resources to develop serious new
>engines (or indeed an SUV).

I guess you don't know how a company can increase horsepower by even
simple tweaks to an intake/exhaust system. Heck, a more efficient
exhaust from manifold to tailpipe ALONE can add 5 HP. I guess you
don't think that Porsche has the resources to maximize the diesign of
an existing motor. You'd be wrong, of course, but you can reach for
any desperate measure that you'd like. But it looks like VAG DID want
to narrow the over 20 HP gap by doing some tweaking of their own.

And who cares that Audi (another "upscale marque") ALSO maintains a
respectable difference in specs between VW and itself. Bringing in
Audi just shows your desperation to avoid saying the simple words,
"Hey, I'm wrong bout the specs". In fact, it supports my OWN
contention, because even VAG ITSELF keeps a spec advantage to their
"upscale" brand.

>>>>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>>>>
>>>>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.
>>>
>>>Apologies - that's for next year.
>>
>>Still can't say the simple words, "I'm wrong". But thanks for the
>>acknowlegement. I fully admit that I was wrong about some things as
>>well. You should try the straightforward approach. Speaking of next
>>year though, it's likely that Porsche will maintain a technical
>>superiority, as they've not settled for the same specs on anything
>>they've used from VW.
>
>Actually of course, they have, since the 3.2 V6 is not modified at
>all, despite being fitted with a 'boy racer' noisy exhaust system for
>the Cayenne.

Nope. You're just making stuff up at this point. You have NOTHING to
support your contention, except perhaps the empty scotch bottles that
lie at your feet.

>BTW, It's *exactly* the same engine that's fitted to my
>A3, so I do know something about its history.

Well, you don't apparently know as much about its history as you
think, as I have already shown. But who cares what's on your little
Audi, because we weren't discussing the A3 vs anything.

>>>> And since it's not a
>>>>Pinkerton-approved "cutting-edge motor", who cares, right?
>>>
>>>Not 'cutting edge'? The engine that powers the latest Bentleys? the
>>>world's only W-12? Are you *crazy*?! Ah, sorry, silly question.......
>>
>>According to you, it has to be 100 HP per liter, remember?
>
>Ah, that's just for a *Pinkerton approved* cutting edge award, being
>the world's only W-12 is enough for basic 'cutting edge' status! 🙂

Ummm, I DID say "Pinkerton-approved cutting edge", DIDN'T I? I happen
to think that this arbitrary design feature of yours is bogus in the
first place. Thank you for supporting my contention that it isn't 100
HP per liter that makes an engine TRULY cutting edge.

>> Funny how
>>the words come back to haunt you. This is roughly the same percentage
>>as Ford's engine that I mentioned as being cutting edge, although you
>>correctly pointed out (or *I* found out later) that it was only 170 HP
>>per 2 liter.

Oooops, the Dumblelord is suddenly speechless.

>>>>>Shame that you know so little about cars.
>>>>
>>>>So you say. However, you've gotten just about everything wrong in this
>>>>post.
>>>
>>>Nope, you have as ever lost all touch with reality. The Porsche
>>>Cayenne and VW Touareg are the *same* car, and the base models share
>>>the *same* VW engine. Only *you* are dumb enough to think otherwise.
>>
>>Now you are changing your story.
>>
>>"PS: The standard Cayenne's narrow-angle 3.2-liter V6 engine was
>>developed by Volkswagen. Porsche did its own finish work for its
>>version of the V6, which features variable timing for both the intake
>>and exhaust valves for an impressive combination of smooth idling,
>>good low-end torque and free-revving high-end horsepower". 6 more
>>horsepower actually.
>>
>>They do NOT offer the exact same performance, regardless of how you
>>spin it.
>
>Sure they do, and BTW, it wasn't Porsche who did that work, it was VW,
>to create the Mk IV Golf R32. I know this, because the same engine was
>retained for my Mk V based Audi A3 3.2 DSG, which I'm about to go and
>wash for the weekend.

Porsche still have 3 more RATED HP (and now have trumped THAT with
another 50 HP). VW did some catchup work. Good for them, but Porsche
has raised the bar again. Now, if you can provide something other than
drunken mutterings about secret conspiracies, feel free to provide
them. I'm not holding my breath though.

>Oh yes, and another thing. My A3 doesn't have the ground clearance of
>the Cayenne, but otherwise it's got the same mud-plugging capacity -
>and it's in every way *faster* than the V-8 Cayenne S...........

Or the V-8 Touareg for that matter, right? Who cares if your little
pocket rocket is faster than an SUV? You really have some silly pride
working for you. Shame you can't say the same thing about the Turbo
though...that would make your manhood swell with a wormlike pride.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2005 07:17:25 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Therefore, it's not the same specs.
> >>
> >>
> >Yeah, a 1.2% diff in *rated* HP will lead to a completely different
> >level of performance. Ever hear of production tolerances, dave?
>
> As it turns out, your figure is wrong. By about 100%. <chuckle>.
>
>
>
My figure of 1.2% was based on your claim of "3 more RATED HP", you
slimy weasel. Now that you have corrected your error and revised the
figure to 7 HP, the diff is 2.8%- still a nit in terms of rated HP.
>
>
>
<dave's incessant nit-picking deleted>
>
>
Bye, dave!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 06:20:12 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>
>dave weil discovers the "nano-nit" and sets to picking it:
>>
>>
><snipped to spare poor defenseless nits>
>>
>>
>> Porsche still have 3 more RATED HP
>>
>>
>Good grief!!! :-O

Therefore, it's not the same specs. what has happened is that IN THIS
LATEST MODEL YEAR ONLY, VW added another 20 some-odd horsepower.
Porsche might very well decide to up the ante again, or they might be
ssatisfied with having a nominal difference. Since they added a 50HP
boost option to the Turbo, they might be happy with that and might
decide not to bother with a HP race on this particular motor.

Got any pictures of the Cayenne Turbo S that Stewart was prattering on
about? Any proof of the earlier 247 HP VW V6? Maybe you could tweak my
Cannondale while you're at it. I could use a higher-end cantilever
brake system, if you please.

BTW, are you sending this from a Cracker Barrel wi-fi?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 06:20:12 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>
>dave weil discovers the "nano-nit" and sets to picking it:
>>
>>
><snipped to spare poor defenseless nits>
>>
>>
>> Porsche still have 3 more RATED HP
>>
>>
>Good grief!!! :-O

Actually I screwed up the "nit". That should read "7 more RATED HP".

Sorry about that.

This 7 more HP translates to about a second faster 0-60, 9.4 vs. 8.5.
Hardly a "nit". Plus, the VW is limited to 122 mph, whereas the
Porsche runs 133. If the VW were unlocked, it's pretty plain that the
Porsche would STILL be a little faster, unless you want to unlock the
laws of physics.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 07:17:25 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>> Therefore, it's not the same specs.
>>
>>
>Yeah, a 1.2% diff in *rated* HP will lead to a completely different
>level of performance. Ever hear of production tolerances, dave?

As it turns out, your figure is wrong. By about 100%. <chuckle>.

I'd say that another second in 0-60 is a "different level of
performance". I'd also say that another 11 mph on the top end is the
same.

BTW, you DO know that "production tolerances" work for Porsche as
well, right?

Finally, have you found any proof that the only thing Porsche did was
put on a "Porsche-sound exhaust system" on the motor? That's what
Stewart is claiming.

Didn't think so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 08:03:04 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2005 06:20:12 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil discovers the "nano-nit" and sets to picking it:
>> >>
>> >>
>> ><snipped to spare poor defenseless nits>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Porsche still have 3 more RATED HP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Good grief!!! :-O
>>
>> Actually I screwed up the "nit". That should read "7 more RATED HP".
>>
>> Sorry about that.
>>
>>
>Now it's grown to micro-nit.....
>>
>>
><additional nit-picking>

I can't help it if you're infested with lice there in the backwoods.
Try some Nix, if you can borrow it from someone in the trailer park.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"dave weil" writes to dickhead Malesweski:
>
> I can't help it if you're infested with lice there in the backwoods.
> Try some Nix, if you can borrow it from someone in the trailer park.

He don't live in no trailer park. He lives with his ol' pa is his pa's
house. Now they might live real close to a trailer park, so yur
advice is prolly still good.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125712924.976999.43370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Would it really improve audio if "The
> Stereophile" mistaken as it can be at times were hounded
> out of
> existence?

I have always been thinking about hounding it into practical
competence at meeting audiophile needs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 08:33:39 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>> As it turns out, your figure is wrong. By about 100%. <chuckle>.
>>
>>
>>
>My figure of 1.2% was based on your claim of "3 more RATED HP".

Yep. apparently you didn't do YOUR due dilligence. Nice work. I hope
you do better work on bicycles.

>Now that you have corrected your error and revised the
>figure to 7 HP, the diff is 2.8%- still a nit in terms of rated HP.

It's like the difference between a Civic and a Porsche SUV.

BTW, how about Stewart's claims about the power output of that motor?
is a nit to claim a former difference of *27 HP*. Is it a nit to
demand that Stewart retract his statement that the VW motor has ALWAYS
had 240 HP? Is it a nit to ask where the evidence of an upcoming
diesel Cayenne (or even to say that Stewart can't even say the words,
"I was wrong" about there being a current diesel Cayenne)? Is it a nit
for me to point out that I claimed responsibility directly when I was
incorrect and that Stewart can't being himself to do anything but
employ weasel phrases to avoid saying that he was wrong?

The truthful answer to all of the above posits is a resounding NO. The
fact that you are now slinking away supports that resounding NO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
message
news:AV5Se.5780$_84.4443@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
> "dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8ajgh1plrcf1h1sm1bf9mtfua9fq262au7@4ax.com...
>>>> :-D

>> Hey, unlike you, Lionel, and Stewart, I don't mind
>> admitting when I'm wrong.

> What a crock!

As self-unaware as Weil has proven himself to be over the
years...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 11:04:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
>message
>news:AV5Se.5780$_84.4443@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> "dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:8ajgh1plrcf1h1sm1bf9mtfua9fq262au7@4ax.com...
>>>>> :-D
>
>>> Hey, unlike you, Lionel, and Stewart, I don't mind
>>> admitting when I'm wrong.
>
>> What a crock!
>
>As self-unaware as Weil has proven himself to be over the
>years...

Failure to follow thread noted.

You're wrong.

Again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <iciih11uri8qhjo8q1pn8askeuqf5gbvue@4ax.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:16:10 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <n6u5t7ek5nry.1dzky1anq98o2.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
> >> > the same cars. Cool.
> >>
> >> Anybody know what he's talking about?
> >
> >Yes. And the European Ford Focus, too.
>
> However, the difference is that the Touareg and Cayenne basically just
> have noses and badges switched, however much smoke and mirrors Porsche
> would like to employ to conceal that fact.

We're used to VW/Porsche similarities in the US. Remember the 914 and
944 'Porsches'? We also like avoiding the Porsche 'options' list.

However, you seem to find small differences unimportant in
distinguishing these cars. A different buyer might find the superficial
differences (interior, gauging, etc) and the different driving setup
(suspension, steering, tires, etc) to be compelling enough to make a
real choice.

> Sensible folks buy the V-10
> diesel Touareg and get awesome pulling power, with more real-world
> overtaking thrust than even the Cayenne Turbo can muster.

That's right, the engines are different, too.

> Serously sensible folks buy a Ford pickup and a 'Vette Z06 for the
> same cash...... 🙂

I didn't know Jeff Foxworthy was published in the UK.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:24:44 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:

>In article <iciih11uri8qhjo8q1pn8askeuqf5gbvue@4ax.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:16:10 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <n6u5t7ek5nry.1dzky1anq98o2.dlg@40tude.net>,
>> > Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
>> >> > the same cars. Cool.
>> >>
>> >> Anybody know what he's talking about?
>> >
>> >Yes. And the European Ford Focus, too.
>>
>> However, the difference is that the Touareg and Cayenne basically just
>> have noses and badges switched, however much smoke and mirrors Porsche
>> would like to employ to conceal that fact.
>
>We're used to VW/Porsche similarities in the US. Remember the 914 and
>944 'Porsches'?

Indeed, I recall VW saying that the proposed new Audi Coupe was far
too upmarket for the brand - of course it went on from the 924 to
become the iconic 968 Club Sport in its final incarnation - probably
the best allround chassis they ever built.........

However, while the 914 was badged as a 'VW/Porsche', there was only
one model, and the 924 was never sold as anything but a Porsche. Not
so with Cayenne and Touareg.

>We also like avoiding the Porsche 'options' list.

Especially the ceramic brakes option - OUCH!

>However, you seem to find small differences unimportant in
>distinguishing these cars. A different buyer might find the superficial
>differences (interior, gauging, etc) and the different driving setup
>(suspension, steering, tires, etc) to be compelling enough to make a
>real choice.

Unlikely - 99% will be down to the badge.

>> Sensible folks buy the V-10
>> diesel Touareg and get awesome pulling power, with more real-world
>> overtaking thrust than even the Cayenne Turbo can muster.
>
>That's right, the engines are different, too.

Some of them........ 🙂

>> Serously sensible folks buy a Ford pickup and a 'Vette Z06 for the
>> same cash...... 🙂
>
>I didn't know Jeff Foxworthy was published in the UK.

Never heard of him!

OK, Google says he's a stand-up guy. I didn't realise he coined the
'you might be a redneck' tagline, which I really loved during my time
in Houston. BTW, the Ford pickup doesn't *have* to have a rifle rack,
just 4WD and a king cab. A coonhound is optional.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>BTW, the Ford pickup doesn't *have* to have a rifle rack

But it *does* have to have a little cartoon of Calvin (of Calvin and
Hobbes fame) pissing on a ram's head (or a Chevy bowtie).

I haven't seen a rifle rack in a pickup for years. They keep them in
stainless steel bed boxes now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>>However, you seem to find small differences unimportant in
>>distinguishing these cars. A different buyer might find the superficial
>>differences (interior, gauging, etc) and the different driving setup
>>(suspension, steering, tires, etc) to be compelling enough to make a
>>real choice.
>
>Unlikely - 99% will be down to the badge.

Which is why Porsche insists on having the edge in specs (read
performance difference). Hell, in 2004, those differences equated to
the VW being over 2 seconds slower 0-60. Obviously VW closed the gap
to one second in 2005 by getting within 7 HP. Since they still have a
second over the VW, they probably don't feel the need to up the ante
yet again, since they're more concerned about bringing a hybrid on
board. Still, it wouldn't surprise me at all for them to tweak another
3 HP in 2006 to get to the magic 250 HP level now that VW is at 240.
It wouldn't be hard at all. whether they think it's worth their effort
is another matter. What they *need* to do is get their interior as
nice as the Touareg. Spend some R/D money there.

PS, got any spy photos of that Cayenne diesel that you claim Porsche
will be coming out in 2006?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

paul packer a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:29:02 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>George Middius a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>I like your analysis.
>>
>>LOL !
>
>
> You laugh at the strangest things.

Agreed Sir, your analysis was really a "strange thing".
Thank you for that. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:15:17 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:04:56 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Try to get your urges under control.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, back to your hoppy swill.
>>>>
>>>Good, game set and match. ;-)
>>>
>>>Hard to believe that you concede.
>>>
>>>Well done!
>>
>>Seems that when I said that you are a presumptuous pathetic
>>baggart it was a kind euphemism.
>>
>>😱)
>
> Uh oh, the Frenchman's "vexed".

You are pathetic Dave, I start to feel a lot of pity for you.