any spec info on 96 a4
- Thread starter graham A4
- Start date
Oranoco
Registered User
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,012
- Reaction score
- 408
- Points
- 83
- Location
- HertFORDshire
- Website
- www.passionford.com
Judging by my old A4 1.6 I would say about 100bhp and 0-60 in about 15 seconds. I found I was ragging the living daylights out of it all the time.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 18,708
- Reaction score
- 909
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Glenrothes, Fife, Scotland
you'll probably find the 1.8T will do better fuel economy than the 1.6 as your not having to kick its **** all day long to get it moving...
Imo a 1.6 A4 would be horrible to drive. Likely similar to driving a 1.0 12v corsa...
Imo a 1.6 A4 would be horrible to drive. Likely similar to driving a 1.0 12v corsa...
Yes, the 1,6 is slow.
But nicer to drive than the 1,8 20V n/a - it's a nasty car to drive.
Yes, it has 25PS more than the 1,6, but it just felt lifeless at low speeds, was harder to keep it on the boil when moving in fairly dense traffic.
The 1,6 on the other hand, felt a lot more linear in character.
But nicer to drive than the 1,8 20V n/a - it's a nasty car to drive.
Yes, it has 25PS more than the 1,6, but it just felt lifeless at low speeds, was harder to keep it on the boil when moving in fairly dense traffic.
The 1,6 on the other hand, felt a lot more linear in character.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 18,708
- Reaction score
- 909
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Glenrothes, Fife, Scotland
is the 1.6 an 8v?
If so you'll likely find the torque spread sits much lower down the rev range, which makes it feel more willing when just pootling around town.
Back when i had the nova, it had a 1.6 16v making 110hp, at the time craig had a nova 1.2 with 50hp. To drive them around town normally, the 1.2 felt notably more lively at low RPM's but obviously if you did plant the boot, nothing happened, whereas the 16v did very little until about 4k then took off.
Most modern 16v engines get round this with various tricks like VVT, switchable inlet tracts, and turbochargers, but a multivalve engine without those tends to be very peaky.
If so you'll likely find the torque spread sits much lower down the rev range, which makes it feel more willing when just pootling around town.
Back when i had the nova, it had a 1.6 16v making 110hp, at the time craig had a nova 1.2 with 50hp. To drive them around town normally, the 1.2 felt notably more lively at low RPM's but obviously if you did plant the boot, nothing happened, whereas the 16v did very little until about 4k then took off.
Most modern 16v engines get round this with various tricks like VVT, switchable inlet tracts, and turbochargers, but a multivalve engine without those tends to be very peaky.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 18,708
- Reaction score
- 909
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Glenrothes, Fife, Scotland
ye vtec is an example thats used to the extreme i guess, below the VTEC limit you have a VERY mild set of cams, to allow good tractability and good fuel economy, then above it you bring in a nice wild set of cams to extract good power.
Honda actually have a few different models of VTEC, and some of the more cooking spec models have something called VTEC-E which as far as i know, basically only uses one inlet valve at low RPM's to bring the torque band right down, then uses both if you stick the boot in to give an acceptable level of power.
Honda actually have a few different models of VTEC, and some of the more cooking spec models have something called VTEC-E which as far as i know, basically only uses one inlet valve at low RPM's to bring the torque band right down, then uses both if you stick the boot in to give an acceptable level of power.
