Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight
I guess you know what FSI technology means to Audi, it's almost like what the inline 6 means to BMW. So the question "if marketing alone would be reason enough to implement FSI" isn't that obviously to answer with NO.
We had exactly this discussion already some time ago here: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1222664, and that's what I want you to refer to. It's a very interesting discussion with an RS4 owner who himself said that the benefits over a conventional (manifold injection) engine are "small."
Autobild had a comparison between M3 and S5, the S5 did need more gas than the M3.
Best regards, south
EDIT: The M5 has a better tq/l ratio than the RS4... |
I remember that discussion.
Although that RS4 owner seems very knowledgable about Audi and DI systems in general, I don't think his opinion that the benefits of the system are small can be taken as gospel. Again since, the answer to the question of if Audi would implement such a system with small or marginal benefits, is no, then we are left with having to trust that Audi engineers are top notch and that there were a combination of economy, performance and price beneifts that warranted the inclusion of the system. And since the system is likely more ewxpensive than a traditional system the cost accountants would have shot it down in a flash if it did not offer some quatifiable benefits. Assuming anything else is really marginalizing the professionals at Audi. Despite all of the nitpicking about the subtleties of the systems, first gen., seconds gen., US vs EU systems, etc. Audi is ahead of BMW, period. You seem to have an immense problem admitting this in any degree at any time.
Lastly isn't comparing mpg across different models from different manufacturers a fairly feeble attempt to prove that Audi's DI system does not offer efficiency benefits?