# 3.2 VR6 old (non FSI) and new (FSI) tech info.



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

*Old non FSI 3.2 litre VR6 engine tech info:*

Volume: 3189cc, bore= 84.0, stroke= 95.9 .
Power: 184 kW/250 hp by 6300 rpm.
Torque: 320 Nm by 2800-3000 rpm.
Compression: 11.3 .
V angle: 15 degree.
Emission: Euro 4.
Economy: 10.3 litre per 100 Km. *

*New FSI 3.2 litre VR6 engine tech info:*

Volume: 3168cc, bore= 86.0, stroke= 90.9 .
Power: 184 kW/250 hp by 6250 rpm.
Torque: 330 Nm by 2750-3750 rpm.
Compression: 12.0 .
V angle: 10.6 degree.
Emission: Euro 4.
Economy: 9.7 litre per 100 km. *

Hans.

* (6 speed manual)


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

what does this mean?

The most relevant bits would be the relative performance and economy of the two.

Also does that mean Audi is to replace the current v6 with an fsi version in the near future?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Thanks. And? Is it going in the new TT after all? Or is this just by-the-by?


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Cheers Hans, but it looks like the new V6 will only have a slightly fatter torque curve and the engine might be slightly smaller which is good but not a great difference. Would like to see the difference in weights and fuel economy.

Donald


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Slightly flatter? OK, it only quotes the band of max torque, but you're getting 10NM more across 4 times the rev range. That sounds a lot better to me. No doubt, the FSI jiggery-pokery helps with the torque, and I hope it helps with the fuel consumption when not using the throttle much.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

*[Denzel Washington in Philadephia mode]*]Explain it to me like I'm a two year old.*[/Denzel Washington in Philadephia mode]*


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Tech info up-grade.

Hans.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

MK2 relevance? Other than, there's a better VR6 engine but you can't have it, naa naa na naa naa.

Still don't understand why Audi can't but this engine in the new TT, other than perhaps VW not letting them cause it's their engine, or whatever internal politics nonsense.


----------



## VeeDubDan (May 6, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> No doubt, the FSI jiggery-pokery helps with the torque, and I hope it helps with the fuel consumption when not using the throttle much.


Nah, it still sucks! I get 22mpg average out of my FSI equipped R32. Mind you that probably has something to with how I drive!! :?


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

And I care because?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

VeeDubDan said:


> Nah, it still sucks!


Don't you mean guzzles? 

But, assuming you completely lost your mind, and drove it sensibly, would it give you more mileage than the standard V6?

Have you driven the standard V6? Is the extra torque / flatter curve noticeable?


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

VeeDubDan said:


> Nah, it still sucks! I get 22mpg average out of my FSI equipped R32.


The VW R32 IV or V have no *FSI* :wink:

Hans.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

damn, when i clicked this thread i hoped to read some news/dates about the 302hp version. didn't know that they were still fiddling around in the 250hp department


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

der_horst said:


> damn, when i clicked this thread i hoped to read some news/dates about the 302hp version. didn't know that they were still fiddling around in the 250hp department


There is not much info about the 302 hp engine. (only that it's a VR6 a lot of people say)
I still don't know much about it, but there are tree options:

1) a high rev 3.2 litre VR6 FSI engine. 
2) a 3.6 litre FSI engine. (280 hp is based on low octan)
3) a turbo 3.2 litre VR6 FSI engine.

Hans.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Does someone make this up as they go along?

The bore and stroke figures given for the new engine do not bear any relationship to the figure given for capacity. They would give 3342cc.

So if this basic stuff is wrong how much credibility to give the rest? :twisted:


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Iceman said:


> *Old non FSI 3.2 litre VR6 engine tech info:*
> 
> Volume: 3189cc, bore= 84.0, stroke= 95.9 .
> Power: 184 kW/250 hp by 6300 rpm.
> ...


Aren't all Audiâ€™s transverse/longitudinal engine comboâ€™s slightly different capacities regardless of FSI?


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

squiggel said:


> Does someone make this up as they go along?
> 
> The bore and stroke figures given for the new engine do not bear any relationship to the figure given for capacity. They would give 3342cc.
> 
> So if this basic stuff is wrong how much credibility to give the rest? :twisted:


In that case there are a lot of faults in the VAG documentation.
I not have it mathematic run over. :wink:

Hans.


----------



## VeeDubDan (May 6, 2006)

Iceman said:


> VeeDubDan said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, it still sucks! I get 22mpg average out of my FSI equipped R32.
> ...


The Mk4 is not FSI but it is my understanding that the Mk5 R32 is FSI. VW seem to think so too according to their sale info. Not that I imagine it makes a lot of difference either way.


----------



## VeeDubDan (May 6, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> VeeDubDan said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, it still sucks!
> ...


On a quiet drive home last night with no traffic I managed to get 31mpg. I don't know how this would compare to the standard V6. I haven't driven the Audi engine, so can't tell you how they compare in terms of drivability.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

VeeDubDan said:


> but it is my understanding that the Mk5 R32 is FSI.


The only 3.2 litre VR6 FSI engine is in the new Passat according to the Volkswagen.de site.

Hans.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Iceman said:


> In that case there are a lot of faults in the VAG documentation.
> 
> Hans.


Or mis-information by someone who does not know the relationship between bore, stroke and capacity?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

squiggel said:


> the relationship between bore, stroke and capacity?


What is this out of interest? Never have got the bore and stroke thingy


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Could be a misprint - the stroke could be 90.9 instead of 95.9 - I think that would work for the FSI capacity.

The VW site definitely harps on about the R32 MkV being an FSI.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> The VW site definitely harps on about the R32 MkV being an FSI.


I can't find anything about the R32 have a FSI engine.

Hans.


----------



## dommorton (Mar 9, 2005)

As far as I'm aware the 3.2 unit remains unchanged from the Mk1 to the Mk2 and the new R32 :?


----------



## KenTT (Feb 20, 2005)

Wow look at the V angle 10.6 degree  , they'll invent the staight 6 next  .


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

My contacts telling me the 400bhp W12 engine is going to be put in all the cars ordered as V6 FOC. They will also fit the car with 29" wheels as std. Other extras over 20T is a rocket launchers for all the middle lane hoggers.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Iceman said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > The VW site definitely harps on about the R32 MkV being an FSI.
> ...


http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/assets/pdf/golf_r32_brochure.pdf

First paragraph, page 12. But the engine specs on page 13 are different from the ones you quote.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

jacTT225 said:


> squiggel said:
> 
> 
> > the relationship between bore, stroke and capacity?
> ...


Bore is the diameter of the cylinder, stroke is how far the piston moves vertically, so the swept volume of a single cylinder is (bore/2)squared x pi x stroke, multiply by 6 and voila, we have the engine capacity. Or in the case of the new engine figures above, not.

Misprint or misinformation, who knows...


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> First paragraph, page 12. But the engine specs on page 13 are different from the ones you quote.


Yes you can reed about FSI on that page but it's wrong.
They mention 320 Nm of torque that's *NON* FSI the new FSI have 330 Nm.
The problem is that the VW site's are full with wrong info.

Hans.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The website shows the same quality and attension to detail as they give their cars then :lol:


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

squiggel said:


> The bore and stroke figures given for the new engine do not bear any relationship to the figure given for capacity. They would give 3342cc.


Bore 86.0 x stroke 90.9 = 3168cc.
Bore 86.0/2 square x pi x Stroke 90.9 x 6 = 3168cc :wink:

Hans.


----------



## nolive (Aug 5, 2004)

KenTT said:


> Wow look at the V angle 10.6 degree  , they'll invent the staight 6 next  .


erm, wouldn't it be a Boxer flat 6 then :roll: :wink:

anyway, back to topic. who REALLY cares about a V6, it's a 5 pot turbo that we want :twisted:


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

nolive said:


> who REALLY cares about a V6, it's a 5 pot turbo that we want :twisted:


and weren't you the one who wanted to give us more info about it some weeks ago? so what's the status


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

nolive said:


> KenTT said:
> 
> 
> > Wow look at the V angle 10.6 degree  , they'll invent the staight 6 next  .
> ...


Nope, that would be the 180 degree V....


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I think the VR6 is just a straight six with cylinders slightly angled away from the middle. It's not really a V engine, where the cylinders are opposite each other, hence requiring a greater degree of angular separation.

I'm a bit confused as to the boxer engine. Subaru use one, but those are 4 vertical cylinders arranged in a box. Whereas, BMW also use one in their motorcycles, and these are arranged horizontally with cyclinders opposing each other. Are both termed as flat 4?


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> I'm a bit confused as to the boxer engine. Subaru use one, but those are 4 vertical cylinders arranged in a box. Whereas, BMW also use one in their motorcycles, and these are arranged horizontally with cyclinders opposing each other. Are both termed as flat 4?


Subaru cylinders are horizontal just like the bmw motorbike. Hence flat four, or boxer. And a lovely engine it is too... shame they dont build a classy coupe on impreza underpinnings...

4 vertical cylinders in a box is the conventional in-line 4 that everybody else uses.

picture on this page


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

squiggel said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit confused as to the boxer engine. Subaru use one, but those are 4 vertical cylinders arranged in a box. Whereas, BMW also use one in their motorcycles, and these are arranged horizontally with cyclinders opposing each other. Are both termed as flat 4?
> ...


Evo rather than Scooby but this may/is/will be/isnt the new Evo 10 due next year, finally looks nice, well it does in this pic. Shame it will have an interior made from an old wheely bin.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

squiggel said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit confused as to the boxer engine. Subaru use one, but those are 4 vertical cylinders arranged in a box. Whereas, BMW also use one in their motorcycles, and these are arranged horizontally with cyclinders opposing each other. Are both termed as flat 4?
> ...


Its the angle that makes it a flat engine (180 degrees). < - > The pistons move left and right (horizonatlly) rather than up and down. The VR6 could well be a straight 6 with it's narrow angle and single cylinder head, although you should get a fatter torque curve from a V6 than a straight 6.

Also the VR6 is cheaper and smaller than a convetional 90 degree V6.


----------

