From: eliot@stalfos.engr.washington.edu (eliot)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: AudiWatch Update (Tm) #8
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:35:24 GMT
Organization: clearer than blir
NNTP-Posting-Host: stalfos.engr.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan7.173818.23327@newsgate.sps.mot.com> mark@wdc.sps.mot.com (Mark Shaw) writes:
>Considering that it will take 2-3 years
>to development, test, and emissions certify a new engine design; it sounds
>like VW had the idea to go do this about the time that Toyota BOUGHT the
>technology from Lotus.  

VW's 4 valve head was carried over largely unchanged from the 306 bhp,
5 cylinder Audi Sport quattro of 1983 vintage... It was Audi that was
responsible for VW's 4 valve heads.  vw had a lot of problems
designing a 4 valve head that wasn't too peaky in its torque curve.
(that in itself is admirable; the japanese never worried as much about
this since numbers don't really show it) and in the end ended up
using the audi head.  they are more or less the same company, sure,
but i think that your above paragraph is a little inaccurate.  that
said, vw has completely resdesigned their 4 valve heads (with no audi
help) for the new 16 valve gti, with emphasis on much improved low end
and mid range torque.  reviews have shown that they succeeded.

>I think you comments regards the Japanese being technological superior are a
>little overblown, wouldn't you say? 

hey, wait a minute!!!  you got the wrong guy.  i never participated in
this thread until you asked when toyota came out with 4 valve heads.
it's partially my fault too, since i deleted the attributions because
they got too convoluted.

>|> the motivation behind 4 valve heads used in the corolla
>|> and camry is for good emissions performance rather than hot rod
>|> performance.  that is a far less well known advantage of 4 valve
>|> heads.

>I think you have it reversed here.  The 4-valve engine does not impart any
>special emissions value in closed-loop systems.  What it does do is burn
>fuel more efficiently so that you can get the equivalent more power from
>a smaller (and thus bascially less pollutant) engine.   The net effect may
>be lower pollution for same power from a 4-valve versus a 2-valve.  If the
>Corolla and Camby need 4-valves to meet emissions requirements, then their
>fuel management system is lacking refinement.

ok, i have to go dig up that article where i read it...  the facts
escape me right now.. toyota is using and manufacturing bosch fi under
licence if i'm not mistaken.  they are not using their own stuff,
unlike honda.

>I think you give the Japanese too much credit for things which they are
>really only acquiring from others (Wankel license from NSU, 4-valve heads
>from Lotus, and electronic fuel injection licensed by Nippondenso from Bosch).

wrong attribution, but i'll respond anyway.  third party parts suppliers
are a fact of life for car manufacturers.  toyota buys lots of major
components from third parties like Bosch, or manufactures parts under
license from third parties.  The famed Lexus LS400 transmission is
made by Aisin-Warner, a Borg-Warner subsidiary.

VW/Audi are no different.  The headlights are by Hella/Bosch, the FI
used to be exclusively Bosch until Digifant came along.  The brakes
are by Girling.  One of the original engineers that developed the
quattro drivetrain has now started up his own company and is supplying
awd systems to many of the AWD minivans that you see in the market
today.

If there's any manufacturer who resists third parties more than anyone
else it is Honda.  they do their own shocks, ABS system (both inferior
to third party manufacturers), slushboxes (rough shifting but more
efficient), FI.

>Give them credit for manufacturing excellence, but let's not go overboard and
>give them credit for every technological advance to show up in the world.

hardly.  they are notorious for taking european and american ideas and
developing them till it bears full fruit.  i think that the japanese
greatest contribution to the automobile is in their manufacturing
excellence.  on the other hand i have never been able to accept their
willingness to compromise engineering principles in order to sell more
cars.  i find that the europeans are far more faithful to engineering
principles than the japanese (and that is why i will continue to buy
"inferior, overpriced" european products), even if they can't match
the japanese manufacturing capabilities.

>Mark

eliot


p.s. please check the attributions before responding.