billy2shots Posted July 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I know this and didnt expect non-believers or those that are bored to reply, but there are those of us who like to chat and those new members that havent had the chace to put their view across. I dont remember anyone being told about a Porsche sourced 3.6. I consider this new news so i posted. That place i signed up goes through to a vw dealer, they phoned today to say i will be sent future news on the R36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin09 Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Why not just ween more power out of the 3.2? What benefit does a bigger, heavier 3.6L add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy2shots Posted July 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I think it would cost to much to "ween" enough power that vw will be looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markallain Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Apparently the R42 is going to appear in the MK7 Golf range which is due in 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N3WOB Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Can someone pls lock this before I lose the will to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin09 Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I think it would cost to much to "ween" enough power that vw will be looking at. [/ QUOTE ] How much power will they be looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy2shots Posted July 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Still to early to even guess, but if you look at current Porsche 3.6's it gives some idea. The dealer suggested that it would be a light stripped out version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 It's a tricky one in some ways. One one hand the R32 (Mk4) was born from Volkswagen's Golf development projects - The "R" standing for "Racing" and the ".:" representing the chequered flag. On the other hand the .:R32 Mk4 has all the luxury and benefits of every Golf, in fact more luxury imo. The Mk5 .:R interior is virtually the same as the Mk5 GTI - Both, imo, being better than the others in the Mk5 range. Although it's very logical and there are loads of .:R enthusiasts who would welcome a lighter stripped out version - Rather like the Audi TT version (QS? like Lottie's) - I reckon the question is probably down to where VW's marketing people think the most sales are - Racey or luxury? Great as the Mk5 .:R32 is, I personally would have liked to see everything on the car in a racier style - Exterior and interior styling. However, I can see the 'stealth' approach....The number of times I have seen a Mk5 R32 approach to then find it's a new Passat. Of course, Tyresmoke's R32 community is THE place to share and find quality information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 I did some calculations using the weight differences of the 3.6l passat and the 3.2l passat, both of which are 4 motion DSG, and I can mathematically confirm that the 3.6l passat is a lot lighter. Hence, if I am right regarding the calculations, the Golf R36 would be a better balanced car IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 3.6l passat is 3829lbs curb weight 3.2l passat is 3984lbs unladen weight Unladen and curb does not differ too much in terms of definition, both roughly refer to a an empty car with a certain amount of fuel. Anyway, a full tank of fuel would not make up for such a difference in weight between the 3.6 and 3.2. 3.6l engine 280HP and 265lb ft, which is a lot of torque for a normally aspirated V6. IMHO, I think the 3.6l engine may actually be the same dimensional size as the 3.2l, but with enlarged cylinders and a thinner walled engine block . I would assume it would be cheaper for VW to maintain the same V6 engine dimensions otherwise many other engine components for the 3.2l would have to be redesigned to accomodate the 3.6l if it was indeed larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vindaloo Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 [ QUOTE ] 3.6l passat is 3829lbs curb weight 3.2l passat is 3984lbs unladen weight Unladen and curb does not differ too much in terms of definition, both roughly refer to a an empty car with a certain amount of fuel. Anyway, a full tank of fuel would not make up for such a difference in weight between the 3.6 and 3.2. 3.6l engine 280HP and 265lb ft, which is a lot of torque for a normally aspirated V6. IMHO, I think the 3.6l engine may actually be the same dimensional size as the 3.2l, but with enlarged cylinders and a thinner walled engine block . I would assume it would be cheaper for VW to maintain the same V6 engine dimensions otherwise many other engine components for the 3.2l would have to be redesigned to accomodate the 3.6l if it was indeed larger. [/ QUOTE ] Found this on a google search, which might upset your calculations. Many vehicle manufacturers are, however, now following European Directive 95/48/EC which specifies the kerb weight as a car in ready to drive condition with the fuel tank 90% full, a driver on board weighing 68 kg and luggage of 7 kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Yes you may be right but curb weight according to the brochure from VW indicates 90% tank and no driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Oh wait yes your curb weight definition should be right. What I said above was meant for unladen weight. But anyway, it still means the 3.6l passat is lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 On second thought, I believe curb weight in this context means empty car and certain amount of fuel as it's from a VW brochure from North America. Because it does not seem logical for the 3.6l to weigh 3829lbs with fuel, passenger and luggage compared to the 3.2l unladen weight of 3984. Unladen weight being 90% tank and empty car according to VW brochure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vindaloo Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 I honestly can't believe the 3.6 can be nearly 70kg (the weight of an average adult)lighter than the 3.2, the weight difference must be down to other factors between the cars as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMB Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 [ QUOTE ] 3.6l passat is 3829lbs curb weight 3.2l passat is 3984lbs unladen weight Unladen and curb does not differ too much in terms of definition, both roughly refer to a an empty car with a certain amount of fuel. Anyway, a full tank of fuel would not make up for such a difference in weight between the 3.6 and 3.2. 3.6l engine 280HP and 265lb ft, which is a lot of torque for a normally aspirated V6. IMHO, I think the 3.6l engine may actually be the same dimensional size as the 3.2l, but with enlarged cylinders and a thinner walled engine block . I would assume it would be cheaper for VW to maintain the same V6 engine dimensions otherwise many other engine components for the 3.2l would have to be redesigned to accomodate the 3.6l if it was indeed larger. [/ QUOTE ] 3.6 and 3.2 are physically different engines, the v is too narrow on the 3.2 to turn it into a 3.6, The 3.6 has a wider V shape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhj83 Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I honestly can't believe the 3.6 can be nearly 70kg (the weight of an average adult)lighter than the 3.2, the weight difference must be down to other factors between the cars as well. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I agree with what you are saying, it's not logical for there to be a 70kg difference. But I just qouted the weights just as a guide to show that the 3.6l is not heavier than the 3.2l. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy2shots Posted August 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 And lets not forget my dealer said Porsche sourced 3.6. Now class who can tell me the weight difference between the VW 3.2 and the Porsche 3.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 [ QUOTE ] 3.6 and 3.2 are physically different engines, the v is too narrow on the 3.2 to turn it into a 3.6, The 3.6 has a wider V shape [/ QUOTE ] This is incorrect. 3.2L VR6 has a 15 degree V 3.6L VR6 has a 10.6 degree V They both have roughly the same sized block. In the 2.8 and 3.2 liter blocks the centerline of the pistons point straight at the crankshaft rotational axis. As you bore the cylinders out further and further while maintaining this geometry, the bottom of the cylinders get closer and closer together until they finally overlap. The trick with the 3.6L VR6 is that without widening the block or changing the location of the top of the cylinders, they pushed the bottoms further from each other. This decreases the V angle and it means the cylinder centerlines no longer point at the crankshaft axis. This makes the 3.6L VR6 not like any other V engine, nor like any other inline engine. It's just totaly different, but seems to work fine though, and has no balance problems. VW's done massive amounts of durability testing on the 3.6L VR6 in NA trim up to around 300hp. ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMB Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 yes i got the two round the wrong way , but they are still different engines. the 3.6 is a little lighter than the 3.2, . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I had my car in for some warranty work this morning, and the service guy mentioned the R36 to me. After a chat with him, apparently their brand manager, had just been out to VW Germany, and pictures were shown of the R36, in MKV guise - I woner if they are thinking of launching the R36, rather like the MKIV R32 at the end of the model. Sorry for bringing this all up again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 I heard the engine will be mid mounted, behind the front wheels, the drivers seats will be the rear seats, and the zorst will come out by the front doors SLR style. At least, that's what the man pushing the trolleys in Lidl said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I heard the engine will be mid mounted, behind the front wheels, the drivers seats will be the rear seats, and the zorst will come out by the front doors SLR style. At least, that's what the man pushing the trolleys in Lidl said. [/ QUOTE ] Strange comment...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 No, Oli - it's called TsN humour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oatz Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I heard the engine will be mid mounted, behind the front wheels, the drivers seats will be the rear seats, and the zorst will come out by the front doors SLR style. At least, that's what the man pushing the trolleys in Lidl said. [/ QUOTE ] Strange comment...... [/ QUOTE ] What happened to the second part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now