Why the W8 H8?

>>16447608
Nobody, anywhere, wants to pay that much for a Passat, especially in the early 2000s when VW was only just starting to move itself upmarket.
That, and the W8 is hideously unreliable if you don't keep up on maintenance, and hideously expensive when you do.

>>16447608
You have to think of the markets for those cars and the price. If they put a Coyote in a Ford Focus and priced it at $60k, do you think they would sell? I mean it would be a dank car but they wouldn't sell for shit.

It's also the same reason there isn't a 300HP+ FRS/BRZ or a new Supra. We would all love to see those cars so we could buy them used in 10yrs for $8k with a rebuilt title. But the people with $40k+ to spend on a car don't want that.

280hp from 8 cylinders seems like shit efficiency in the 21st century t b h

>>16447674
It's only a 4 L and not built for performance so it's understandable

>>16447688
Audi's own conventional 4.2l V8 made anywhere from 300 to 360 at the time.

>>16447688
that's true. But still, BMW managed to get 272hp from a 3.6 liter V8 and 333 hp from a 4.4l V8 in 2001, both non-performance oriented NA engines
But again you cant compare VAG to BMW anyway so thats ok

>>16447688
>>16447696

W8's main purpose was compact packaging - maybe that bred some design compromises. This engine is the father to the W12 and W16's still in use by VW group.

>>16447671
That's not even remotely the same thing - that's a great engine in a shit econo-car chassis not designed to hold it. This is a great engine, made to fit the chassis AND ITS THE SAME FUCKING CHASSIS AS THE AUDI. It's basically the same car, but you could get better kit if you were willing to trade off the value of an Audi badge. Apparently literally no one though it was worth it.

>>16447696
With forced induction though

>>16447736
Only in the RS6 (where it made 250hp), all other variants were NA. The 360hp is for the D2 S8.

>>16447727
I think a bmw will always be more perf oriented than VW but like that guys said >>16447735
Was propably because they had other something else in mind

>>16447735
Yeah but the V6 power was plenty for most people who bought that car and wanted it. 220HP will move a sedan like that fast enough, especially in the early 2000s.

And anybody willing to shell out that kind of money on a Passat but wanted something fast would be in an S4 or just STI if they wanted to go cheaper.

People buying base model Audis want the badge, not an expensive VW logo.

>>16447640
VW was more upmarket then than they are now. Now they just build most of their shitty cars in the us or mexico and beiged them up.

>>16447806
VW used to build simple, affordable, reliable cars for the people.
Then with the mk3 Golf/Jetta, they moved production to Brazil or Mexico and reliability went down, but at least the cars were still simple and cheap.

And then the early 2000s happened and VW started to try to be "premium" with the mk4 Golf. Sort of Audi/BMW/Mercedes-light.

>>16447806
Honestly, the new Passat with the VR6 looks pretty great on paper but I just get depressed when I look at them up close. Same with the current A3/A4... Even in the higher level trims they have Detroit- tier dash plastics.

Also, similar to the w8 vs 3.0 debacle, everyone and their mom in my city has that stupid A3 sedan with zero cargo space. What really drives me up the wall though is how many people will buy the A3 with the "S line" trim when they could have a Golf R for less. Same MQB chassis, practical hatchback and better drivetrain. Yet no one does it. Because people are brandwhores.

>>16447608
It's a vag product

>>16447806
BORDER TAX
BORDER TAX
BORDER TAX

>>16447608
There was a design flaw in the engine internals relating to oil in the cam adjuster assembly. Oil filters were installed and would deteriate over time, fouling the adjuster.

The there is the issue if the transmission not being able to handle the torque of the W8.

Maybe do some research so you sound like less of a drooling idiot...

>>16447640
>don't want to buy a passat
>gets an a4

>>16450407
Jackass, people didn't know that in 2002.

>>16447882
No you stupid fuck not everyone wants a racecar-lite car, how can you be so dense?

>>16447696
>280hp 4.0
>300hp 4.2
>360hp 4.2
and they're designed by the same engineers... interesting huh?

>>16452677
Except that the W8 was released early in 2001, and by 2002 there were already reports of the W8 failings. Some as early as 10K miles.

It was so bad that VAG discontinued the W8 entirely in 2004.

>>16447882
>everyone and their mom in my city has that stupid A3 sedan
The A3 sedan is basically proof that branding matters more than actual quality or value. It sells like crazy despite being a literal rebadged Jetta, probably the most similar of the shared VW/Audi models.

Though, I guess it's not really any worse than the Mercedes CLA or BMW's non-M 2-series.

File: VW Passat B5 - Engine.jpg (445KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1280x960px

>>16447608
This car triggers me so fucking much. Why the fuck would you put a longitudinally mounted engine in a FUCKING FWD CAR, what are the benefits?

>>16453233
Easy AWD option using Audi parts. Also W8 testbed, that wouldn't have worked with a transverse layout.

>>16453233
It's basically an a4 with weird rear suspension. I like the longitudinally mounted engine in mine.