[200q20v] Need expert opinion after testdrive before buying

[TM]

I don't know what the conventions are in your area, but
I have some comments, interspersed below:


-----Original Message-----
From: 200q20v-admin at audifans.com [mailto:200q20v-admin at audifans.com] On
Behalf Of Maurits Jonkergouw
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:01 PM
To: 200q20v at audifans.com
Subject: [200q20v] Need expert opinion after testdrive before buying

The dealer car had 166K Km's. Looking under the car showed clear
evidence there was a serious oil leak, there was so much oil on the pan
and surroundings (but not on the ground) it was hard to tell where it
came from. It wasn't 'fresh' sticky oil though, it had a diluted with
water effect (coolant?).

	*Are you certain it's motor oil? I have what appears to be a
slight A/C compressor
leak that causes compressor oil to get on the oil pan. Also, a hydraulic
leak may have
a similar effect, both are oils and thinner than motor oil. You may want
to check the smell
by taking a sample from the area.


The battery was leaking (corroded pole) so we had to jump-start the car.
Surprisingly it started immediately and without any the suspected smelly
exhaust smoke. But it didn't run smooth at all, even after a while when
it was warm. There was also this rattling noise caused by the lifters
and a bearing noise. Note: there was 1l oil short according to the
dipstick. Also the left CV joint boot was completely split open and
grease was all over the place but not on the joint; it was almost
'clean' and dry.

	*These cars get very noisy if you run them low on oil. However,
if the
car doesn't run smoothly, it's possible the car needs a tune-up, nothing
more.
Very hard to tell without driving the car. Then again, I wouldn't want
to drive
the car with a dry CV joint.


When I start complaining about all this he said it would be fixed when I
bought the car, black on white, just had to sign for it, so I could sue
them afterwards if they didn't. When I would buy the car he would give
me another 3 months full warranty on the engine, but only the engine.
Does the so called 'revision' lubricants last that long? Also the front
UFO rotors where worn badly and he would only replace them if they were
to far gone to pass the 'legally yearly car on the road test' in Holland
(don't know what it's called elsewhere). The 'bomb test seemed ok. Even
though I didn't test-drive the car (only allowed when seriously
interested in buying), would it be safe to buy this car (after test
drive looks ok), even with the 3 months warranty?

	*The warranty on the engine sounds rather worthless. What else
is wrong with the car? Do
all of the electrics work? Any hydraulic leaks? Does the PS pump make
any funny sounds? Have
you checked the steering rack- the boots can leak. What about the
transmission? Does it have
lots of play in the shifter or is it hard to put the car in gear? Have
you performed a compression
and leak-down test? Is the body straight? Any rust?

	*I would _never_ buy a car without checking all of these things,
and definitely not without
a test drive. Maybe that's how they do things where you are, but in the
US, if a dealer refuses
a test drive on a 10+ year old car that isn't worth that much money, I
would walk away immediately-
that's very suspicious here.

The private car had given a new engine with only 80K Km's (double
checked with previous owner) and the body had 320K Km's. It had fairly
new front UFO rotors. There was some little oil dripping from the oil
pan gasket. The other engine parts looked fairly dry though. The gearbox
and fuel pump needed to be replaced or at least needed attention in the
near future, according to the current owner. The engine ran smooth, very
smooth, even though it showed some little smoke when it first started
up. I think the the 'bomb' test failed: after only 5 pumps it returned
stiff, but the brake light didn't go on. This brings me to the next
question: during test drive I had the feeling I had to press the brakes
hard for any effect (...so this is the 'famous' UFO brake you'r all
talking about??). My '85 Coupe has more brake power, so it seems. Does a
'bad bomb' have any influence on the braking power or does it only works
during a emergency brake? This lack of brake power really makes me
wonder. Is this normal?

	*The brake performance as you describe is not normal. My UFO
brakes stop on a dime and
decelerate very rapidly when I push the brake pedal hard. 5 pumps on the
pedal indicate a bad
bomb- it should be replaced ASAP.


After the test drive I was a little disappointed about the overall 'low'
power of the car. On low rpm it didn't go that 'fast' as my 100Kw KV
engined '85 type 81 Coupe, only above 3-4K rpm there was a significant
difference :-). When I asked about this I was told it had to do with the
weight of the car and the turbo: simply not activated in low rpms. When
does it should? And what about the huge torque at 1950 rpm then? I did
not had the feeling it was there. Or perhaps I don't understand the
nature of turbo engines ie. never drove one before.

	*Low power?!? Did you check the dash boost gauge to see what the
indicated boost
was? This is not an accurate way of measuring, but if you don't see at
least 1.6 or
1.7 bar indicated, the car is not developing anywhere near full boost
and that is your
problem. A 200q20v, esp. in European trim, should be quite fast- the US
spec cars did
0-60 in 6.5s when new. That is far faster than your Coupe. 225lb-ft. of
torque as well-
it should feel like a big-engined V8, esp. in stock form.

	*If this is your only choice, I would seriously consider not
getting either car-
it doesn't sound like either one is in very good shape. However, if you
must, I would
get a complete checkup on both cars by a competent mechanic. The dealer
car has much
lower mileage- does it have FSH or at least a partial history? What
about the private
car? What is the reputation of the dealership?

Regards,
Taka Mizutani