fun topic: 200q20v VS. URS4

[Taka Mizutani]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, robert weinberg <centaurus3200 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> hi all,
>
> please educate me on the differences b/t the URS4 (1992-1995.5) and the
> 200q20v.
>
> from what i currently understand:
>
> - URS4 has steel head gasket - so can handle more boost - easy enough fix
> for the 200q20v
>

Yes, but that's an easy fix as you said, plus you'll need some ARP head
studs to keep it all together



> - both use basically the same engine and turbo
>
> - what are teh differences in the trannies? i've heard the URS4 has a weak
> 2nd gear.
>

The 200q20v has the 016 box, the UrS has the 01E box that tends to munch 1st
gear, not 2nd. Syncros are not that great on these transmissions, so no
powershifting!


> - URS4 has DIS ignition
>

Coil on plug direct ignition, yes- also convertable on the 200q if you
really want to- allows for more aggressive timing and more boost if you
really want to push the limit- requires UrS ECU and some sensor changes.


> - i assume URS4 has a tighter chassis
>

Heavier and stiffer, yes.

>
> - URS4 has less niggly issues with the electronics
>

I disagree with that statement- the only thing that is really bad on the
200q is the GM control unit for the climate control- I think the UrS unit is
generally better, although the display tends to fail with age on them.


> - what else?
>

Better intake path for the UrS- it's more of a straight shot to the throttle
body and the intake doesn't run along the hot side of the engine. Better
front seats in the UrS. Better parts availability for the UrS, although
probably not for long.


>
> from my personal opinion, i chose the 200q20v because the URS4 seem to be
> much more expensive. the bag for the buck award seems to go to the 200q20v.
>
> finally, i don't know about you guys, but the 200q20v looks much more sexy
> and original than the URS4. the 200q20v has, at least to me, has the perfect
> combination of swoopy lines, but still some sharp edges for contrast. the
> URS4 always looked like a bloated A4 to me. sort of just looked like
> everything else on the road.
>

I disagree- the S6 is kind of bland, but the S4 looks great- it's more
square, makes the flares look more pronounced, looks more aggressive.


>
> what are your thoughts?
>

My thoughts? F Audi for deciding to make the older cars obsolete and delete
the parts from the catalog. F Audi for not supporting owners of the older
cars- MBZ, Porsche, Volvo are all much better about that. Otherwise, I'd
have an S4 or S6 right now- they're great bang for the buck.

Taka