fun topic: 200q20v VS. URS4

[mike claire]

Maybe the 200's so dated it's going retro?  It still looks "old" to me, but
I have learned to like it.

But I didn't buy it on looks - it was cheap and had lots of recent work (the
right stuff).  I might have been trying to make up for what I've done to
myself with the S4.  Audi ownership hasn't done much for my judgment I
guess.

It's a really good car, and it's different than the S4.  If I drove each of
my cars blindfolded (lol) I might pick my 200 over my S4.  And I have spent
4X $$$ on the S4.



Mike



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
>
> - 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.
>
> - URS4 has DIS ignition
>
> - i assume URS4 has a tighter chassis
>
> - URS4 has less niggly issues with the electronics
>
> - what else?
>
> 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.
>
> what are your thoughts?
>
> see ya,
> Robby
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 200q20v mailing list     http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v
>