fun topic: 200q20v VS. URS4

[mike claire]

>
> "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."
>

Taka:  I agree - and I wonder why more people don't see it.


The S6 and Taurus got the same styling update in the mid 90's - they
squashed the front profile and added monochrome cladding.  Audi reverted to
S4's front clip proportions for the D2 A8/S8, which isn't hurting the S4.  I
think it's aging better than the S6.

I noticed this when a coworker and I parked next to each other at the same
time.  next to my '93 S4.  We noticed that his '01 A8L and my '93 S4 were
almost identical from the front - same proportions and lines.

The S4 has an old school black beltline that might be making a comeback too
- I think I've seen it on some recent cars.  It happens to look great
against pearl, seems to make those flares jump right off the car.


Mike


On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 200q20v mailing list     http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v
>