Vacillating between 90 Quattro and Coupe Quattro

[Mark W. Byrum, Jr.]

Thanks for the follow-up. Bob.  Judging from your e-mail address, I am probably
located not far from you (my office is in Old Town Alexandria).  Comments
below:

Bob.Sandy at USPTO.GOV wrote:

> IMHO, I would definitely go with the 91 20V engine for the increased hp's.
> Having driven both a 90 and owning a 91 CQ, the CQ has better handling due
> to an improved suspension, and a shorter wheelbase.

According to my old Road & Track road tests (Dec '87 for Audi 90 Quattro; Sep
'89 for Audi Coupe Quattro), the wheelbase on the CQ is 100.4 inches, whereas
on the 90Q it is 99.9 inches.  I don't expect that 1/2 inch to mean too much,
since the suspensions are essentially the same (aren't they?).

> Based on construction,
> I would guess that the CQ has more chassis/body rigidity due to the shorter
> distance between the pillars and the roofline (i.e., the Coupe Quattro has
> shorter A, B and C pillars due to a lower roof elevation as compared to the
> 90 (sedan) Quattro.

As respects structural rigidity, I was speculating that since the CQ was, in
the rear, an open bay with a hatch and the sedan has cross-members at the rear
seats with a smaller trunk opening, the sedan would be stronger.  But I also
note that the sedan is lighter by a couple hundred pounds.  Perhaps more
strengthening went into the CQ since it is more of an "open tub" in the rear as
opposed to the Coupe's conventional trunk.  You also have two additional doors
and associated hardware to deal with in the sedan, and yet it is lighter.

> Personally, I am constantly reminded how well the CQ
> (in stock form; no mods) holds up on roads having bumpy a surface.   There
> is the occasional  rear hatch squeak, but I haven't gotten around to
> adjusting the bump stops.