It's official, a 2.3 4000 quattro is amazing....

[urquattro]

> The 2.3 NA, however, is a good motor and a great upgrade in the 2.2 cars
> considering the cost and effort required.  Comparing it to a turbo motor,
> however, is just plain old unfair!

... especially since Brendan's car actually moves ... ;-)

I too have driven a few turbo Audis in my day ... sure, once the boost comes
on it is difficult to beat the kick in the pants (note I didn't say
impossible, as I've got a non-turbo quattro that is about the most fun of
all from my q's).  Everyone complains about the jump off the line with the
Audi turbos.  My BiL has a couple of el-cheapo 5000s ... FWD, no turbo,
5-speeds ... the off the line torque makes them fun cars in my book ... and
there is never any playing catch up (as is regularly the case with the urq
unless you work to have the turbo spooled a bit on launch).  I even find the
old 4kSQ's stock motor to have a bit higher "fun quotient" for this reason
as well.

The fact of the matter is an MC engine doesn't just drop into a 4kQ, and I'd
love to see the accounting of the hours spent in custom fabrication and
sorting that has gone into the 80TQ to get it where it is today.  I remember
someone on this list getting rebuffed for using their car as a stoplight
racer ... well, what's the reason everyone goes through all the trouble to
drop chipped turbos into 4kQs then?  It certainly isn't for the improved
fuel economy.  If someone wants a bit more tractable power that is actually
useful in most day to day driving situations, I would argue that the NF
conversion might well better fill those requirements ...

Steve Buchholz
San Jose, CA (USA)