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

[Kaklikian, Gary]

I've driven Ed Kellock's '87 Coupe GT with the 2.3 motor here at 6000ft.  It
had noticeably better acceleration - low-end, top-end, throughout - than any
NA 4000Q I've ever driven (even taking into account the 300lbs weight
difference).  Really nice powerband! That engine would be a great
cost-effective upgrade for a 4000Q. 

As far as the 4000 turbo conversion goes, it's a LOT of work, but IMO worth
the results. Easy for me to say - most of the work  on my car was done by a
respected Audi tuner, who swears he'd never do it again! Can't deny the
stealth factor, though you can certainly question the sanity of pouring so
much money into what many consider an obsolete piece of shit. 

But, I've turned laps faster than a Boxster S, 911 RS America, and Carrera 4
in the dry (though I've never been to Thunderhill, Javad).  On a wet track
... unbelievable!
Equally as fun though is obliterating modified urS4's off-the-line (no need
to dump the clutch). 

So yes, if you want  low-end/mid-range torque and fast corner exit speeds
and can afford the downtime and cost, the turbo conversion is the way to go.
I've yet to drive a urS4 that was much fun below 80mph. If you want fast
acceleration over 100mph and high top speeds, forget the 4000 turbo.  The
aerodynamics and gearing of the big chassis turbo cars make them better
suited for this. 

Gary Kaklikian
86 4ktq
92 S4

-----Original Message-----
From: JShadzi at aol.com [mailto:JShadzi at aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:40 PM
To: urquattro at telocity.com; quattro at audifans.com
Subject: Re: It's official, a 2.3 4000 quattro is amazing....



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

Ohh, I love a good challenge...don't worry, I have been smiling too 
fabricating cool parts for my car, and will continue to do so when it is up 
and running  =)
 
 
 <<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.>>

Granted, I don't blatantly recommned anyone do what I have done, especially 
someone like Brendan who simply wanted more power with the most reasonable 
amount of investment.  For me, building my car is an adventure, a learning 
experience, it will never be done.  MY car should not be used as a measure 
for an "efficient conversion", I have never been attempting one!

For the record, however, the initial conversion consisted of about 3 months 
of planning and gathering parts, and 6 consecutive 8 hr days.  The car was 
out of comission for less that one week.

 << 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 ...>>

Sure, it really depends on what one is looking for, but to say that is it 
"more powerful" than a good MC motor running mild boost is a lofty assertion

at best.  I have raced a lot of 4kq and 80/90 Q from a stoplight, by 60 I
was 
likely 8-10 car lenths ahead of them, its just not a realistic comparison.  
When a 4kq with an NF motor is turning laps at ThunderHill with Boxster S's,

then I will believe it.  Not trying to "brag" per se, but attempting a 
baseline comparison  =)

This summer I will help my little bro put an NG bottom end in his 4kq, it is

a great upgrade.  I commend those who want to go for a sensible upgrade,
just 
don't expect it to be a replacement for a turbo conversion powerwise, that's

all.

Javad