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

[Aaron Gibson]

Hello all,

Well everyone has such good points on the pros and cons of Natural vs.
Turbo. I guess its always a sacrifice one way or the other. I actually
enjoy the sudden pull of a turbo once it spools up. Lag is the calm
before the storm it seems. I love the 4000Q body style and the primitive
systems
that make it work. Most cars made today have no soul in my opinion.
Maybe its the sticker shock that turns me away? Or could it be the giant
smile of a project well done? No I know what it is.......the look of
disgust on the Yuppie with the brand new BMW wondering how the hell
a 13yr old Audi just dusted his doors(lag and all)! I wonder how I would
feel after loosing to "a piece of shit" after paying a huge car payment?


Regards,
Aaron

"Kaklikian, Gary" wrote:
> 
> 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