Thermodynamics, or psychology?

[Fisher, Scott]

I just made the first leg of "the California trip" -- Tualatin, OR to Mt.
View, CA -- in our 1993 100CSQ, after having made the round trip two weeks
ago in our '83 CGT.  (Remember "Decisions, decisions"?  More later...)

The CGT's temperature gauge never quite got to the top of the "normal"
range, even while climbing Mt. Shasta in 105 degree weather at 80+ mph.

The CSQ's temperature gauge never quite got to the BOTTOM of the "normal"
range, under similar circumstances (well, 20 degree lower ambient
temperature, but still -- we're talking a difference of the WHOLE RANGE of
the gauge).  And I don't think I've ever SEEN it reach the bottom of the
"normal" range, in the year and a half we've had the car.

This caused me to wonder what the difference was -- cooling system, airflow
management, or needle placement on the gauge to make the driver not worry
about the car's temperature?  My guess is #3 -- that the biggest improvement
came from understanding customer psychology rather than in cooling system
design.  But it'd be interesting to know.

Oh, and now that it's later: 

For the time being, the decision (from the following options: repair CGT,
replace with URQ, replace with '90-91 CQ, or replace with new TTq) is to
repair the CGT, wait six months, and re-evaluate based on how often I have
to do this, what new problems I have encountered and/or resolved in the CGT,
and how the economy is shaping up (both generally and specifically).  I've
ordered new front brakes to fix Problem #1 (vibration under hard braking --
thanks to the recommendations of several on the list I'm getting the '87 4KQ
calipers/pads and the '87 Scirocco 16V rotors, I'll give a full report when
I get them in), and next Monday it goes to a shop to have subframe bushings
replaced (Problem #2).  The wobbling and clunking from the front are the
only real drivability problems the car has; I'm looking forward to seeing
what it's like when it's tight and solid.

Because the answer to "why I drive an Audi" is, quite frankly, that the only
car I have ever enjoyed as much as I enjoy driving the CGT is my '74 Alfa
Romeo Spider, and it's really not suited for making semi-monthly 10-hour
drives in 105 degree weather.  And (don't tell my wife), but that even
includes the '93.  Nice car, but I've now driven the same route in the '93
100, the '83 CGT, and the '74 Alfa, in one day (about 9-10 hours, including
1 to 3 gas stops depending on the car).  If I had to do this trip twice a
year and could pick the season, the Spider wins hands down.  If I had to do
this twice a month, the '83 wins hands down.  If I had to do this with my
whole family, the '93 wins hands down.  Nice to have a selection!

Something else I find interesting: both the Spider and the 100csq have more
power than the '83 CGT.  Guess which car has the shortest point-to-point
elapsed time so far?  Interesting...

--Scott Fisher
  Tualatin, Oregon

P.S.  On the other hand, the 10 CD changer in the '93 is a mandatory
accessory for whatever car I take on the trip.  My 13-year-old daughter rode
with me this time around; she introduced me to Shonen Knife and Smash Mouth,
and I introduced her to Queen and Duke Ellington.  She wanted to learn to
play electric guitar even BEFORE she heard Brian May's breathtaking solo on
"Bohemian Rhapsody," and now she's hooked... guess I'm gonna have to get
that girl an axe.  :-)