100/200 vs. 5000 Series

[Fred Munro]

Hi Peter;

I've owned a '86 5ktq and a '91 200q (the 10v Canadian model, not the 20v
version). I can offer the following personal observations:

The 200 is more reliable, more refined, more , uhh, "Americanized", shall we
say.
The racks are better, the hydraulic pumps don't leak as much, the door
handles are improved by an order of magnitude (I loved the heated door
locks). The bombs go bad at the same frequency (about 7 year life
expectancy), the blower motors still wear out. The MC-2 engine with the K24
turbo has a bit more low end grunt. The steering is softer, the brakes feel
softer, both detriments in my opinion. The radio volume/on-off switch fails,
and rear speaker fires in some '91s have immolated the entire car.

On the whole, I preferred the 200.

But overall, I much prefer the S4 :o)

Fred Munro
'94 S4  122k km

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sperry, Peter A -Syntegra US" <Peter.A.Sperry at syntegra.com>
To: "Audi List (E-mail)" <quattro at audifans.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:26 PM
Subject: 100/200 vs. 5000 Series


> I realize that both are type 44 cars, but am wondering what was changed,
> upgraded, and fixed with the introduction of the 100/200 series?
>
> I guess the bottom line is: Are the 100/200 series more reliable, better
> performing, fewer gremlins, etc. than their 5000 series counterparts?
>
> Are the 100/200's still plagued with bad bombs, racks, door locks &
> electrical glitches?  I'm interested in a comparison between the two.
>
> Peter
>
> '88 5KSQ
> '90 90Q20V
>