Strange alarm behavior, 93 100CS

[Benjamin Kwan]

I have a 92 100CSq and I have to turn the key twice to unlock all doors
and one turn to lock.  I thought it was a problem becasue I got used to my
old 1990 100 with the one turn lock/unlock.  

Ben Kwan
85 4000S
92 100CSq
94 90S

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Andrew Lundy wrote:

> WHOA....100's are way different than the 90's if that is the case.  On a 90
> it is one to lock/unlock ALL of the doors, ALL of the time!!  The 100's are
> set-up a little differently in that respect!!
> 
> Are you sure that 100's are "supposed" to work with the double movement??
> That doesn't seam likely to me since they are also set-up with a vacuum
> system....but then I'm just guessing on the 100's!!
> 
> I really have no idea!?  If it was down to one door or something I could
> come up with something.  This is very similar to what (the last guy) was
> experiencing....minus the double lock feature (he did have a 90, though)!!
> We both did a lot of guessing on his problem but never really figured
> anything out!!
> 
> I was hoping you would get a different response from the passenger door.  I
> don't think I can offer much help with the information presented...SORRY!
> ---
> Andrew Lundy
> fast928 at prodigy.net
> 90 80q
> 95 90q
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Larson" <j.d.larson at verizon.net>
> To: "Andrew Lundy" <fast928 at prodigy.net>; <quattro at audifans.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Strange alarm behavior, 93 100CS
> 
> 
> > Just tried this.  No difference.  BTW, the key generally has to be turned
> > twice to lock the car.  FLASH!!!! The lock turns the opposite way on the
> > properly functioning car.  Further complication?  It would appear there is
> a
> > switching problem.  The good one locks/sets the alarm with a single
> > clockwise turn of the key, the bad one unlocks/sets with the same motion.
> > The good car uses 2 CCW motions to unlock all the doors, the bad one uses
> > the same technique to lock.  Therein lies the problem, I think.  Ideas?
> > TIA, John
>