Budget quattro/ 2.3 l 4kq

[nicksimc]

><< they started building them in Feb. of 87, that would qualify as a 87.5
> and maybe even '88.
> This workd in the way the '82 ur-qs sold as '83s....
>  >>

>don't doubt that you got the letter, my point was that Audi claimed that the
>2.3 wasn't going into the GT until 1988 (ie, the non-existant model year),
>and therefore everything they say really has to be taken with a grain of
>salt...

This is because those Europeans use the metric calendar ;)

>And whoever mentioned it, Yes, the FWD T85's are better handeling cars
in the
>dry than the Q's....this probably goes for the T89, as well...simple matter
>of weight.

Handling is subjective.  True, the 4k is light, but the tail end feels (to me
at
least) too light to maintain grip at times, even in the dry.  I have never
driven a 5+5, but I assume that the front-rear weight ratio is even worse
than in the 4-cyl models.  Isn't this why some people relocate the battery?
The 4kq is heavier, but some of that extra weight is holding the rear in
contact with the road.  And on a windy day, take the quattro.

Just my $.02

M Nicksic
82 4ks
84 4ksq