quattro digest, Vol 1 #3882 - Type 44 safety rating

Larry C Leung l.leung at juno.com
Wed Aug 28 20:11:37 EDT 2002 

Case in point, a Saturn SL2 broaches  3100 lbs, which is only about 150
lbs
lighter than an 87 5KCSQ, which bears the weight of AWD, turbo and
associated
cooling equipment. Keep in mind, the Saturn is a slightly tight fit for
four and somewhat
districted luggage. A type 44, room for 5 and room for a few kids (okay,
kidding) in the
trunk.

Heck, even a lightweight Neon is about 2900 lbs. Nearest VW competitor of
the past
of which I know EXACTLY what it weighs, an '85 A2 bodied GTi with Sunroof
and A/C, otherwise
stock, 2170 lbs. BMW E36s, 3300 lbs (type 44TQ territory weightwise,
roomwise closer to
an A4 Jetta). All of the safety equipment added in recent times has added
a notable amount
to a modern car's mass. THUS, mfg's are turning to "exotic" materials to
cut down on future gains.

As for the sheetmetal, newer tech mostly in heat treatment and purer
alloys (and better ones) has
allowed for thinner steels to acheive the same strength and
stiffness of thicker metals in the past. Makes handling the new materials
tough, as your bodyman
friend said.


The weight's been put on, they're just trying to keep from adding more.

LL - NY


On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:57:36 -0700 (PDT) james accordino
<ssgacc at yahoo.com> writes:
> I thought cars were generally getting lighter.  As a
> trend.  Alloys in place of steel.  Plastics and resins
> in place of alloy, etc.  Even "blow-foam";
> polyisocyanurates (I think).  The sheetmetal on some
> newer cars is as thin as 28 gauge.  Some kind of heat
> stressed panel or something.  A bodyman I know said
> that on newer cars, you can't even work the metal
> anymore.  They just tear all the stuff off and
> replace.  I know, 28 gauge is like tinfoil, but that's
> what he said.  I know metal studs in interior building
> components are like that now.  As thin as soda cans.
> Even 20' long studs.
>
> Jim Accordino
> Union Carpenter
>
> --- Larry C Leung <l.leung at juno.com> wrote:
> > Hello Listers,
> >
> > As far as I recall, those ratings are correct. The
> > problem with the
> > earlier (pre-89 ProconTen) cars
> > was that the steering column was too rigid, and
> > without the seat belt
> > pre-tensioners the driver
> > dummy experienced large forces when it impacted upon
> > the steering wheel.
> > The later cars
> > with the ProconTen went to 5 stars, the airbag
> > actually didn't do too
> > much to improve things (although
> > it probably helps some). Note, these are barrier
> > crashes, head on, which
> > compares the car
> > to a crash with another car of the same mass
> > travelling at the same speed
> > of 30 MPH (total relative
> > velocity of 60 MPH or approximately 100 kph) [if
> > someone REALLY needs a
> > physics explanation,
> > I will try to help, but you'd REALLY better want
> > it.... it's real busy
> > this time of the school year].
> > The later cars are all much better at offset head-on
> > collisions, and
> > those with side airbags
> > are superior in side collisions. I guess those of us
> > with type 44s should
> > use their nimble ;-) handling
> > to avoid the side and offset collisions. Just a
> > note, keep in mind, due
> > to all of the added safety
> > equipment on the newer cars has brought up the mass
> > of even some
> > relatively small cars up
> > near to the mass of a type 44, particularly the 5K's
> > (pre '89), so pick
> > your fights carefully.
> >
> > LL - NY, a.k.a. the Physics Teacher
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message: 7
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:05:01 -0700
> > > From: Efraim Gavrilovich <egav at wireless2000.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Type 44/5000 safety rating
> > > To: bswann at worldnet.att.net, quattro at audifans.com
> > > Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> > >
> > > As much as I don't believe it, I did find the
> > information your
> > > buyer's wife
> > > might have referred to. It's here:
> > >
> >
> http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/archive/crash.htm#anchor232806
> > > It shows one star driver side and five star
> > passenger side ratings
> > > at
> > > frontal impact for 1985 5000. The rating for 1989
> > for 100 shows big
> > > improvement - five stars both sides. I am sure
> > something was wrong
> > > with the
> > > testing in 1985, but it's there, black on white.
> > Too bad this poor
> > > woman
> > > believed these so called "facts".
> > > Efraim Gavrilovich
> > > 1988 5KTQ 345,000km (216K mi), 1.8 Bar
> > > 1990 90 123,000km (77K mi)
> > > Vancouver, Canada
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ben Swann" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> > > To: <quattro at audifans.com>
> > > Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:30 PM
> > > Subject: Type 44/5000 safety rating
> > >
> > >
> > > > OK - Listers, I'd appreciate some help with this
> > one.  I had
> > > always been
> > > > under the impression that out Type 44's were
> > rather safe.  Please
> > > help me
> > > > refute this.  I thought I saw some testimonials
> > awhile back
> > > proclaiming
> > > > that in this very type of drivers side accident
> > the occupants came
> > > out
> > > > miraculously unscathed, while the other vehicle
> > disintegrated on
> > > impact,
> > > or
> > > > something to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > I personally con't see how this can be knowing
> > something of the
> > > > construction of these cars.  The only thing I
> > can see is these
> > > safety
> > > > rating are making a comparison to the newer
> > luxury cars with side
> > > impact
> > > > air bags, and even then, I question this rating.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what happened - the potential buyer of
> > my '87 5000 turbo
> > > quattro
> > > > avant backed out due to the following email:
> > > >
> > > > Joe Buyer here.  I've run into a bit of a snag
> > with my wife
> > > regarding the
> > > > purchase of your avant.  She's a firm believer
> > in safety ratings
> > > and when
> > > > she looked up the stuff on the 87 5000's was not
> > amused at their 1
> > > star
> > > > drivers side rating in the 83-88 range.  Unless
> > I can find
> > > something in
> > > > print somewhere to convince here otherwise I'm
> > afraid I'm going to
> > > have to
> > > > pass on the car.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry,
> > > >
> > > > Joe Buyer
> > > >
> > > > Name changed to protect the identity of the
> > buyer.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't change my opinion of these cars, but
> > this really bothers
> > > me, in
> > > > addition to not selling the car.
> > > >
> > > > TIA,
> > > >
> > > > Ben
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --__--__--
> > >
> > > Message: 8
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Jim Green <jeg1976 at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: compression test #'s help
> > > To: Ron Wainwright <ron_01056 at yahoo.com>,
> > quattro at audifans.com
> > >
> > > --- Ron Wainwright <ron_01056 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >   Listers,
> > > >
> > > >   I have a frantic problem I'm burning oil at a
> > good
> > > > rate in my 90 200tqa with 209k
> > > >  so I performed a compression test and would
> > like to
> > > > know what these #'s mean
> > > >  If you'r lookin at the head from the front I
> > get
> > > > #1) 120
> > >
> > > Good
> > >
> > > > #2) 150
> > >
> > > Really Good,  Must have some gunk on those rings:)
> > >
> > > > #3) 120
> > >
> > > Good
> > >
> > > > #4) 120
> > >
> > > Good
> > >
> > > > #5) 120
> > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>

More information about the quattro mailing list