driving a type 44 turbo

[Doyt W. Echelberger]

At 02:03 PM 2/20/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi list,
>
>I've mostly been enjoying my 89 100tq (twin knock sensor MC) saloon since
>December when I bought it. I wanted to ask a few things.
>
>My other quattros have been NA ones, and I used to heel and toe to smooth
>downchanges, particularly when driving, er... enthusiastically. It doesn't
>work as well on the turbo motors (minus a bypass valve) does it? I'd also
>imagine it isn't quite the way to drive these cars quick, anyone got any
>hints?

.......................I try to get out of first gear as soon as possible,
wind it out in second and third (for entering tollway traffic from an on
ramp), and I cruise on thruways in 4th gear if I have to move in and out of
city rush hour traffic. I save 5th gear for cruise control travel on long
trips where there is little traffic.  The turbo lag is considerable in 5th
gear, so I stay in gear 3 or 4 in heavy traffic, where I may want to change
speed quickly. If you need to change speeds, gear 5 is NOT a good place to
be at legal highway speeds, such as 65 mph here in the USA. On the rare
unlimited speed highways that I have encountered, gear 5 works increasingly
well beyond 80 mph, and the car settles down and runs very easily between
90 and 100. I cannot report on driving characteristics beyond 100. My local
highways do not allow such adventures. Top speed is reported to be about
140mph, and I suspect that the car runs easily and quickly all the way up
to that mark, from 100. I suspect that the turbo feature is responsible for
the easy power availability above 90 mph.  Performance of my NA I-5 car
declined beyond the 90 mph mark.

Doyt Echelberger
87 5ktq  1.7 bar  223k miles
86 4kq RIP

>  Also, with no bypass valve, does it do the turbo much good to slam
>the throttle closed at high revs when changing gear? Or are they designed
>to take the jolt of suddenly having nowhere to blow all that air? Or do
>folks change gear with a slightly open throttle?
>
>Lastly, these really are great cars, mine cost bugger all really, for a
>car, considering that it originally cost more than I can dream of
>affording now, let alone back in 1989, and there's _no way_ I'd substitute
>it for a new small car on a payment scheme, apart from at the petrol
>station that is;) I mean, it even tells me when I've been driving for 2
>hours without a decent break, that's neat:)

........................full agreement here, Graham.


>Cheerio,
>
>Graham.
>
>'89 100tq
>23.2 mpg and 38 mph averages... so far