[urq] A6 vs URQ performance?

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
I'm with Steve on this one. The urq is a fine Classic GT, but hardly the
"practical" quattro, especially with a growing family (steve), baby seats
into a 2 door is no fun.  Having had seat time in both, the relevence is in
the new vs the classic quattro.  Or as one that also has the quattro 4door
(8744tqw), I personally enjoy them for different reasons, but both adorn the
garage (double vision in the case of the urq).  Fast 4door sedans and wagons
need no excuses to the quattro officianado.  I'm kinda surprised, Mr. RS2
dude, you don't agree.

 The A6tt is a better matched drivetrain to the machine than the S4tt (I'd
rather do the 240hp conversion to the 1.8t, btdt).  Flogging the A6tt isn't
it's forte, but certainly "ditching" one with ANY urq isn't going to be a
piece of cake (visions of one cd player with Top Gun blasting, the other with
Segovia Etudes).  The A6 chassis is solid, the suspension (sport) well
matched to the wheelbase and weight.

For those considering one vs another, the urq has the advantage in weight,
cog and racing heritage.  That said, getting the A6tt hardly would be
considered a "compromise" if 4doors, reliability, and all the newest quattro
hardware is your cup o tea.  IMO, Steve has the best of them both (or will
once he's done with the urq).

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ Performance Tuning
'87 t44tqw
'84 RS2URQ
'83 URQ
'87 4Runner
In a message dated 2/22/02 3:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
Dave.Eaton at clear.net.nz writes:


not directly relevant, but the differences between the 20v ur-q and the
s6???

the s6 is still at the lot, and the ur-q is in my garage.

enough said?