uk 90q

[alan pritchard]

Thanks, yeah they are a rare beast, theres only about 20 on
autotrader.co.uk, and only 5 or 6 quattro and 1 20v which i thought was
quattro but maybe wasn't (i think a 20v q is out of my price range). Im
after a 90-91, the last I 5 i believe, although i think the later 2309
engines produce quite a bit more torque over the 2144 engine that i have in
my cgt, i think the 0-60 time was stated at about 8.5, the cgt i think is
8.9 (but i reckon i always destroyed that), therefore its a bit quicker, I
always wanted a Urq, but realised i could get an s2 for not much in it,
unfortunately i need 4 doors now.... and cant afford a UR-S4, and a 200tq
doesnt do anything for me (look a bit to much like a cortina, No insults
meant guys!!). So a 90 it is, Whats everyones opinions on the 4 cyl 16v? I
dont fancy that much anyhow, 5cyls+ it has to be now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Thackrah" <gthack at geog.ucl.ac.uk>
To: <alanthecelt at alanthecelt.screaming.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: uk 90q


> Hi Alan,
>
> The 10vq may not feel as fast as your coupe, and it won't light the tyres
> if you plant it on a bend. I used to drive mine fast by never really
> having to slow down. The 20v, on the other hand, has about 30 more horses
> and may well show willingness to light up tyres if you plant it. It's
> supposed to be a lot happier at high revs than the 10v. I think they may
> both have Torsen center diffs too, a nice thing to have over the twin diff
> locks of the earlier models.
>
> Both my 84 80q and 85 90q never felt as quick as my 85 80 sport but one
> coupe gt I took for a spin once felt slower than my 84q, I think it was v.
> poorly tuned. The q's feel like they ride better but they do weigh a bit
> more than the fwd cars and to me felt a bit less secure at speed
> _sometimes_ The rear susp. on the fwd cars is supposed to be better at
> keeping its correct geometry when cornering than the independent set up of
> the q's (see one of Phil P's old audifans posts)!
>
> But then I remember times taking bends over hump backed bridges in my q
> that were the best fun ever, if you are on the gas over one it's a lot of
> fun, it goes light over the hump, sits back down and just does it on
> rails. And roundabouts... there was one where I used to live in Swansea
> that I used to just jig round at 50-60, and another big one that you could
> 4 wheel drift on the exit of, those moments are as much fun as hoofing it
> in 2nd or 3rd and feeling the front wash out on a fwd car. Being able to
> just flick it left and right whilst on the gas over a clear roundabout
> really annoys the Beemer drivers behind you;) I used to let em get close
> (well, ok, they were much quicker than me), then see how much I'd loose
> them by after the roundabout manouver - made me grin every time.
>
> I just got rid of my 85 90q for a 89 100 tq, I don't miss the 90 but I
> miss the older style 80q like crazy, a bit lighter and a bit more
> involving to drive, are you thinking of a bubbly 90q or one of the boxier
> ones? I guess the bubbly ones, they'd be a bit heavier again than the mk2
> 80q so if you can find a 20v I'd go for that. IMO none will be as
> involving as your coupe though, They were going for silly money when I was
> looking a while back, mint ones for 2-3k I guess and I've seen em as low
> as 1k. I paid 1400 for my 100tq though, it has 80k on the clock, leather,
> cruise, CD, air con. A bit of a monster to hustle down the lanes but it
> was so much car for the money I couldn't refuse! Only things wrong with it
> so far have been a few niggly electrical things, warped front discs and a
> faulty WOT switch.
>
> Good luck searching for the 20v 90q, I'd be interested to see it if you
> get hold of one, still wonder if one of them would have been a better bet
> than my 100tq. But then, if I was spending 3k on a car, would you not be
> tempted by a WR ur-q?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham.
>