[urq] Re: Euro-UrQ: '80-shocks vs '87-shocks

[Huw Powell]

> Normally I'd agree with you, but depending on what someone did to the car
> before you bought it....case in point:
>
> When I bought my UrQ from another lister, it was pretty darn low.  Lower in
> the back than the front by 1½"

Hmmm... when a Q rides really low in the rear and the springs are
"known" to be good, my first thought is that the rear and front springs
were switched.  Rear springs are taller, since they are softer.

Although, of course, as you say, when you get a "mystery" combination,
who knows what "correct" is until you get some sort of benchmark set up.

> The springs where Sportwheels and I was
> later offered the original springs in exchange (which I agreed to).  One
> thing that never made any sense to me was the fact that the rear coils were
> practically rubbing on each other -- until I removed all strut housings and
> disassembled them -- to find Bilstein 90 coupe 20v sport rear springs
> installed rather than the Bilstein 3017's.

You mean Bilstein struts, not springs, I suspect.

I still am willing to bet the springs were on the wrong ends of the car.

--
Huw Powell

http://www.humanspeakers.com/audi

http://www.humanthoughts.org/