No subject

gearing is slightly different such that at 60 mph the CQ is turning 2850
whereas the sedan is turning 2750.   The different tire size = different
circumference could also have some bearing on that.  Zero to sixty is the same
(8.1 sec).  Clearly the CQ rolled off the assembly line with more "bells and
whistles" than the sedan, although from the Audiworld data you could comparably
equip a sedan to CQ specs (and of course, when dealing in used iron, what you
happen to find is how it happens to be equipped).  I am also concerned about
having my toolbox contents "clinking" around over every bump in the CQ - the
thin cover under the hatch isn't likely to muffle that sound as well as the
sedan layout I would expect.  I think I am persuaded that the 20v is the way to
go if possible (and reasonable), but I am still stuck between the CQ and the
sedan.
V. Resp.
Mark

>
>
> It is one of the best rigid vehicles I own since having a '76 Honda Civic
> CVCC.
>
> Have you found a 91 Coupe Quattro?

No, I am looking at the '90.

>
>
> -Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: markbyrum at erols.com [SMTP:markbyrum at erols.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:29 AM
> > To:   quattro at audifans.com
> > Subject:      Vacillating between 90 Quattro and Coupe Quattro
> >
> > Dear List:
> >     I am contemplating the purchase of an additional quattro as my daily
> > driver.  I am vacillating between purchasing a 1990 - 91 Coupe Quattro
> > or a 1988 - 1991 90 Quattro.  The 20V engine of course has more power;
> > is the additional 44 hp worth the additional complexity/upkeep?  Does
> > the 90 Quattro have more chasis/body rigidity than the Coupe Quattro?
> > Anyone interested in opining the pros and cons of each?  I currently
> > daily drive an '86 4kcsq.
> > TIA,
> > Mark