leak proof bomb failure?

[Yoder, W. douglas]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 Louis-Alain_Richard at computerhorizons.com wrote:
> Makes me wonder:
>
> Why, oh! why would a car company drop a marvellous 2.2L turbo engine that
> gets 35 mpg in a 3500 lbs car and still moves that car pretty fast?
>
> Look at the current A6: (source
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2004_GasolineVehicles.pdf)
>
> rated at 27 mpg (3.0L FWD) to 24 mpg (4.2 Quattro).
>
> Is this progress?

Yeah, but the 87 5kcstq is only rated at 17-25.  Our 87 Audi's only get
35mpg out of them because they're well maintained, and "natural selection"
has weeded out the poor fuel-economy ones after 18 years.
Use the fueleconomy.gov site, compare a '87 5kcsq to a '04 A6q (manual):
17-25 vs 18-25, respectively.  The difference is the same MPG buys you
slightly more power and slightly lower emissions on the modern engines.
That said, I'll take my 5kcstq over a new A6q any day (and I haven't even
started modding it yet! :)

-Doug

-- 
Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.