leak proof bomb failure?

[Chris Dyer]

Also folks, regarding my figures, that's going from about 9000 ft. down to 0 
ft. sea level. Plus the strong desert winds favor southbound vehicles, so 
you get 35 mpg.

On the way up, it was rush hour, heat, up more grades than down, so mpg was 
only about 23-25 I think. (still not bad for a fairly large luxury car)



from chrisdyer at hotmail.com





>From: "Yoder, W. douglas" <yoderw at msoe.edu>
>To: Louis-Alain_Richard at computerhorizons.com
>CC: Chris Dyer <chrisdyer at hotmail.com>, quattro-bounces at audifans.com, 
>quattro at audifans.com
>Subject: Re: leak proof bomb failure?
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:26:41 -0500 (CDT)
>
>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.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/