MORE are the type 89's nible?

[SuffolkD at aol.com]

Lister(s):  Here's another opinion.  Carter sold his 4000Q and has a tricked 
CGT.
-Scott by BOSTON

>>>>Hey Scott, if this doesn't go through, can you post it to the list if you 
think relevant?<<<<<<

I think given the two chassis, in the dry it was damn near impossible to 
tell the difference between the stock GT and the stock quattro - if 
anything, the GT was a better handeling car stock. I think that remains 
true with modifications - which I've managed to prove. Haven't come across 
a TQC or 4000Q that can stick with my GT on the track yet - and timed laps 
at Limerock this past year put my GT a few ticks ahead of a certain 
2Bennett built 20V Ur-Q...not that we condone timing laps.

The two Type 89's that I've driven felt heavy and sluggish compared to the 
GT, but probably comparable to the quattro. They had more twist (both were 
20v's) but the turning/stopping dept. was about the same. Having been on 
track with 89's as well, they usually aren't able to stick with the GT's 
either, but seem to be comparable to the 4000Q in terms of speed. It would 
seem, however, that at least some of this is to do with the 
driver/tire/setup choices versus actual car characteristics. When it comes 
down to it, my GT still understeers a touch at the limit unless driven very 
aggressively, and to get the tail around requires abrupt throttle changes - 
not the most predictable method of steering a car. Still, that a 18 year 
old can hang with E36 M3's and 944 turbos says something about the chassis 
- with proper modification, though, I think anything can be fast. Stock? 
That's a different matter, and we're talking about the wrong cars then.

The understeer issue has apparently been nearly cured in the new A6, from 
all that I hear. Press over here are saying it's the first time an Audi has 
really been comparable to a BMW in driving experience.

Carter (still in England - anyone want an RS2?)
1986 Coupe GT (the Beast)