FW: '89 200T block question

[DePenning, Charles [EPM/MTN]]

Oops, don't know how I missed the nice table on Huw's site.  That has what
I've been looking for!

Thanks for spending the time to compile the list, Huw.  

Charley 


> ______________________________________________ 
> From: 	DePenning, Charles [EPM/MTN]  
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:09 AM
> To:	'quattro at audifans.com'; 'Tony Lum'; 'Alan Pritchard'; 'Bob';
> 'sparkplugvw at hotmail.com'; 'jeg1976 at yahoo.com'
> Subject:	'89 200T block question
> 
> Thanks for the responses, all.    Sounds like things are not immediately
> going to work out that well between the donor car ( '89 200T) and the
> patient ('89 90q).  I also have at my disposal as far as engines go:  '83
> 5kT- 2.1L turbo.  '84 4kQ.  I wonder if there is a combination of
> head/block/pistons (and rods/crank etc) from the four cars that would
> assemble into a usable turbo engine, using the MC-2/MAC-14 engine
> management system.  It seems like I have a lot of parts that _should_ go
> together in some way, but maybe not in a practical form- example: the
> high-compression 90q engine with turbo induction and engine management
> parts from the 200t.  I know this has been discussed here before, but what
> experiences, if any, has the community had with turbocharging the
> high-compression engines?  Seems like the boost would be very low in order
> to avoid massive pre-detonation problems.  What about finding
> low-compression pistons for the 2.3 block (90q)?  Or putting the head from
> my '83 turbo on the 90q block, and using the mc-2 manifolds and engine
> management.  I can't remember what the compression is in the '83, and
> whether the compression is controlled more by the piston profile or the
> combustion chamber volume.
> 
> As a side note, does anyone have a complete table of the engines that audi
> produced over the years, code designation, precise displacement and maybe
> some bore x stroke info?  I've found some partial tables, but nothing yet
> that is all there.    
> 
> Thanks again folks.
> 
> Charley