91 200 TQ 20V reliablitiy (was no subject)

[Kent McLean]

nick maraschiello wrote:
>   Looking at a 91 200 TQ 20v, are these as troublesome as the older type 44 
> cars like the older 5000k or did they work some of the bugs out? What do I 
> need to look for before I Buy one?

The 91 200 TQ 20v *is* a type 44.  As I wrote Adam Luy, my '89 200 TQ
was a great car, but reliable it wasn't. I bought it for $2900, and put
another $4K into it over 2 years to bring it up to snuff.  The regular 
maintenance things were suspension bits. The non-maintenance things
included Euro headlights ($$$) to replace the terrible DOT lights, the
oil cooler whose hoses kept failing, and even the gas tank (New England
salt). And of course wiring and connections for the power windows. And
seat heaters I didn't fix. And the lousy Bose radio and speakers.

The engine will be solid and reliable.  The electrics will have you
scratching your head. You get the newer curved dash. But at 15 years
old, suspension bits (control arms and shocks) and rubbery things
(bushings and engine/transmission mounts) will need to be looked at
and probably replaced.

That said, get one. In spite of all its foibles, you'll love it.
Or bite the bullet and join Adam in his search for an urS4/S6.
Then you'll have the I-5 turbo *and* reliability.

-- 
Kent McLean
'94 100 S Avant, "Moody"
'89 200 TQ, "Bad Puppy" up in smoke