Re: Re[3]: 4-cylinder engine

[healey@lerc.nasa.gov (jim healey)]

>>That 4 cyl engine is a winner.  Cheaper to drive & cheaper to keep & imho a
>>better match for the smaller car than the 5 cyl.  BTW, the timing belt
>>wasn't an issue for the 1.8l but you're looking at a 2.0l which is no
>>longer a free wheeling engine when the belt breaks.  I've seen 3 timing
>>belt tensioners check out at about 100k. One of them took the belt & some
>>valves at the same time.  I think you'll like it.
>
>I have both the 1.8L 4 ('88 VW Fox) and the 2.2L 5 ('87 Quantum Syncro), and I
>wouldn't want the 4 in a car the size of an Audi.  

Like I said earlier the car is often maligned as underpowered but will get you 
where you want to go.  I have to agree with the Ned but, the 2 liter is a good 
overall match for the smaller car.  It seems as though Audi was quick to upgrade
horsepower and alternator output (up to what, 115 A now?) while still slapping
the same belts and ancillary equipment, eating into whatever design margin
that was built in.  Ultimately the little things seem to go quicker on the 5 
than the
4.  And sometimes it not even small stuff - the 3 speed auto in the 4 and 5 
are the
same I'm told, so either its way overbuilt for a 105 hp 2 liter 4 or its 
underbuilt
for a 165 hp turbo 5 (my mechanic refuses to increase boost on a 200T with auto
- the transmissions almost always come back burnt out).  Still my 80 feels 
like a toy
after driving the 200 Q on weekends. it's really not a fair comparison. 

:-)

jim h
  
>
>- Dave Dahl  (dad@roadnet.ups.com)
>- '87 VW Quantum Syncro
>- '88 VW Fox GL
>
>