Re: RS4 Avant availability

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Fri, 18 Nov 1994, Bob Kunz wrote:

> Well, OK. I thought Scott really did mean a S4 Avant, not an RS2. Whatever
> do all those names mean? I thought S4 was a I5t, what's an RS2?

same, except with bigger turbo, bigger everything except the engine size.

> So, I can understand not wanting to sacrifice one of these for the crash test,
> but does that mean that no one could get the drivetrain put into a 
> "normal" A6 Avant.

as i said in the other post there is a S4 avant that would easily pass
US regulations since the S4 does and the 100 Avant does. (by
extrapolating) why they don't bring it here is a question for the
marketing twits...

Ned Ritchie and gang can tune the 20 valve turbo to pretty close to
300 bhp for about $3K or so..  any takers?  i'm dying to know what it
will do to the car..  maybe i should take a trip down to olympia...

so the S4 wagon with RS2 performance is a much closer possibility 
than ever seeing the RS2 here...

the rs2 does not feature overboost, bypass valve and 1950 rpm torque
peak; instead it features old fashioned lag and a ragged power/torque
curve.  the regular audi 20valve turbo seems to make a lot more sense
to me.

i recently drove the 210 bhp mitsubishi eclipse.. the on-boost shove
was great, but lift off and all that boost goes down the tube and it
takes some effort to rebuild it again.. makes the output difficult to
sustain...  the S4/S6 has by far the best turbo installation i have
ever driven because you don't lose your boost if you lift off.

eliot