4000Q Vs ur-Q

[glen.powell@smc.com]

  OK, I've bit the bait, I'll give it  try:

  160/200 HP Vs 115/136HP stock (US/ROW)
  superior brakes
  superior suspension
  superior lighting (US models)
  superior ignition (crank-fired Hall-effect)
  superior SS 2 1/2" exhaust
  standard leather interior
  superior OEM tyres & wheels (15x8" on some ur-Qs)
  superior styling (IMFO)
  superior exclusivity
  5-lug Vs 4-lug hubs & wheels
  very handsome flared fenders easily accommodate 225 tyres
  kevlar decklid
  oil cooler
  auxiliary radiator
  24.x gal fuel tank
  hand-built construction homologation special
  superior collectability, rarity and a rich, successful competition
  history including too many
    championships to list
  Ferdinand Piech's personal car for 2+ years (black) (OK, I'm reaching now
  :)

  This is from someone who owns and *loves* both the ur-Q and the 4000Q,
  presently owning
  an '85 ur-Q and an '84 & 4000Q, and having owned '85 and 2x '86 4000Qs
  and *loved* them all.
  Clearly, they both have their benefits, I use the '84 4000Q as my winter
  "beater" and SCCA NER
  SOLO II HS '93 Championship autocross car, the ur-Q is relegated to
  "sunny-day" use only now, though it was my sole transport from '87 'till
  93.

  I'm sure I missed quite a number of additional unique features of the
  ur-Q and I'm also sure I'll be both corrected and flamed. (welcomed,
  corrections that is, hold the flames!  :)

  Vorsprung durch Nof'nhatchback, (I like that!)

  -glen