[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: ur-Q reliability
- To: quattro@coimbra.ans.net (Non Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested)
- Subject: Re: ur-Q reliability
- From: glen.powell@smc.com
- Date: 13 Apr 1995 08:16:29 -0400
- Autoforwarded: FALSE
- Importance: normal
- P1-Content-Type: P2
- P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*SMCLAN;X400ATT Apr 13 08:16:28 1995
- P1-Recipient: quattro@coimbra.ans.net
- Priority: normal
- Sender: quattro-owner@coimbra.ans.net
- Ua-Content-Id: 281608130495
- X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*SMCLANarrival 13 Apr 1995 08:16:29 -0400action Relayed
I really don't understand the claims for the ur-Qs being "unreliable". I
used mine as my only daily-driver from '87 till '93, running the mileage
up from 52k to 182k. Origional turbo, clutch, struts, etc, (some of this
stuff has been replaced in the past 1-2 years, but only as upgrades, the
original turbo and struts were still just fine, still running the
original clutch) the head has never been off. Brakes last well in excess
of 50k miles, tires 40-50k miles. Sure, I've replaced the window
regulators, a noisy driveshaft center bearing and many small,
niggling-type minor repairs, but you just *cannot* put >180,000 miles on
a car that is always down.
Also, this car was *not* babyed, it's been autocrossed and 1/4 mile
raced. It's been running 15-17 PSI boost and the IA Stage II CPU for the
past ~100,000 miles. All these miles in NE road and winter conditions.
Life has not been easy for this ur-Q, though I have maintained it
religiously and with preventative maint in mind.
Just one datapoint.....
-glen