Re: 100/80 comparison

["SOLOMON NGAN" <sngan@netaccess.on.ca>]

> Date:          Mon, 03 Jul 1995 12:13:56 -0300 (BST)
> From:          Alasdair Mackintosh <ALASDAIR@UG.EDS.COM>

>   Anyway, we went to see an '85 100 CD estate yesterday. (5000 wagon if you 
>   prefer.) We were getting tired of trying to cram things into the back of
>   the 80.
> 
>   Firstly, it felt distinctly sluggish when compared to the 80. It had the 
>   2.2 5-cylinder non-turbo, engine code KU, which I thought ought to be good 
>   for 135 HP or so, and I road test I saw quoted 0-60 times of 10.5 seconds,
>   compared to just under 10 for my 80. The difference felt like more than that,
>   though. Anyone who's driven both models care to comment?
> 

I drive both a 5000S (non-turbo) and a 90q20v.  There is a huge 
difference in the ways they perform.
First (not a fair comparsion, perhaps) the 5000S is automatic while 
the 90q20v is stick shift.
Second, the 90q20v is 168hp with 2.3L 5.
Third, the 5000 (espeically the weagon) is MUCH heavier than the 
compact 90.

However, all audi suffer from an inferior low-rpm torque performance. 
On the other hand, at higher rpm , say 4 to 5,000, both cars perform 
quite smooth.  The 5000S does suffer from the sluggish take off, but 
once it's on the highway, she is OK.

With the stick shift on the 90q20v, it's quite a different story.  I 
can have lots of fun with it.  Taking it up to between 6 and 7,000 
rpm, etc. 

Good luck.