89 vs 90 200tq

[PDQSHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-12-31 03:04:33 EST, you write:

>
>Thanks for all the 411 on turbo cars, wastegate springs; especially since I
>am looking at getting a 200TQ in the near future. Looking anyway.
>I have drivin a couple '90 200TQ's, and they are smoooooth. Unfortunatly, I
>can probably only afford an 89 200, and, I do not know if it is due to
>different engineering, bad luck, or what, but the 89's I have driven have
>been a lot less refined than the '90s. The clutches don't seem smooth, kinda
>cheezy, and the engine is louder, not as smooth. Doesn't seem to want to run
>as hard as the '90. Maybe I've just driven bad ones? Who knows. I know there
>is some sort of difference between the 89s and 90s, someone was telling me
>it is harder to tweak as much power from the 90s. I would rather only
>upgrade 60-80 hp on a 90, and have it be smoother, than get 80-120 on an '89
>and have it be rough and loud.
>
>who knows.
>
>
In late 89 (89 1/2) the 200 turbo went to a higher compression motor (8.4:1
from 7.8) a different engine management computer with dual knock sensors, a
different cam, different IC design......   The baseline power gives the
"smooth" feel, but the 5 is the same, just pieces parts......  If you jump a
tooth on the cam of the "older" cars, the difference is much harder to
notice.....

Scott