Re: S4/S6 vs 200TQ 20 valve

["Arun Rao" <rao@frisbee>]

On Jun 27,  1:34pm, William Murin wrote:
> Subject: S4/S6 vs 200TQ 20 valve
>
> Any thoughts out there on which S4/S6 model years are more desirable then
> others?
>
> "desirable"--is open to interpretation so I would include reliability and
> resale.  For example, is a '92 S4 a more desirable car simply because it
> is the first of the breed or are '93s and '94s better because they have
> been debugged somewhat?
>
> Also, does anyone choose to compare '91 200TQ 20 valves with S4s.  Are
> they essentially the same except for some sheetmetal or are there more
> differences than just appearance.

	Engine is slightly different (distributor-less ignition, 7 second
	turbo overboost feature), and the transmission is different (I
	believe the S4's have a ZF -- no clue what the 200's have).  Later
	S4's came with a six-speed.  Early S4's may have transmission
	problems which are very expensive to fix. Suspension may be different,
	but I don't know for sure.

	Stock S4's have a bit more horsepower than stock 200Q's (217 vs 227?).
	They look a lot nicer, but you pay a hefty premium for it. A nice
	'91 200Q may set you back mid- to late teens, and a '92 S4 may be
	had for about $10K more.  Both are pretty rare, but S4's look
	rarer (lots of 5000s/200s look like '91 200Qs).  Both are
	pretty understated.

	Hope that helps.

	-Arun
	'91 200Q
	'85 5KT


--
Arun Rao
Scientist
Pixar Animation Studios
1001 W. Cutting Blvd.
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
(510)215-3526