RE: S4/S6 vs 200TQ 20 valve

[Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com>]

The early (92 only, I think) S4s also had a somewhat stiffer suspension.
- peter henriksen, peterhe@microsoft.com, issaquah, wa
  91 200qw
  94 acura legend gs
  80 mazda 626

>----------
>From: 	Arun Rao[SMTP:rao@frisbee]
>Sent: 	Thursday, June 27, 1996 12:00 PM
>To: 	William Murin; quattro@coimbra.ans.net
>Subject: 	Re: S4/S6 vs 200TQ 20 valve
>
>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