RE: 91 200 Q Fuel pump

[MARK_ANDRE@HP-FtCollins-om4.om.hp.com]

     The old pump is part #441-906-091-A (or B). The new updated pump 
     number is 880-906-091G, plus you need a plastic housing 895-201-779G 
     and hose 480-2-1-351C, another hose, a clip, and a fuse (because the 
     new pump draws more current). I don't have numbers on those last 
     items, sorry, but they should all be included in a not-well-understood 
     "update kit" that accompanies the update pump. 
     
     That was the trouble--neither Linda at Carlsen or Audi could give me a 
     fully satisfactory answer on what all was involved to go with the 
     update pump. Appears few people do this. The service manager in the 
     back of Carlsen Audi said "Yeah, now I remember, we had to do one a 
     couple of years ago."
     
     In the context of knowing of a supplier for the original-style pump, 
     Linda and my mechanic both said basically not to mess with the update 
     and go with the original style pump. That's why the information for 
     the update package is incomplete--didn't pursue it. I did find that 
     the update kit from Carlsen would cost approx. $200. The original pump 
     costs $250 ($330 dealer). YMMV.
     
     Didn't get a solid opinion on which pump is "better" or not, but it 
     seemed that there was no particular technical or functional reason to 
     go with one over the other. 
     
     I would like to know if anyone has had the fuel pump go bad on their 
     car, and at what mileage. I heard of one going at 80K, but another guy 
     with a 5000CSTQW says his is fine at 147K. Different pump in the 5K, 
     tho.
     
     *****
     
     On a different note, up here at Colorado altitude during the summer, I 
     had been seeing only 1.6 bar on the boost guage. Recently, temps have 
     turned cooler, and have seen a return to 1.7 bar. Actually, in one 
     case, I was getting 1.6 in the dry, then when I hit a rainy patch on 
     the road, 1.7 bar! Makes me think the water evaporating on the 
     intercooler made the difference (rainy area had cooler air, too). 
     
     I recall there was a thread on the Quattro list talking about whether 
     or not the turbo unit we have in our cars could take us to full boost 
     and full performance at altitude. My experience is "not quite" when 
     the air is hot and thin @ 5000 ft. 
     
     This makes sense if one considers Audi's design parameters--they 
     wanted to go with a smaller turbocharger to eliminate spool time 
     (which was bad in the 5K cars), but they needed a unit that could 
     still provide 1.7 bar. They probably assumed near-sealevel conditions 
     and chose an ambient temperature--who knows--of 75 degrees or 
     something. At those conditions, our K24 turbos can probably provide 
     2.5 bar boost, which Ned Ritchie says he can wring out. 
     
     My experience at 5000 feet and summer temperatures points to a maximum 
     boost of 1.9~2.0 bar boost from the K24. I hope to do some more 
     "testing" at 10,000 feet elevation in the future, see if there is a 
     linear fall-off.
     
     Just some data points.
     
     Mark Andre


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: 91 200 Q Fuel pump
Author:  Non-HP-peterhe (peterhe@microsoft.com) at HP-ColSprings,uugw4
Date:    9/19/96 5:43 PM


Nope, didn't even know there was an updated version.
     
Do you have part numbers or some other way to differentiate the two 
(visually, perhaps)? I'd be interested in knowing what I have. Also, you 
seem to have missed the total $ amount for the updated version.
- peter, peterhe@microsoft.com, issaquah, wa, usa
  91 200qw
  94 acura legend gs
  80 mazda 626
     
     
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  MARK_ANDRE@HP-FtCollins-om4.om.hp.com 
>[SMTP:MARK_ANDRE@HP-FtCollins-om4.om.hp.com] 
>Sent:  Thursday, September 19, 1996 4:12 PM 
>To:    74543.407@compuserve.com
>Cc:    Peter Henriksen; ALEXNECKAS@aol.com; GREGSJ@MINIMALL.IMM.COM; 
>MARKA@nsmdserv.cnd.hp.com; A-MIKEMI@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.COM; ERICHA@WRQ.COM; 
>lorens@polaris.mindport.net; MALLICK@ORION.CRD.GE.COM; 
>quattro@coimbra.ans.net; RAO@pixar.com; stadmef@pweh.com; 
>LINUST@interramp.com; MANNLAW@INDY.NET; 75363.2524@compuserve.com
>Subject:       91 200 Q Fuel pump
>
>Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
>     In replacing my fuel pump (old one wasn't bad, but at 60K I wanted to 
>     replace those items that, if gone bad, could strand the car), I 
>     discovered in talking with Linda of Carlsen, the local repair shop, 
>     and Audi, that there are two options:
>     
>     * stay with the original-style pump for about $250 
>     
>     * go with the "update" pump, which uses a different pump part and a 
>     number of associated plastic housings, hoses, and clips. Total cost $ 
>     
>     My question to you guys--do you know of any technical reason to choose 
>     one over the other? i.e. was the update setup better in any way (no 
>     more buzzing when it's hot or something like that)? 
>     
>     Many thanks,
>     
>     Mark Andre
>     91 200QW