'85 Ur-Q questions...

[quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne)]

In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.961221091706.29921A-100000@apollo> "Graydon D. Stuckey" writes:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Phil Payne wrote:
> 
>>> 3) Is my 200q quicker than I realize or is the Ur-Q slower than I thought

>> From an 89 200q to an 85 urq, you've moved backwards over a major shift in 
>> engine technology.  Ur-quattros with the newer engine technology (parallel to 
>> your 200q) were never officially imported into the USA.
> 
> 	The UR-Qs imported into the US didn't have the 20V engine at all, 
> and the 200 in '89 had the MC 10V engine, so both of Jeff's cars have 
> roughly the same engine technology.  I'd guess the difference is in the 
> suspension technology, making the 200 feel better.

The major leap in the ur-quattro was not between the 10V and the 20V - it was 
between the WR 10V (1981-1988) and the MB 10V (1988/9).  This was when the 
electronics arrived in force - also the accelerometer ABS, TORSEN, water-
cooled turbo, etc.
 
There is not that much difference between the "MB" 10V and the 20V as an 
overall package.  According to one factory source, their sole reason for 
fitting the RR 20V engine into the ur-quattro was that it had an emission 
control package available and they didn't feel justified in developing one for 
the 10V MB engine.
 
The 200Q MC 10V should be compared with an urq MB 10V - but again, that engine 
was also never imported to the USA.

(Until, perhaps, temporarily next June/July.  Then we might see.  But it will 
be strictly stock!)

--
 Phil Payne
 phil@sievers.com
 Committee Member, UK Audi [ur-]quattro Owners Club