Re: dry performance q's -Reply

[Andrew Fletcher <FLETCHA@citec.qld.gov.au>]

>>> <QSHIPQ@aol.com> 13/January/1997 06:40am >>>
In a message dated 97-01-11 02:18:28 EST, you write:

> hp street).....  Where I might disagree is with your assessment of rwd
> in dry performance...  Given a stock vehicle, I would take a
>50/50weight balanced, LSD, rwd car with good brakes (M3, Rx7, 951 to
> name a few) over the weight shifting front biased audi q in stock 
> trim anyday.... 

Not sure which quattro you are talking about? My '81 urQ out performs all
other cars I have driven in the dry. In fact I haven't even had a chance to
try mine in the wet. Sure a new M3 would prob blow it away, but then
mine is 15 years old and 1/6th of the price. Isn't an M3 in a slightly
different category anyway to most quattro's.

Talking new cars in OZ, you put an A4Q V6 up against a 323i in the price
market. I haven't driven the A4 but I have spent a week driving the BMW
around the street and a race track. I'll take my urQ over the BMW for
performance/handling thanks.

> reliability), then I agree totally with your assessment above....  But
> stock, does the q system give an unfair advantage above the
> competition, given the total package?  Me argues not.

200BHP in a rear drive = power oversteer. I can accelerate faster and
earlier in the corner with my urQ. Thats an unfair advantage.

regards
Fletch
'81 urQ 95K miles