Re: 13B>>>>Quattro -Reply -Reply

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

>>> "Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu> 25/March/1997
03:46pm >>>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 STEADIRIC@aol.com wrote:

>> Why would you want to add weight to the front of a car that is
>> already seriously out of balance? The 13B conversion would help
>> to ruduce the  weight dist to something more reasonable like 55/45
>> F/R down from the  63/37 that it is.

> Exactly.   Removal of 200 pounds from the front of the Q would change
> the weight distribution in an entirely desireable way.   Just think, those
> 245/45s would grab so much faster!  :-)

Lets not jump the gun here. The Q may have a poor weight distribution,
however (and correct if I am wrong, as I'm sure you will) that generally
manufacturers  such as Audi spend a fair amount of resources ensuring
that the suspension would compensate for inadequacies of the weight
problem. 

This would most likely result in you spending considerable dollars
ensuring that the suspension was right now that the entire weight
distribution has changed in relation to the centre of gravity and centre of
wind pressure.

I'M NOT CLAIMING that it wouldn't work nor that it wouldn't produce good
gains in handling etc. Just that a nominally better weight distribution
doesn't automatically equal handling gains. It could just turn out to be a
complete pig that can never be corrected with suspension mods (unlikely
but still possible). 

It's prob worth a try (though I can't honestly say I would want a rotary)
but fitting the engine may be the least of the hurdles.

$0.02 mode=off

regards
Fletch
'81 urq on the final lap.