Re: A4 30 valve 2.8 (was A4 steering)

["Josh Pinkert" <flush@radix.net>]

The 1988 90 Quattro had a shorter first gear than the FWD (to combat the
weight disadvantage that quattro imposes).  This explains the acceleration
times.

I think the difference in MPG between Quattro and non-Quattro is mostly due
to weight.  On my former '88 90 Quattro, I was able to cruise through an
entire tank (all highway) @ 72mph (what I found to be optimal) and achieve
38 mpg.  With ski racks, that fell to 34 mpg.  And no matter how hard I
drove around town, I never got below 26 mpg.  My point being that once at
speed on the highway, my real world results are better than the
manufacturer's claimed mileage figures.

I just hope that my incoming A4 2.8 will surprise me like my 90 did!

- Josh Pinkert
- flush@radix.net
>
>From: quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne)
>>In message <Marcel-1.09-0519083509-b492QYK@milliped.demon.co.uk> Richard
>>writes:
>>> A quattro will no doubt drink more than my FWD.
>>Not true, apparently.  One of the great surprises of the early days was
>that
>>quattros often return slightly _better_ mpg.
>
>I have heard this story many times and even seen it in some Audi
literature
> - HOWEVER, if you look at specs for FWD and quattro versions of any
Audi,
>you will always (I think) find that the quattro version is thirstier.
>
>e.g. 1988 Audi 90 2.2 E 35.3mpg at 75mph
>     1988 Audi 90 quattro 31.0mpg at 75mph
>
>In the specs, they seem to have the same engine, power,  torque and top
>speed - surprisingly, the quattro has a 0-62 of 8.6s against the 8.9s of
the
>FWD version.
>
>Is the quattro mpg claim some kind of theoretical advantage which is
never
>borne out in practice?
>
>Paul
>paul.heneghan@bbc.co.uk
>1984 Audi 80 quattro
>1989 Audi 100 Avant
>