'89 200TQ + Boge + bushings (long)

[Igor Kessel <e6941tb@ix.netcom.com>]

Hello, virtual club!

Here's the report on the subject line:

My '89 200 was actually built in May of 88 and up to now had the original susp. in it. I 
wholeheartedly agree with the listers, who said that one grows used to the gradual 
deterioration of the susp as to actually think that it was normal, and man does the difference 
in feel surprise you, after you replace the components!

The car always passed the *bounce* test, however, on a race track it allways handled like crap 
on the old stock susp. A well sorted 20v90q with a competent driver would blow my chipped 
200TQ into the dust in the corners, although I would eat it for lunch on a front or a back 
strait. 

Having studied Physics all my life and known quite a bit about cars, I allways felt my deep 
ignorance when it came to a car's suspension. I just know what kind of a know-how goes into 
the right design.

After a lot of reading and listening to what our esteemed suspension gurus had to say on the 
relevant subject, the list of options had boiled down to:

1. Eric's Steadikit. Read a lot of good references, would not hesitate to put it on the car, 
if I were to continue to upgrade it performance-wise. However, this heavy 200TQ is to become a 
family cruiser/ wife's work commuter, so it will receive only boring routine maintanance stuff 
in the future. It's place of a performance/track toy will be eventually replaced by a new A4 
1,8TQ.

2. A radical Eibach/Spax/Koni/Bilstein setup. Ruled it out partially because of the above 
reason, partially because of this setup propensity to make the car understeer, at least 
according to my seat-of-the-pants impression of Mike Z's '87 5000csq and '83 UrQ which 
corresponds with other listers impressions of the similary lowered setup.

3. A coilover kit. Our turbo and susp guru QSHIPQ speaks highly of it, but once again, the #1 
consideration prevailed.

And the winner was.....Boge.

The front was easy, 15 minutes per side with a special tool that I had machined a long time 
ago. Boge Pro-Gas 32-402-P, $75ea from GPR, is a direct fit.

The rear was a pain in the butt, coz Boge does not make them for a 44 chassis w/quattro and a 
10v engine.

Here's the break down on the OEM rear hydrolic shocks for all 44 chassied Audies:

a) 100/200 FWD: 443 513 031 N
b) 100/200 AWD: 443 513 031 P - sdn
c)              443 513 031 Q - wag
d) 200q 20v   : 441 513 031 B

Boge does not make Pro-Gas as a replacement for a) thru d). They do make a Turbo-Gas 
replacement for a) and d).

After talking with Keith Anderson (Kar Quattro) and Pete (Boge) I learned that the only 
fitment would be a '91 200TQ 20v/V8/S4/S6 part, Boge Turbo-Gas 32-115-F, which will have to be 
modified. Keith said that I would need to put a metal sleeve and drill the holes to make them 
fit.

I ordered the shocks from Keith @ $85/ea. with the sleeves.
I pulled mine out of the car, and they indeed looked pretty damn similar. But not quite:
1) The shaft was a beefy 12mm whereas mine was a whimpy 10mm (that explained the need to drill 
open the top metal washer and the top rubber/metal mount).
2) The shaft had a 6mm hex recess for the Allen wrench, whereas the original had a 6mm flat 
tab for an open end wrench (in order to keep the shock from spinning when tightening up).
3) The threaded portion of the shaft was longer on the replacement shock (that explained the 
need for a metal sleeve).
4) The replacement shock had a 12x1.5mm top mounting nut (with the 19mm hex), whereas the OEM 
nut was 10x1.25mm (with the 17mm hex).

§§ 1) and 2) were hardly a deterrent, whereas § 3) made it necessary to fabricate 4 new metal 
sleeves (Keith sent me only 2 and they were of the wrong length, the top rubber mounts were 
loose with them).
§ 4) was a biggest pain in the butt, coz when you drop a 19mm nut into the 24.5mm opening in 
the upper rubber/metal mount, which was designed to accept a 17mm nut, the 19mm socket would 
not fit in the opening, so you can't tighten up the nut.

At that point I had started questioning the fitment of the said shocks to my car.

I gave a call to Vince Lyons, who is a Don Rosen Porsche-Audi Parts Manager, a Q-lister and a 
great guy himself, and in 30 min we were scrutinizing the OEM shocks for all 44 chassis cars 
right on his desk.

Although a) looks almost exactly like b)/c) (see above), including the bottom mounts and the 
thread size, a) is shorter than b)/c) and it's shaft's threaded portion is shorter, which 
makes it impossible to use on a car w/quattro.

The only option left was a d), if I only were able to enlarge the opening in the top rubber 
mount, so it'll let me use a 19mm socket. 
And then it hit me: why mess with the top mount, when I can downsize the nut and use an 18mm 
socket? Vince agreed and found me some all-steel jam nuts to work with (the spec'd nylon 
insert jam nuts would've been ruined by the end mill).

One of the benefits of being an engineer: later that night I went to work, opened up the 
machine shop (the Co that I work for has some state-of-the-art equipment) and fabricated the 
necessary metal sleeves on the lathe. I also shaved 1mm off the 19mm jam nuts on a 
precision Bridgeport (0.0001" X-Y feed) end mill. I also made a special 18mm socket with a 
window ground in it's side for the Allen wrench. Fortunately, I had an 18mm socket, made by a 
Japaneese outfit called True Craft, which lended itself to a relatively easy grinding. Kids, 
don't try to do it with an American-made tool, it'll take you at least an hour of hard labour 
and a ruined diamond grinding stone.

Everything worked well, the shock fit was perfect, the 18mm tool worked great.

I have made a detailed drawing of the shock/sleeve combo for a future reference. Perhaps 
somebody with a web site and a scanner would be willing to post it for those contemplating a 
similar upgrade?
I have drawn it in Tango-PRO, so if that person happens to be an EE, who designes 
circuitry/printed circuit boards in Tango/ACCEL EDA, I could just shoot the file directly to 
him.

I have also replaced all anti sway bar bushings,
the top front strut mounts:
443 412 377, $14.80/ea, GPR 
metal/rubber bushings in the front lower control arm:
431 407 183A, $16/ea, GPR 
and those huge metal/rubber bushings in the rear control arm:
443 511 523B, $33/ea, GPR

I read a lot on the list about how people struggle to get the suckers out of their nests (by 
burning them out with a torch, using a hack saw etc.), so when my time came, I fired up my 
favorite LeBlond lathe and fabricated a couple of 0.010" over and 0.010" under sized adapters 
and pressed them out like a seed out of a cherry. Piece of cake. Be advised though, that no 
gear puller will be able to do that. At work I have a 35 ton hydrolic press with a gauge, and 
that gauge showed that those bushings broke loose at about 5 tons, after which slid out and 
the new ones slid in at a constant 3 tons of pressure.

The overall driving impression *after* I replaced all shocks and bushings? 
Oh, man, I did not know what I was missing!
Are the shocks stiff? Yes! If you lean on a front corner, the car would hardly yield a mere 
2-3cm. Bouncing? What bouncing?
However, the ride is still very comfortable around town.
Never the less, it is still too soft for a race track.

My overall impression: if you need a nice inexpensive compromise - this setup is a way to go.
If you are looking after increased performance, whereas comfortable ride is not necesserely a 
prerogative, I would still suggest going with a more radical setup.

The only thing left is a proper alignment. Although I did mark the position of the camber 
plates before doing the front shocks, and reinstalled them back fairly close to the original 
positions, the car is messed up and is all over the road, the beautiful neutral handling of a 
200TQ is gone. Oh, well, I planned the alignment before installing a new set of SP8000 anyhow.

Igor Kessel
'89 200TQ
18psi-TAP
and now w/a very tight suspension