[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ur-Q subframe questions...
- To: "quattro@coimbra.ans.net" <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
- Subject: Re: Ur-Q subframe questions...
- From: Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:43 +0012
- Autoforwarded: false
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 1
- Importance: normal
- In-Reply-To: <199708052123.RAA13968@coimbra.ans.net>
- Mr-Received: by mta MOEMR0.MUAS; Relayed; Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:43 +0012
- Mr-Received: by mta CSAV10; Relayed; Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:44 +0012
- Sender: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net
- Ua-Content-Id: 11B832862900
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;5443061006081997/A78835/CSAV10]
apart from the deletion of the rear anti-roll bar to reduce understeer, i think
the rear suspension of the ur-q didn't change.
the front did however, a number of times. phil says that the setup values
didn't change through to the 20v, although the wishbone partnumbers did. the
20v rr certainly understeers less than the 10v mb.
dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:59:40 -0600 (MDT)
>From: pacdev@csn.net
>
>My readings on the evolution of the TQC indicates that the same assembly might
>be expected for the earlier versions but as production increased there were
>several changes, especially to the rear assembly which indicates some degree
of
>incompatibility.
>