Re: 5KCSTQ 1.8T?

["Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu>]

On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 MSV96@aol.com wrote:

> Farbeit for me to argue with Graydon on this point as he is far more of an
> expert than I. I guess mine is more of a traditionalist viewpoint. While

No, No Mike, go ahead, lets hear your ideas.   I don't mean to steam 
roller my ideas on anyone.

> Graydon's points are all well taken and factual, I would like to point out

well, Orin pointed out that the 1.8T isn't as smooth as I had expected 
it would be.   I've driven lots of 4 cyl cars that were alot smoother 
than any I-5 I'd driven, so I assumed Audi got the 1.8T right.

> though that the points he makes also apply and have been used for years
> towards another German design for which I hold some passion...one that "was
> dumb in the first place" and is "hopelessly outclassed" yet has lived on to
> be the longest lasting production sports car model series in automotive
> history. (Not to meantion the most successful sportscar racing platform in
> motorsports history.) I enjoy the way the I5 turbo motors perform and

Oh, You're talking about the Mazda RX7!  Yes, I love that car too, and 
you must be referring to its Wankel engine with its German heritage! 

	[GD&R...   Very big grin...]

> sound...much like I enjoy the screeming banshee noises that flat 6 I alluded
> to makes-

Wait a minute...   The rotary sounds more like a chainsaw on steroids.   
Maybe you're talking about the P*&^%$@ 911, but naw, that can't be...  
that thing sounds more like a put-put VW.  :-)

> both are very fun. While there are certainly better and more
> technologically advanced alternatives to both...they both represent excellent
> and durable designs, they are fun to hear, and they do work well in their
> respective applications. I guess I am missing something here because I never

Naw, you're just fostering a love relationship.   I'm more pragmatic 
about these things (is that the word?)  I don't care who builds the 
engine if it works right.   I look for light weight, high hp, high 
displacement, and low NVH.  Oh yeah, good efficiency is nice too.

> regarded the I5 as a bad idea or poor design-but I am no expert, just an end
> user so to speak. By all measures of engine design (that I do know of) it

My main beef is the 5-cyl design which is inherently not a well balanced 
design.   An inline 6 OTOH is perfectly balanced in theory, which makes 
it much easier to balance in reality.

> time ;-) I just am lamenting that Audi has deviated from what I perceived as
> being a turbo quattro for many years now...I'll get over it, and for now will
> enjoy my hopelessly outclassed 5ktq for what it is and what it offers me.

I think you and I are lamenting the same thing - the lack of a high 
performance Audi Quattro.

> They make one today, called an A6. Not very successful compared to the A4 if
> you look at the discounts dealers are giving right now. When the '91 200q was

Yeah, but the A6 is too heavy, no 5-sp and no turbos.   If the A6 had 
that, then it would be just as popular as the Audi S-cars I think.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the 5KCSTQ and its engine for what it 
does, but I'd like better.   More HP, More HP!

Later,
Graydon D. Stuckey 
'89 Thunderbird SuperCoupe
'86 Audi 5000 CS Quattro
'86 Mazda RX7 GXL 2+2
'85 Mazda RX7 GS