Re: more s4 vs m3 and c43amg...

["Rick Omalley" <pipehoon@hotmail.com>]

just bought a 91 v8 quattro.tell me something.any problems?  


>From owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net Fri Jan  9 21:01:44 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost) by coimbra.ans.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) id 
XAA05820 for quattro-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:37:56 -0500 (EST)
>Mr-Received: by mta MOEMR0.MUAS; Relayed; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:33:36 
+0012
>Mr-Received: by mta CSAV10; Relayed; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:33:37 +0012
>Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
>Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:33:36 +0012
>From: Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>
>Subject: more s4 vs m3 and c43amg...
>In-Reply-To: <199801100211.VAA03184@coimbra.ans.net>
>To: "quattro@coimbra.ans.net" <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
>Message-Id: 
<8736331710011998/A18980/CSAV10/11C154611E00*@MHS.minedu.govt.nz>
>Autoforwarded: false
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>Importance: normal
>Ua-Content-Id: 11C154611E00
>X400-Mts-Identifier: [;8736331710011998/A18980/CSAV10]
>Hop-Count: 1
>Sender: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net
>Precedence: bulk
>
>further to the anaysis from 'car' magazine which i just posted, i 
should make a
>couple of things clear.
>
>1) the anaysis was of the handling of the 3 cars.  there was separate 
analysis
>of performance, and the usual other things.
>
>2) overall a win in the test for the s4 easily over the c43 with the m3 
last.
>
>3) in the performance analysis, although the s4 had the lowest power of 
the
>three, it was the fastest car, due to it's abundance of low-down torque 
and
>good throttle response (no lag).  the tester (georg kacher) accused the 
c43 of
>lag due to it's poor throttle response!  the m3 has 321hp @7,400 (limit 
7,400)
>and 253lb ft @3,250, the amg 306hp @5,850 (limit 6,500) and 297lb ft
>@3,250-5,000, while the s4 has 265hp @5,800 (6,900 limit) and 289lb ft
>@1,850-3,600.
>
>3) the s4 was the cheapest of the 3 cars (37k gbp), the m3 was 38k gbp, 
and the
>c43 was 42k gbp!  the m3 had few extras (eg no air-con) so got more 
expensive
>fast.
>
>other conclusions from the test were:-
>
>m3) poor quality (badly closing rear doors, rattling front windows,
>transmission whine and driveline shunt).  the m3's sequential gearship 
was also
>completely panned, the engine/chassis praised.  very ppor headlights, 
and 56
>switches on the central console! poor rear seats.  14.9-21.7 mpg.  
overall
>"wonderful car, dodgy transmission.  best handler on a dry road, but 
pricier
>and ultimately less sure footed than the s4".
>
>c43) expensive.  2-piece disks, brake assist.  reasonable rear seats. 
11-16mpg.
>overall "power, poise and pedigree in abundance.  safe, comfortable, 
competent
>but puritanical.  thirsty and expensive too".
>
>s4) fully equiped.  ride not as good as the c43.  rubbery shift action.
>14.8-20mpg. overall "great engine, great chassis, great drive.  less
>challenging than the m3, but just as rewarding.  faster and cheaper 
too."
>
>dave
>'95 rs2
>'90 ur-q
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com