RE: Performance Claims

["PAT MARTIN" <MARDKINS@classic.msn.com>]

I will take a shot at it.


>So, the process revolves around disabling the AWD to rate the HP.  But 
>this is a complicated process, and says only a few people know how to do it.  


Really complicated.  In fact so complicated it is described in the OWNERS 
MANUAL.  No that isn't the Bentley or workshop manual, it is the cars OWNERS 
MANUAL.

>So, I doubt very much that any of those Audi guys are telling any truth.
>Their engines, as Elgin said, are capable of about 200-250hp, and he has 
>Seen higher out of K-36 turbos, but the engine is unsafe.  He said the cast 
>Iron block is bad for the heat, and it dosen't translate to a performance 
>engine inany way other than making it unsafe.

I don't think I have seen anyone claiming over 250 without turbo work on the 
10v.   On the 20v I don't think it is a stretch to say that 250 is easy with 
just basic mods as the stock is not far off that.   All of the tuners I have 
seen do not claim more than 250 without at least a turbo upgrade on the 10v.  
On the 20v I have not seen any more than 300 claimed hp without turbo.  And if 
this is so bad on the engines than why has Ned and others been able to get 
mucho miles out of very hi output engines (350+).   

>The bottom line is, I think it's BS. There is nothing I can't stand more 
>Then over estimation of power.  I think those engines are capable of maybe 
>200hp without getting dangerous.  It just stands to reason, and Elgin agrees.

So the factory is lying when it puts the 20v at 227?  What does he base this 
false advertising.  If they are so false why do the performance numbers bear 
this out.  Compare 0-60 or 1/4 mile next to a similarly sized car and you will 
see the numbers within the realm they should be.  

>The Sport Q had a K-36 (as I can see from the photos), and only got 300hp.
>That is about the end of the line, it is overated as it is.  And Elgin 
>Said the race engines are TOTALLY different, in every concievable way.  

So all the group b hemoglotion cars lied about their hp since the performance 
#s are about what they should be for that hp and weight.

>He also said the IMSA 90's won not because of superior handling ability, 
>butbecause the Quattro was easy on the tires, and allowed for more time 
>between changes.  He says it's the same in ETC and BTC.  The advantage of 
quattro 
>is less tire wear, not handling, not control.

Is that why the Audis were passing on the outside of the corners when the 
other cars were barely hanging on even in the 1st and 2nd laps.  Are all the 
other cars tanking it on the 1st and second lap to save their tires.  Somehow 
I doubt it for the 1st couple of laps.  And if tire wear is superior, does 
that not mean they have less slippage which also means more traction.  Has the 
author of forwarded letter ever driven one on the track?  I have, and have the 
distinct advantage of powering through the corner when a rwd or fwd car are 
feathering through.  This also means I am on the gas sooner which also means 
exit speeds are faster.  In my definition that is better handling.

Pat Martin
864000csq turbo, 2 1/2 cat back, H&R-Boge, MC and loving it.  Drilled rotors 
stopping it. Koenig Cobra 16x7 with AVS Intermediates turning it,  K&N and 
uh....
95 subaru legacy 
Bothell, Wa