Re: '91 200Q vs 850 Turbo (long)

[Ralph Poplawsky <rlpplsky@ix.netcom.com>]

I own both cars, so here are my impressions...  The '95 850 turbo wagon is
stock.  Agree with Arun about build quality and subjective feel.  I'll take
my 200Q any day.  Also, the 850 is a major handful in corners with the gas
on.  Acceleration:  The 850 will beat the stock 200Q to 60 or 70 mph and
makes more noise doing it, but it is good noise.  At higher speeds, I have
the impression the 200Q is faster (I guess a hurtling brick can only hurtle
so fast..).  The automatic in my car is amazing.  Leave it in 'sport mode'.
 As long as you are doing over 15 mph, slap the throttle down and you get
an almost immediate punch in the back as the kick down and turbo hit
simultaneously.  If you leave handling out of it, this car is more fun than
the 200Q because of that punch in the back that is never more than an ankle
twitch away.  Brakes are better (UFOs) on the 200Q.  I have not experienced
chipped 850Ts, but a chipped 200Q is definitely faster than the stock 850.  

Stock vs. stock? Hmmmm  

Chipped 200Q vs stock 850?  No contest.  Audi rules.

Chipped vs chipped?  Probably still no contest.

Ralph Poplawsky
'91 200Q (keeper)
'95 850 Turbo wagon  (will replace this yr. w/probably another Volvo)

At 09:38 AM 4/2/98 -0800, Arun wrote:
>Fellow Audi nuts,
>	Given the recent spate of odious comparisons, here's another, hopefully
>less odious one.
>
>	I took a colleague's '96 Volvo 850 Turbo out for a drive yesterday. 48K
>miles, IPD chip upgrade to a claimed 270 HP (up from stock 222).  I've
>only driven an N/A 850 before, but have a soft spot for Volvos in
>general.  Here's what I thought.
>
>	Power: Lots of it, esp. from 20-60 or so.  Not particularly quick off
>the line, but no noticeable torque steer either. Surprisingly, engine
>seems to peter out after 70 or so.  The automatic was probably too quick
>to upshift, and somewhat reluctant to downshift.
>
>	Handling: Lots of body roll, understeered like anything when driven
>hard into an fwy entrance ramp.  Car felt "light" in some indescribable
>way, but that's probably something you could get used to, and even like.
>
>	Build quality: Good, but nothing spectacular. This is a fairly
>top-of-the-line car, but the interior didn't reflect it. (I drove a '98
>528 a couple of weeks ago, and that car felt *really* solid).
>
>	Overall, I was a *lot* less impressed than I expected to be. The car
>has a ~400 lbs/50 HP advantage on my 200Q, but my car sure *feels*
>faster. This in spite of the fact that the Volvo was a good bit noisier,
>esp. when accelerating hard. The inline 5 is remarkably similar to the
>3B, but the sounds it made left me cold. The Volvo engine sounds like
>the small displacement engine that it is: not so the 3B .. or for that
>matter my older KH.
>
>	The 200 has a heft, a solid feel  that the Volvo did not match (IMHO,
>and I realize that it's a matter of taste).  And remember that my car is
>5 years older and has twice as many miles on it. 
>	
>	Automatics are supposed to be ideal for turbocharged cars, but the
>Volvo's did not do it justice: the car may have felt a lot better with a
>stick.
>
>	In my opinion, Audi scores on this one. (Apologies to Peter H., but the
>V70 may indeed be a lot better).
>
>
>-Arun
> 
>--
>Arun Rao
>Pixar Animation Studios
>Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
>(510) 620-3526
>
>