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

["Jeff LaBombard" <jll99@tiac.com>]

Arun , I  Agree with your take on the 850..

I traded in my 94 850T for a 94 S4 and of course would never go back.  With
Quattro the comparison is mute because the S4 or 200q is a nicer car in
build and all around driving.  My biggest complaint with the Volvo was that
the whole package was not their, the car was quick, but I still felt like I
was in a fast tank.

Audi has done a terrific job in making the S4 more solid feeling than the
850.  I test drove the 850r manual before I bought the S4, even with the low
profile tires and better suspension on the 850r, the Audi was tighter (my
body roll with 60k miles  is catching up though, time to upgrade
suspension).  The Volvo feels unbalanced and you can feel the extra weght..

Also, I had chipped my 850 and brought it up to "R" hp, but Audi wins again,
the tuner capabilities as we know, are unparraled.  The difference between
my tuned Volvo with IDP and Audi with Hoppen are great.  The Volvo was a
little quicker from stock,  but what Hoppen or any tuner can do to the 20vt
is much more impressive.

Jeff
94 S4


-----Original Message-----
From: Arun Rao <rao@pixar.com>
To: Quattro Mailing List <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 12:50 PM
Subject: '91 200Q vs 850 Turbo (long)


>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
>