Re: quattro-digest V4 #2147

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

mark,

i upgraded from a '85 ur-q to a '93 s2.  this model had the 5-speed box.  to
answer your questions:

1) the upgrade was worth while.  the early ur-q's for all their nice features,
are not the most compelling arguments for ur-q's.  the later motors (10v and
20v) and the torsen are significant upgrades boosting throttle response and
handling (less understeer).  the only thing i miss about my '85 is the engine
noise..

2) the s2 is a softer riding, more comfortable, quieter and faster car.  it
lacks the handling finese of the later ur-q's, and the flat cornering (absence
of roll) of all ur-quattro's.  cabin ergonomics are significantly better in the
s2, you have proper ventilation and heating with a good air-con.  seating for 4
is still comfortable.

3) the s2 is a different ownership proposition, being more 'stealthy' than the
ur-quattro by a long chalk.  imho, they look really good.  they are much easier
to maintain, and less expensive than the old ur-quattros.

4) the early s2 is basically the 20v ur-quattro motor/motronic, and it shares
the 12month/20k km service intervals of the 20v ur-quattro.  the '94 model year
upgrade involved an overboost facility (increasing low-down torque), improved
hp (220hp to 230hp), coil/cylinder, and the 6-speed box, and better engine
cooling.  handling was firmed up a little, and off-boost lethargy was improved.
 air-con was also improved (the old s2's air-con was pretty noisy).

5) the original 5-speed box is not the 016 box of the ur-quattro, but a
modified coupe box, with some strengthening.  the s2 5-speed is not it's best
feature ad shares the ur-quattro's sloppy shift.  the 6-speed is much stronger,
and much tighter/better shifting.  it formed the basis of the rs2 6-speed
(albeit the rs2 has a modified 1st gear and some bearings).

6) brakes of the s2 are not it's best feature.  the car is heavier than the
ur-quattro by about 200kgs and basically has the same anchors as the 20v coupe.
 they were beefed up for the '94 model year.  having said that, the brakes of
the wr are pretty poor too.

7) you can actually carry quite a lot of kit in the s2, with it's bigger rear
lad area and fold down seats.  not so the ur-quattro, as you know.

my advice would be to go for the 230hp 6-speed if you can afford it.  having
said that the 5-speed 220hp s2 is still a better car (all round) than the wr
ur-quattro.

as far as coo is concerning, the s2 should be much better than your wr.  i'm
not convinced that all ur-quattros will appreciate much as classics, the early
models, and the last models excepted.  the models in-between are not exclusive
enough and value is tarnished by high ownership costs.  i also would not expect
the s2 to appreciate either.  if you want to spend s2 money and have an
appreciating asset, a 20v ur-q would be the way to go.  the rs2 also seems to
have depreciated only about 5% in the british market over the last 3 years.

hth,
dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:04:29 +0000
>From: "Mark Warren" <mark.warren@man.brite.co.uk>
>Subject: S2 quandry
>
>Dear people.....
>
>I'm thinking of selling my 84 UR-q for an S2 shortly, but have a bit 
>of a quandry.
>
>Which S2 to go for (if at all)
>The estates are quite expensive - so they're already struck off my 
>list.  However the S2 was uprated in the UK from 220 bhp to 230bhp 
>plus a change to a six speed box.
>
>Should I go for the six speed box at greater cost, or go for a 5sp 
>version.  What was Audi's reason for changing to a 6 sp box ?
>
>Was it that the 5 cog box was flawed ?
>
>Also what else changed in the 1992 modification ?
>
>What are the running cost like ? Comparable to the UR-q ?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark
>