[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: 944turbo v. ur-q



In a message dated 8/2/98 ScottyCBoy@aol.com writes:

<< The only thong the Quattro has going for it is that the quattro system. A
Stock 89 944Turbo  S will smoke a stock Q.  Also the 944T are newer cars and
have better build quality, also there are many more 944T out there than
Quattros so a low mileage example can be found for a paltry sum.  Also the 944
T dollar for dollar has much more horsepower potential than the Quattro. Don't
get me wrong I love Quattros but Porsche makes much better cars. >>

Yes, I too think that in an absolute performance comparison the 944t,
especialy the Turbo S is certainly a better (dry) perfoming car than the US
ur-q.

As far as maintenance issues, the u-rq is famous for the "green badge of
courage" but the 944t is no cheap date either. If you do not possess the
expensive timing belt tension measuring tool, the tensions must be checked at
regular intervals (some say every 10k miles) which costs $. Also said belt
should be replaced every 30k. When I had my last 911 and was considering a
used (much closer to new back then than now) 944t and was scared off by
Porsche mechanics telling me that the 944t proved much more expensive to
properly maintain that the 911. I am not sure they would be that much less (to
maintain) than an ur-q.

Since you will have no usable back seat, a 200q or S4 should sit next to it
;-)

As far as "better build quality" and "much better cars" I find those comments
to be laughable. After all, the 944 was built by Audi! I have owned 3 Porsches
and 7 Audis to date and find the build quality for the most part to be about
equal...not sure where you get that tidbit of info from, but in my experience
it just ain't so. Porsches are treated typically with the most festidous
levels of care hence so many nice high miles and/or older examples abound. I
think that could better explain that perception.

Mike Veglia
87 5kcstq