Re: 200 TQ - Fair Price?

[ikessel@worldnet.att.net]

DeWitt Harrison wrote:

>At some point, the steering rack reliability was improved and

My 200 had leaked the rack and the pump just as cheerfully as my 5000
did.

>the alternator was up-rated relative to the 5000. Igor mentioned
>the door handles.There were number of other minor changes
>such as the very important fuse in the cooling fan harness. 1989
>was a transitional year -weren't they all - so I'm not sure whether
>all these changes apply to your car.

My early 200TQ (5/88, _K_003426, MC-1, K-26, 7.8:1, no airbag) did not
have this fuse, however, I am in the process of retrofitting it using
the excellent write-up posted by Mr. Harrison a while ago. Using the
p/nos from his post I ordered the fuse, the fuse holder and the bracket
from a dealer and right now am installing a parallel LED/ballast
resistor as we speak. It is such a cheap precaution against the front
harness meltdown that anyone with the older 5000/200 should run not walk
to get it done.

>The time and money required to maintain the car is also a strong
>function of your tolerance for stuff not working, difficult starting,

This is a 200-specific problem, caused by the loss of residual fuel
pressure because of the leaky injectors.
Another goof-up is the e-brake cables, I am on my 3rd set in 4.5 years.
Yet another one is the new dot matrix LCD autocheck screen.

A coupla of obvious pluses if you go with a 200 vs. a 5000:
1. Oil pressure gauge
2. Oil temperature gauge
3. Voltmeter
4. Heavy duty clutch. I mean really _heavy_ duty. I have just replaced
mine and had a chance to compare it with the 5000 unit.
5. Heavy duty brake MC (24mm vs. 22mm). Was available as an option on
the 5000TQ Wagons.

All in all it's a terrific car, a tweaker's paradise for anyone who's
not technically challenged. But as DeWitt pointed out, cheap in
maintenance it is not. 

As a starter Audi I'd choose a 4000q.

--
Igor Kessel
Two turbo quattros