RE: Which Quattro to buy?

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

well it was me who said that the later ur-q's were less expensive to
maintain than the earlier ones.  however, i have never owned an mb.

over the same period of ownership, my 20v has cost less than a ¼ of the
maintenance of my old wr 10v.  and with the 10v i never got around to
replacing suspension bushes, or upgrading the brakes/shocks.  the fact was i
couldn't afford to, and the price/ownership equation was getting a bit
dodgy.  the wr, btw, was mint (body/interior).

so, the 20v is much cheaper. discounting the purchase cost of course...it
also only requires annual maintenance, not 6-monthly.  

i wonder though if the mb isn't *more* expensive to maintain than the wr???

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
	-----Original Message-----
	Date: Mon, 14 Dec 98 00:36:11 -0800
	From: Michael Williams <urquattro@surfree.com>
	Subject: Re: Which Quattro to buy?

	Phil Payne decided to speak these words:

	>          Total                         $32,675.74
	>
	>The 'run rate' has gone down significantly since the start of 1998,
	>when I took up wrenching again after a thirty-year (28, actually)
	>layoff.


	Jeez, and who was it that said that the later ones are cheaper to 
	maintain than the early versions?  Well, i can tell you it aint even

	close to that bad in the record for my car...but of course, i just
put in 
	the new engine and some othe things at a cost of 4200 bucks, but
hey, 
	that was a one time thing...

	But phil, arent your prices for parts and such alot higher because
of the 
	astronomical taxes and fees and stuff??