Re: Why Was That?!

[tsal2@juno.com (Timothy C Salazar II)]

I just now realized why they didn't put a turbo into the CGT's.  Car
companies usually gave the buyer a choice between either a N/A powerplant
of about 2.0L or a smaller, turbocharged unit.  I take it this was
because of the emissions standards.  The turbos weren't there to increase
performance, but rather to make up for lost power in a smaller engine. 
Audi was only using (basically) two motors at the time:  the 1.8 4cyl.
and the 2.2L 5 cyl.  Instead of dealing with a turbo that needed T.L.C.,
they just offered a small and a large engine that either would pass
emissions.  Makes sense, I guess.  

And your other point on why everyone concentrates so much on putting in a
turbo engine in is quite true, as well.  I'd love to drop in Audi 90
motor into my CGT.  I know it's the same as the 1987.5 CGT, but so what? 
When you only have 110 ponies under the hood, 20 more makes a BIG
difference!  And no spool-up time!

Love, Like, or Just Plain Tolerate,

Timothy


On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:08:24 -0800 "Buchholz, Steven"
<Steven.Buchholz@kla-tencor.com> writes:
>I can remember back when people really appreciated the Audi 4000 5+5 
>... I
>don't think that ever had a turbo.  IMO the reason Audi never went for 
>a
>turbo motor in those cars was that it already had a fairly large
>displacement 5-cylinder (most all of those Japanese GT cars only had 
>4's).
>In peak form the NA-I5 was up around 130HP ... with a reasonable 
>amount of
>low end grunt.  I can't say that I see too many of those "Japanese GT 
>cars"
>with turbo motors on the road any more ... but I can tell you that the 
>'85
>4kSQ that I drove to work this morning still does pretty well off the 
>line
>... even surprising some drivers of newer cars.  Not too bad for 210K 
>miles
>I must say ...
>
>You really need to think back to those times to answer the question 
>... the
>4kq was available in the US from 1984-1987.  The 4000/Coupe were the 
>lowest
>priced models in Audi's inventory.  For most of the years of its life 
>the
>QTC was also in the line.  There really was neither the need or the 
>desire
>for the factory to produce a turbocharged 4kQ.  I'm pretty sure that 
>we got
>the more powerful engines that were available for the line in the rest 
>of
>the world (perhaps detuned slightly for emissions); I don't think 
>there was
>ever an Audi 80 Turbo Quattro offered anywhere else ... why would Audi 
>even
>want to go through the expense of developing and getting approvals for 
>a new
>powerplant?  The 4k model was soon to be replaced ...
>
>While I will certainly acknowledge that the Audi turbo has a lot of
>potential for upgrades, I continue to be a bit mystified by the fact 
>that
>people don't seem to think twice about the later N/A engines.  Audi 
>did put
>a lot of work into the N/A version of the I5 ... given the fact that 
>the
>NF/NG engine was rated at 130-135HP while the MC was only rated at 
>160, the
>advantages of superior off the line acceleration along with the 
>relative
>simplicity of installation as compared to a MC should make it worthy 
>of
>consideration.  If for some reason the engine in my old 4k goes out 
>before I
>get rid of it that is more likely where I would look for a new engine 
>...
>
>Steve Buchholz
>San Jose, CA (USA)
>
>P.S. - In reference to the Chrysler Turbo Minivans ... it sure seems 
>to me
>that I see a lot of those things blowing blue smoke when I see them on 
>the
>road ...
>

Love, Like, or Just Plain Tolerate,

Timothy