But which urq suspension is BETTER? was Re: ur-quattro differences (continued)

[John Karasaki <johkar@teleport.com>]

The tag line says it all: which is better?  I have the complete 4kq rear
setup and the old urq sway bar setup.  I will switch to the new style in a
heart beat if it is better.  Parts for the new setup are cheaper as well.

Enquiring minds want to know...

At 09:07 AM 2/2/99 -0700, Lawson, Dave wrote:
>>in summary therefore, it is clear that there was a change in track which 
>>occurred with the wishbone/balljoint replacement which occurred at the end 
>>of the '82 model year for the '83 year.  this was at the end of 
>>85-c-902-000, and the start of 85-d-900-001. in summary at the front,  the 
>>changes involved new lower wishbone, ball joint, and new shock absorbers 
>>and anti-roll bar (along with their rubber mountings). there was a change 
>>in front springs at 85-e-900-324 (nov '83, during the '84 model year). at 
>>the rear the anti-roll bar was deleted and a new wishbones specified, tie 
>>rod, and the ball joints.  the rear strut also changed for the '83 model 
>>year, along with the rear shocks changed and the coil springs.
>
>I would question the VINs given here for the change. On the US cars
>the suspension change you described somewhere around 85-d-900-545,
>give or take 10 cars. I know of a later VIN car with the early suspension
>which is the car Thompson Smith used to own. Again it's an example
>of the current/published  documentation of these cars being incorrect. 
>-
>Dave Lawson
>83 ur-quattro, D0072, w/snow & ice still dripping from the old style 
>                    suspension after the weekend at steamboat 
>
>
Best Regards,

John Karasaki