Re: any/all ur-q drivers (non-20v)

["Steve Marinello" <smarinel@neosoft.com>]

For reference, I have an unmodified, but not necessarily stock U.S., U.S.
VIN '83 urq that has an adjustable wastegate and a stiffer spring that came
with the car.  It is deceptively quick, as Steve noted.  When my wife's
Caravan has a dead battery (often) and she pulls the cover off to drive the
q, she regularly shocks Mustangs and Camaros in impromptu blasts at 2 to 1
lane merges.  I have repeatedly done similar things and can attest to the
absolute amazement of other car owners on the interstate when I nose down
the pedal at around the 3000 rpm torque peak and flat disappear.  

That said, the federalized and CA pink slipped '85 LHD British urq I have
flat walked away from the '83 on freeway on-ramps back when my friend and I
had just acquired the two of them. Not even close.  The '85 had just been
legalized when my friend took me (in it) to pick up the '83.  We determined
that, although his was MUCH faster in acceleration, the top speed didn't
appear to be that different (aerodynamics) and, in fact, I think was only
reported to be 1 or 2 mph more.  It was estimated that the '85 was putting
out between 220 and 230 hp at that time and the '83 probably wasn't putting
out quite as much as it is now, because the wastegate is turned down a
couple of turns.  So it was probably a 160 hp versus 220+hp blast.  Sixty hp
better be that much faster!

Steve
----------
>From: "Buchholz, Steven" <Steven.Buchholz@kla-tencor.com>
>To: "'quattro@coimbra.ans.net'" <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
>Subject: RE: any/all ur-q drivers (non-20v)
>Date: Thu, Mar 4, 1999, 4:35 PM
>

> ... I sent this message as a direct reply earlier ... but since the
>thread is continuing I thought I'd post it with a couple additional comments
>...
>======================
>... as I've reported on the qlist before, I have been able to beat older 5
>liter Mustangs fairly easily in my '83 urQ (US spec).  It may not be quite
>as quick right off the line, but when the turbo spools up it's gone.  That
>was in stock form ... now that I've got an IA "chip" and adjustable WG setup
>its even better.  
>
>I would expect a European conversion to be even better ... the Euro cars had
>200HP stock as opposed to 160 for the WX ... perhaps the Americanization was
>botched.  Another thing that I notice is that many Audi turbos are what I
>consider to be "deceptively quick" ... they seem to not be that quick when
>you drive them alone, but when you can see how fast you're really going by
>comparing against another adjacent car.  
>
>While the boost gauge in the car is probably inaccurate, 1.5 bar is lower
>than the max boost spec for the WX engine ... you should be seeing something
>more like 1.7 ... perhaps there's a problem with a vacuum leak or the turbo
>or wastegate have a problem.  
>======================
>I guess I would consider it to be cheating in a way to compare a chipped 5k
>to a stock QTC ... :-)  I too have a chipped '88 5kCSQ Avant and I am amazed
>at how good a job Audi did with the design of the new rear suspension for
>the 5k.  I've always felt that the 5k could take the twisties almost as well
>as the QTC even though it has a bit softer suspension.  All that said, at
>least to me there's a little something different about sitting behind the
>wheel of a QTC (yes, even though all I've driven is the sorely lacking WX
>equipped US spec version :) than driving the Avant.  The only car that I've
>driven that has a similar flavor for me is the '91 v8q/5-speed ... I really
>want to try that car out at the autocross track ... jsut to see such a big
>car out there ... :-)
>
>HTH!
>Steve Buchholz
>San Jose, CA (USA)