Re: E30 BMW M3 v. URQ

["Scott Wood" <s1wood@ibm.net>]

Whoa...
I wasn't slammin' any other cars.  I think they are probably awesome.  This
is just informational directly from an article.  Besides, not apples to
apples, the two evo cars cost $11k and $27k more, are lighter, sit lower,
have much wider rubber, etc..  I was just praising the performance of this
lower powered vehicle.  Alternatively, I agree with some of the other
comments.  There are just very many variables.

Later.
Scott Wood
1990 CQ
Charlotte, NC

----------
> From: Kwattro@aol.com
> To: s1wood@ibm.net
> Cc: quattro@coimbra.ans.net
> Subject: Re: E30 BMW M3 v. URQ
> Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 2:51 PM
> 
> In a message dated 99-03-09 23:59:58 EST, you write:
> 
> << Funny, the S2 is just the performance model (like stage 1) while the
other
>  two were 'higher' performance versions of their 'high' performance
models.
>  
>  Scott Wood
>  1990 CQ
>  Charlotte, NC
>   >>
> 
> 
> Funny, how many Coupe Quattro S2's won touring car championships? 
Seriously,
> get an M3 and a TQC out on a track and we'll see who wins.  Straight line
> speed is not everything, judging from my stock engined 4000Q being able
to lap
> serveral seconds faster than A4's at Limerock.  If they do 0-60 in 10
seconds,
> I'd be surprised.  I think it was more like 7.2 or so.  See what I'm
getting
> at?  It is very humbling to be in a 300+ hp M5 and get passed by
*several* E30
> M3's at the track.  And none of them were evolution M3's, which had in
the
> upper 200 hp range (instead of 190).  No way a stock S2 could keep up
with a
> stock E30 M3 around a track all day. - they're just set up to do
different
> things (no way a stock E30 could keep up with a stock S2 in the snow.)
> 
> Later
> Carter J
> Kwattro@aol.com