Re: 87 4000q vs. 88 80q

[Tenrman@aol.com]

A while back there was a lister (So. Cal. area I think, have not seen 
a post for some time) who dropped an MC into an 88+ 80-90. 
Everything was going well until he tried to mate the motor to the 
transmission. Apparently, the 80-90 transmission has a different 
input shaft than the 4000-5000-100-200. Custom machine work was 
required to complete the assembly. the clutch is much more difficult
(expensive) on the 80/90 series cars than the 4kq.
____________________________________________

The '88 80 turbo conversion you mention is mine, and you are right, the 4kq is
an easier (less expensive) swap as far as the clutch goes....nothing a little
thought and money can't cure. It only cost about $120 in machine work to
modify the flywheel. The clutch disk I used was expensive though...about $240.
Most other aspects are similar to the 4k swap, including the fusebox, which is
identical to the 5k.

As far as weight goes, I don't think it's much of an issue. If you compare the
GVWR (gross weight) of both cars as issued by Audi, you'll find the '88 80q is
only about 100 lbs. more than an 87 4kq. The 90q, on the other hand, with the
additional features (leather+wood interior, ABS) probably has a higher weight
penalty. (although those bun warmers are probably nice)

I'm not sure what would cause the "more direct" feel I've heard people
describe the 4kq having as compared to the 80q. I've never driven a 4kq so I
can't give an opinion, but as far as I have observed, the cars have nearly
identical suspensions. Possibly firmer shocks? I'm using Koni Sport/Eibach and
am pleased with the handling/feel.

Choosing between the 2 mostly comes down to personal preference for one body
style or the other. If you're serious about a turbo conversion, the 4k is
easier, but the 80 can be done and I'm more than happy to share any tricks I
learned (as I have posted previously).

Dave Close (from my Dads email address today)
88 80q turbo
Oakland, Ca.
DClose@TCAdvertising.com