Re: questions about buying a 1993 90S

["Brandon Hull" <brandon@cardinalventures.com>]

Well, the 20V is not that far off, rated 164HP/157lb-ft., and a '90 20v 90
sedan weighs a bit over 3000lbs.,  what did the later 90's weigh?  At only
3200lbs., lbs./HP are a wash.   Torque, however, comes pretty late to the
party in the 20V NA, meaning that it feels initially more anemic than it is.

But my point about it being more interesting is that the 20V-5 is a
delightfully idiosyncratic and nicely executed powerplant in a world which
has plenty of OHC V-6s.  I'm sorry Audi dropped the 5's; it's just another
example of Automobiledom's regression toward the mean...

Brandon H.



>Brandon Hull wrote:
>
>> Is it just me, or do others have the opinion that the later 90's are way
>> under-represented on the list?  IMHO, the V-6 is a vastly less
interesting
>> engine than the 20v 5, and, I believe, lower performance.
>
>I'd have to disagree with you there. The V6 has much better HP and torque
than
>all but the turbo 5 cylinders. My '93 is rated at 172HP and 184 torque,
only
>the turbo motors can beat that. Although, if I had a Q instead of just fwd,
I'd
>be tempted to transplant a newer 1.8Turbo engine in.
>
>> Cosmetically,
>> however, I find the '93-on 90s the most attractive of the 80-90 series
Audi
>> sedans.
>
>There I agree, much more room in the cabin and trunk too.
>
>
>--
>Todd Young              WAM!NET Inc.