Re: Dual vs. Single Knock Sensor MC

["Daniel Hussey" <dan_hussey@email.msn.com>]

I'd have to vote for the dual-knock MC as well.  Having owned both, they are
both great, but the later MC just is a much more refined engine.  It really
isn't any faster, but definately feels quicker as it has a LOT more low end
torque and it seems to be a bit smoother as well.

The MAC-10 MC may be cheaper and more available, but if you can find a deal
on the MAC-14 dual knock MC....I'd go with the later!

Later,
Dan
89 200tq....dual knock MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik R Addy <erik@aero.und.edu>
To: John Corbishley <JCorbs@gtresort.com>
Cc: Quattro List <quattro@audifans.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Dual vs. Single Knock Sensor MC


>John Corbishley wrote:
>>
>> I seem to remember some time back that the brains trust indicated a
>> preference for the single knock with water cooled K24 rather than the
higher
>> compression dual knock which I believe was fitted to the 89 & 90 200TQ.
>>
>> Which is preferable for an Ur-Q upgrade?
>
>The answer to this probably depends at least somewhat on your
>priorities.
>That being said, I have owned 200tq's with both motors (both in stock
>and
>chipped form) and would recommend you try and get the K24 model unless
>you
>are going to be going for over 250hp.  It has _far_ less turbo lag,
>better
>throttle response, and spins up quicker (lighter flywheel).  It seems to
>pull well throughout the rev range.
>
>However, they are probably harder to find and more expensive.  If you do
>get the MAC11/K26 model, I would suggest you consider a high flow
>downpipe
>form Graydon (assuming he is still selling them now that he has moved up
>in
>the world to V8 power :)).  These apparently do quite a good job in
>reducing
>turbo lag, and should help hi-end power as well.  2Bennett also has one
>but
>it is twice as expensive (Stainless, though).  No personal experience w/
>either of these products, though.
>
>HTH
>Erik