RE: Extinction of 200 20vt <was economics of...

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

>>That engine belongs in the UrQ in my opinion, and i guess i share Audi's
>>opinion since they dropped it in the UrQ...

>there's no mistaking what you said.
>we are just questioning the narrowness of your views.
>even when i was in your situation (young, single, childless, recently
>graduated)

If only to illustrate perhaps that narrow views don't necessarily dissipate
with age, marriage, kids, and 20th reunions, I'll step up to Michael's
defense here.

If I understand Michael's original point, he is saying that the merits of a
small, light and efficient engine like the 2.2L 20vt find (shall we say)
"fuller expression" in a light, nimble car than a large luxury sedan.  The
engine comprises a higher proportion of the weight in the smaller car, so
heroic power-to-weight ratios are more meaningful.  His position (as I
interpret) is that all that wonderful engineering content of the 20vt is if
not wasted, then somewhat academic in the larger car.

Now I am the last guy to attack over-engineering for engineering's sake, but
I agree with this.  I too learned to drive in a big 'murrican wagon ('69
Country Squire w/390) and I think wagons oughta have V8s. The AoA people
once again have failed me by not selling the V8 A6 Avant, the first car in
years that I'd actually consider buying new.

But I agree with Michael here, as much as I admire the '91 200/S4/6, I can't
help but experience a sense of, well, inappropriateness when I look at the
engine bay.

Of course, I thought convertibles went to the dogs when they added roll-up
windows.

Brandon Hull
ersatz S2