Re: Ur-Q ... buyer's market or seller's market?

[quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne)]

In message <7a73ae17.25189e02@aol.com> OorQue@aol.com writes:

> >  Personally, I have been disappointed in the UrQ's I have driven,
> >  including an '85. Slower than expected, squeaky, etc... Maybe I was just
> >  expecting too much. The examples I drove were not exemplary either.

> I've had the same experience, including even with the one I own.  In stock
> U.S. trim, they're pretty much slugs ... hate to say it and always get flamed
> when I do, but it's true.  :^(

Of course the ur-quattro was detuned for the US market.

That said, I very rarely meet a car that is performing the way Audi
intended.  Number one culprit in the WR engine is the inlet air
temperature sender - don't forget that these cars don't store ECU codes
but _can_ back off performance if the ECU sees something it doesn't
like.  I venture that 60+% of the WRs I see have defective inlet air
temperature senders.  A bunch more have defective coolant temperature
senders or defective thermo-pneumatic valves.

The later engines _do_ store codes, and it's therefore all the more
amazing that very few dealers check for codes as part of standard
service.  Even if they do, most cars are doing low mileages and visit
dealers only once a year - that's a long time to go to discover that
the WOT switch is dead and you're 40% down on performance.

--
 Phil Payne
 UK Audi quattro Owners Club
 Phone: 0385 302803   Fax: 0870 0883933