Re: Crash Test Results for Older Audis, and a Dodge Colt

[Lawrence C Leung <l.leung@juno.com>]

Consider that the 5K to 100 went from * to ***** for what was essentially
the same car with added seat belt tensioners, drivers airbag and required
firewall superstructure, I would believe that the 80/90 would have
improved. I am curious as to whether any 4K test results were done on the
5 cyl models. I would expect that they would do worse due to the shorter
crush space. Ditto for 5cyl models of the 80/90. (I assumed that since
hte test published was for an '80 4K, that the car must have been a 4 cyl
model. I don't recall 5 cyl models arriving then).

Larry - '89 2CQT, '85 GTI (Solo2)

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:47:14 EST Kwattro@aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 99-12-09 22:38:23 EST, you write:
>
><<  I am glad to see my 80 performed well, although the older Audis 
>were
> cracker boxes on wheels I see. >>
>
>I really doubt the results between a 80, a 4000, and a 5000 would look 
>like 
>that, although it is possible.  For all intents and purposes, the 4000 
>and 
>the 80 are almost the same car, and a doubt that frontal impact 
>structural 
>rigidity was up 400% over the 4000.  Although, I could be wrong.
>
>Later!
>Carter J
>Kwattro@aol.com