RE: FS: '87 4kq Turbo

[Todd Phenneger <phen9461@uidaho.edu>]

Well put.  Fully agree.  ANd another point, if your 6'1" like me, its hard
to FIT ina 5ktq with a helmet.  I have to reclline the seat WAy back to
fit in there.  What a PITA.  I have plenty of head room in the 4kq.  And
while the 5ktq/200 is more comfortable ont he highway with quiet inside
and space for travel, the 4kq is still VERY roomy for how small it
is.  Lots of headroom and legroom is acceptable.  To bad the Trunk sucks
so bad.
l8r
	Todd

	Todd Phenneger
	1983 ur-q / black / getting a MC
	1984 4000 Turbo quattro (Faster than your average 4kq)
	1987 4000 quattro / Saphire Metallic Blue/ Girlfriend's
	1996 A6q / Volcano / Dads Car
   *****1985 5kt / PARTING OUT!
  *	http://www.uidaho.edu/~phen9461/motorsports.htm

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Kaklikian, Gary wrote:

> Since I own both a mildly-modified 5000TQ and a fairly seriously modified
> 4000TQ, I feel compelled to comment (just my opinions of course).
> 
> - A stock 4000Q is far less troublesome than a 5000TQ, primarily because it
> is a less complex car (just compare the Bentley's).
> 
> - A stock 4000Q has more responsive handling in all conditions than a
> 5000TQ, and is better in the snow. It has better torsional rigidity and
> driver feedback.
> 
> - A stock 4000Q  is seriously underpowered for high-altitude use (but then
> again so is a NA 20V coupe or  V6 Audi) and is nowhere near as comfortable
> as a 4- or even 2-passenger highway cruiser as the 5000TQ.
> 
> - Professional turbo conversions can be of high quality and worth the money
> (relatively-speaking). The "total package" is what counts --  expert advice,
> the engine rebuild, the numerous customizations, the attention to detail,
> the integration of chassis and powertrain mods, etc.
> 
> - Most Listers have sunk way more money into their cars than they can ever
> hope to recoup. Market value is whatever an enthusiast is willing to pay for
> a modified and/or well-maintained car.
> 
> - The smaller cars - UrQ's, 4000Q's - are far more suitable for track use
> than the Type 44 or other larger cars. It all depends on  how much track
> time the car will see and how much of the "streetworthiness" you're willing
> to sacrifice.  To be fast on the track, a 5000TQ would have to be
> stripped-down and purpose-built.
> 
> - I'm reluctant to use the term "PIG" to describe any Audi, but a nearly
> 2-ton Torsen-diff'd car (you know which model I'm referring to), is
> definitely not ideal for  the track. Weight and girth (not mine, the car's)
> is a definite disadvantage on the track (not to mention the Torsen, don't
> want to rekindle that thread again). 
> 
> But again, it's all relative. My track companion, ex national caliber
> Formula Mazda racer, insists my 4000TQ is "too heavy" and "won't turn in",
> even with only 10 lbs/hp (soon) and  neutral handling that borders on
> "loose" in my opinion. 
> 
> Gary Kaklikian
> 86 4kcstq
> 86 5kcstq
> 
> 
> ps Pat - I'm look forwarding to meeing up with you and some of the other
> 4000TQ owners at PIR someday. Hopefully next year. When is the QClub event
> scheduled for?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Martin [mailto:mardkins@email.msn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:26 AM
> To: Todd Phenneger; quattro list
> Cc: TM
> Subject: Re: FS: '87 4kq Turbo 
> 
> 
> Even on a track like PIR the 4ktq is way faster.  My stock motor was faster
> than a stock 5kt at Portland.  They could catch you on the main straight but
> were so slow in the corners lap times would be a second or 2 less.
> 
> And I have driven a 5kqt on that track and it is a PIG.  It is a great
> highway cruiser but its weight is a real liability in handling.
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> > However at a wide open track like PIR I think the 200/5ktq is
> > actualy potentially faster just due to aerodynamics.  ANd I owuldnt' agree
> > with Pats term of calling them Dogs or whatever it was.  they are heavy
> > but set up well they can still fly.  But they just dont feel like the
> > 4kq.  Its a much more personal car.
> > l8r
> > todd
> 
> 
>