[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: urQ vs 944T
> A recent thread compared the urQ to the 944T, and it was claimed that the
> 944T was much faster. I feel obliged to defend the honor of the urQ (not
> that I'm at all biased, of course).
> What Car did a comparison test a few years ago, and it is reprinted in the
> Brooklands "Audi Quattro Gold Portfolio" (pg 116). The Audi tested faster
> in acceleration from 0 to the lower speeds, with the Porshe edging it out
> starting at about 0 to 60. In the overall choice, What Car gave the nod to
> the Quattro, which at that time (9/86) was an older model.
>I find it hard (very hard) to believe a stock (US-spec) UrQ could ever
>touch a stock 944T "off the line" (at least, without resorting to $50-
>launches [you know, where you burn off $50's worth of clutch with each
>pass]). On dry pavement, etc. etc.
>Stock (US-spec) UrQ's are trounced by clapped-out Nissan pickups "off
>the line"! Hell, a turtle on crutches will beat a stock UrQ off the line.
Note that the car in the What Car test was a Euro-spec with 200 HP. The
urQ gave away 20 HP to the 944T's 220, and the urQ did weigh a lot more.
It is very possible that the difference between US-spec and Euro-spec urQs
is greater than it is for the 944T.
My guess is that the $50-launch was used, since that seems to be standard
for car mags. After all, the drivers want the best times and don't have to
pay for the clutch.
Another possibility is that the times were reversed. In either case, each
car had a band in which it was faster than the other.
San Jose, California
'87 560 SL