Re: I Got One!

[PDQSHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-09-01 03:12:43 EDT, you write:

<< Maybe you should factor in:
 
 a) How Germans drive
  
 b) Steep Austrian and Swiss mountain passes.
 
 Whatever _we_ think - the inadequacy of vacuum resources in a turbo car is
the 
 reason _Audi_ give for their decision.
  >>
You are missing this phil....  In a big way....  As soon as you lift the
throttle on a turbo car you have vacuum.....  Any countryman anywhere that
can argue to me that there is a must for braking UNDER BOOST conditions
misses the whole concept of vaccuum vs hydraulic braking systems....   Look
at the current crop of BMW, in fact go back to 1986, ALL of them are
hydraulic systems, not a one with a turbo....   The engineering of hydraulic
vs vacuum doesn't help either argument above, define a) vs the US of A, and
our friends in the rockies, even the appalachians, just might take exception
to b).....   Think about this a while, your argument makes no sense at all...
 Plenty of turbo cars are here as well as your side of the pond that use
vacuum, not pentosin for braking power.....  Don't remember reading anywhere
that american cars could not be sold across the pond cuz of vacuum vs
hydraulic braking.....  Have you?    

Jump to race car theory, and there is NO proof to support your case
either....  Turbo cars running vacuum don't retrofit to hydraulic cuz of
safety, or cuz they brake and run boost....   It simply is two different
design philosophies phil,  vacuum as a general rule is majorly lower in
maintenance, hydraulic prolly a better design principle, but very high
maintenance costs.....   There is no pump in a vacuum system, it's the motor
and pressure hoses are carrying vacuum not 2200psi....  Simple low
maintenance, lasts the life of the pump (save maybe a diaphram rip) ...
 Hardly the case for hydraulic brakes....   Don't make the argument any more
complicated than it is, it's a philosophy that has NOTHING to do with
turbos....  Please do correct me with audi documentation.....

Scott