[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: A4 "Better" than an M3 for 6K?

>They ain't no way you could even keep close to just a stock A4Q with >an M3 on wet/slushy/snowy roads.  You will have great trouble even 
>keeping the M3 *ON* the road, much less making good speed with it.  
>Good studded snow tars all 'round would help the bimmer but it still
>will be all over the place.
>BTDT - have the t-shirt.
>Now, if we are talking dry weather and clear roads, maybe ya gotta 
>point. However, if you let me pick the roads (meeting the dry/clean
>specifications) you might still have a race on your hands, especially
>if we include that $6K worth of mods mentioned below.  :-)


You make a good point.  Then again, who goes whipping around at REAL
"performance speeds" when it is wet/slushy/snowy?  Not me in LA, that's
for sure (too much oil on the heavily trodden roads when wet).

BTW, if you follow this line of reasoning, any A4Q can be said to smoke
a Porsche Turbo/Ferrari F50-F40/Callaway Corvette/etc, if you are only
talking about inclement conditions.  IMHO, when most people speak of
their performance, thay are speaking of dry conditions.

The 6K figure is way low.  How do I know?  I recently drove both cars
(in the wet mind you) on the same day, and 6K worth of mods will simply
not get the A4Q to the M3 range (in the dry).

The Judge

'90 80Q (Terror of the 405)
'86 Scirocco 16V (Wolfsburg Ed.)
'85 5KCS (Don't Ask)