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

Re: Sad but true, TQC < TQ

     It sounds as if you may have proven that a very hard suspension (urQ) 
     isn't as well suited to the real world as a more stock suspension 
     (5KT).  You have modified the car which was likely set up stiffer in 
     the first place, and made fewer changes to the family car.  Bad 
     On a flat track, stiffer springs coupled with rock-hard Konis (set to 
     max hard you say) and larger (read heavier) tires will be great 
     because it keeps the car flat and responsive.  On a real road, 
     however, every item listed will reduce the compliance of the 
     suspension which reduces traction on rough surfaces.  It's a relative 
     thing, but your comment that the urQ is flatter but drifts too much 
     sure points that way for me.
     I'll admit I'm biased, owning an urQ, but frankly I didn't buy it to 
     race it and the incredible speed, stability and confidence the car 
     offers under all conditions suits me just fine. 
     Richard Funnell
     Sad but true, TQC < TQ
     Well, guys, the jury is in, at least for me.  As you might know, we 
     own an
     '82 urq, a '87 5000CS TQW, and a '90 V8 Quattro.  Ever since we got 
     our tq
     wagon and upped the boost, I've wondered if it was faster and handled 
     than my beloved urq.  To be brief, it is and does.  It's sad to say, 
     but the
     5ktq is the hands down winner.
     My urq is very modified with ABT stage 3 computer, 2+ bar of boost, 
     performance springs (NOT the lowering springs), Koni's set to full 
     hard, and
     ferrodo street/track brake pads.  It has a new K26 turbo, manifold, 
     and head
     (yes, new head) with Schrick cam.  The cat is replaced with a straight 
     and the exhaust is unrestrictive.  I have cloth seats and a 4 point 
     Broken in Sumitomo 225/45/16 on BBS light 3 piece wheels are under it. 
     SHOULD kick the mostly stock 5ktq's butt.  It does not.
     The 5ktq has new Boge turbo gas front struts, 1.7 bar of boost with a 
     wastegate spring, and Dunlop D60 A2 tires on the front a one Uniroyal 
     one Goodyear VR rated tires on the back.  These are on the stock 15x6 
     wheels.  The 5ktq has new slag masters on the front.  Both have about 
     same mileage.
     I have to say, the urq FEELS faster, but on the very challenging 
     roads to our house, it is much slower when timed.  It also doesn't 
     stop as
     quickly, so I couldn't go that deep into the turns.  The urq was 
     flatter in
     the turns (probably because it is lower), but it drifts a lot more 
     than the tq.
     I am very disappointed.  All I could think about was how I would trade 
     car in a minute for an S4, 5-speed V8, '90 200 wagon or '91 200 (yes I 
     the '91 is a 20v).  Unless I do an engine upgrade to the newer 10v or 
     and replace the antiquated fuel injection computer, I don't think this 
     is going to get any quicker.  An even if I did, the handling is the 
     it's going to get.  I can solve the stopping problem by installing the 
     piston calipers I have sitting in my garage, though.  And I resigned 
     definitely do that now before the track days start up again.
     Sorry to start this argument up again guys, but I though you might 
     want to
     know.  BTW, the 5ktq is much quicker than the V8.  I think the V8's 
     is too "vague"; obviously they were going for luxury here.
     I think I'll sell the urq and buy a high mileage 5ktq for a couple of 
     and turn IT into a full time track car.
     John Karasaki
     Quattro Club (regional & national) member