[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: Is the UrQ really a supercar?
Re-compute that inflation cost based on the 1981 introduction date and not
1983 and today's cost is even higher.
>My handy, dandy CPI cost calculator tells me that an '83 UrQ costing $35k
>would now cost $56,700. Add in product improvements, safety changes, USD
>vs DM factors, and who knows what else and it certainly is a $70k machine,
I think the UrQ is as cool as the next guy, in fact I'm looking for one (who
got to the 85 at American Ford before I could call?), but my impression was
that though its virtues were great and unprecedented at the time, there is
little difference between it and a Turbo Quattro sedan/Coupe GT. It seems to
me Audi put together an effective image car that financed the development of
the Quattro drivetrain (but here I don't see how much engineering was really
done, as we all know it's basically Iltis+Polo+hollow front
transaxle+symmetrical rear suspension), but one that was not without fault.
I haven't had the opportunity to ride in one, but the nose-heavy layout
seems entirely ill-suited to an AWD drivetrain (has anyone tried steel
wheels in the rear only?), and indeed, lateral acceleration and slalom
figures, while good, are not phenomenal. I don't see how the UrQ could be
marketed at all today without some serious re-engineering to balance the
chassis, and what about the early 90s Coupe Quattro? How does it compare?
Your thoughts are appreciated,