[200q20v] What is Ur? and other dumb ?'s

C1J1Miller at aol.com C1J1Miller at aol.com
Thu Apr 5 00:57:53 EDT 2001

In a message dated 4/4/01 11:44:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
calvinlc at earthlink.net writes:

> Chris,
>   Those numbers were at altitude, however, the R&T magazine I have a copy of
>  has a road test at 0-60 of 7.2 and 1/4 of 15.4 at 88.5 mph.  This is very
>  similar to the Taurus SHO (I've owned both) and at sea level the two were
>  very comparable.  I know that I am running a little slower at altitude than
>  I would at sea level but when I look at the R&T test it seems to be right
>  on.

Is that the R&T review of 12/90?  They were not very specific about how they 
tested the car; sounds like they tested it on the streets of San Francisco, 
not a closed track with 5th wheel.  
Look at the C&D test, for example;
"    During all-out acceleration from a standing start, the tires put it to 
the pavement.  Also to the clutch, to its smelly detriment.  Our test car 
showed signs of battle when we picked it up
with 7000 miles on its odo: a scarred wheel rim, a plastic brake-cooling 
scoop shorn loose by violent abrasion, a drivetrain less silky than those in 
the 200s we previewed in Colorado
(C/D, November 1990).  Abuse may also have contributed to the engine-warning 
light flashing on; the engine's diagnostic memory fingered a temperature 
sensor in the intake tract and
confirmed it as intermittant.  Audi of America had Gregg Motors in Santa 
Barbara immediately replace the sensor (though we wondered later if it might 
simply have been jarred loose by
the earlier hammering).  In any case, hammering the throttle and the slippy 
clutch produced a 0-60-mph time of 6.8 seconds - very quick, but three-tenths 
shy of Audi's claim."

slippy clutch and a temp sensor problem? 

As far as the GTS goes I guess I find it hard to believe that they got
>  slower from '86 to '88.

Emissions?  Bad example?  Talk to C&D or R&T or whoever did the two tests.

I always loved the opportunity to race these
>  relatively slow Ferarris because they were easy pickings and usually
>  thoroughly embarassed the owners in my '78 (a little modified)Camaro :)  No
>  question the times will vary by driver but the MPH should be relatively
>  stable.  MPH at the end of 1/4 mile is usually very immune (i.e. no more
>  than about 1-2mph) with launches, etc.  Was the one tested in Sports Car
>  Intl. a German model, were there any differences??  I would imagine that
>  they may be a little lighter, less emissions control maybe???

I think SCI is based in California.

 I don't know
>  enough about that, but I'm sure one of you guys do.  Has anyone out there
>  run a sub 15-second 1/4 with a bone stock 200?  Regardless of times, the
>  thing that I find most amazing about the 20 valves is the constant pull 
>  the RPM range, for a T-charged engine it is unbelievable.  It changed me
>  into a believer 2.5 years ago that you can build a responsive turbocharged
>  engine.
>  --Calvin

More information about the 200q20v mailing list