[200q20v] Need expert opinion after testdrive before buying
200q20v at moregraphics.nl
Mon Nov 19 01:00:48 EST 2001
Today I've been looking at two 1990 200tqa20v's, one from a dealer and one
from a private owner, and don't know what to do. Your opinion could help me
The dealer car had 166K Km's. Looking under the car showed clear evidence
there was a serious oil leak, there was so much oil on the pan and
surroundings (but not on the ground) it was hard to tell where it came from.
It wasn't 'fresh' sticky oil though, it had a diluted with water effect
The battery was leaking (corroded pole) so we had to jump-start the car.
Surprisingly it started immediately and without any the suspected smelly
exhaust smoke. But it didn't run smooth at all, even after a while when it
was warm. There was also this rattling noise caused by the lifters and a
bearing noise. Note: there was 1l oil short according to the dipstick. Also
the left CV joint boot was completely split open and grease was all over the
place but not on the joint; it was almost 'clean' and dry.
When I start complaining about all this he said it would be fixed when I
bought the car, black on white, just had to sign for it, so I could sue them
afterwards if they didn't. When I would buy the car he would give me another
3 months full warranty on the engine, but only the engine. Does the so
called 'revision' lubricants last that long? Also the front UFO rotors where
worn badly and he would only replace them if they were to far gone to pass
the 'legally yearly car on the road test' in Holland (don't know what it's
called elsewhere). The 'bomb test seemed ok. Even though I didn't test-drive
the car (only allowed when seriously interested in buying), would it be safe
to buy this car (after test drive looks ok), even with the 3 months
The private car had given a new engine with only 80K Km's (double checked
with previous owner) and the body had 320K Km's. It had fairly new front UFO
rotors. There was some little oil dripping from the oil pan gasket. The
other engine parts looked fairly dry though. The gearbox and fuel pump
needed to be replaced or at least needed attention in the near future,
according to the current owner. The engine ran smooth, very smooth, even
though it showed some little smoke when it first started up. I think the the
'bomb' test failed: after only 5 pumps it returned stiff, but the brake
light didn't go on. This brings me to the next question: during test drive I
had the feeling I had to press the brakes hard for any effect (...so this is
the 'famous' UFO brake you'r all talking about??). My '85 Coupe has more
brake power, so it seems. Does a 'bad bomb' have any influence on the
braking power or does it only works during a emergency brake?
This lack of brake power really makes me wonder. Is this normal?
After the test drive I was a little disappointed about the overall 'low'
power of the car. On low rpm it didn't go that 'fast' as my 100Kw KV engined
'85 type 81 Coupe, only above 3-4K rpm there was a significant difference
:-). When I asked about this I was told it had to do with the weight of the
car and the turbo: simply not activated in low rpms. When does it should?
And what about the huge torque at 1950 rpm then? I did not had the feeling
it was there. Or perhaps I don't understand the nature of turbo engines ie.
never drove one before.
All this been said, which car should I buy? The price is allmost the same
($4000 -in Europe this kind of cars are rare but cheap compared to the USA
import cars) and there could be some solution for replacing the 'private'
gearbox and fuel pump, we did not talked about the bad bomb (if it's bad at
all). The current owner drives a Urquattro 20v, so I'm willing to believe he
doesn't sell a lemon to innocent and nice guys like myself...
Any advice and/or your 2 cents are most welcome. Please hurry (duhhh).
'85 Coupe GT
More information about the 200q20v