windage tray in oil sump
t44tqtro at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 11:35:36 EST 2005
What makes the type 44 a lousy track car?
1. reliability- the cars are, at the newest, 14 years old- putting the
car through a high stress environment like a trackday is not the best
thing, often results in costly repairs.
2. weight- someone else mentioned the trans-am cars, but they're
stripped race cars- other than a stripped-out race car, they're heavy
cars- requires a lot of rubber, eats up that rubber, eats brake pads,
takes a toll on brakes in general, VERY unforgiving once you get that
high polar moment lump hanging over the front axle out of shape.
3. wheelbase and width- while they are not the widest cars out there,
they're really long wheelbase and long length in general- much harder
to hustle through any of the tighter courses, much exacerbated on an
autox course, of course.
4. suspension- without resorting to extreme measures of large bars and
high rate springs, I don't see how you can get the car to corner flat.
Because of this body roll, you can take a really serious toll on
tires, killing the outer sidewalls- BTDT, seen it firsthand as well
x2. How you propose fixing this problem, I'd like to know, especially
if you want to keep the car streetable.
The good points are that the car is relatively inexpensive to buy
(although expensive to maintain), powerful, has pretty good outward
visibility and benign handling until you push it to the limit. The car
is really a handful once you get it to the limit, though- Tor*en
spi*er or whatever, the high polar moment of the heavy engine in front
of the axle makes it nearly impossible to recover once you get it out
of shape. Also, the high front weight bias makes it very tricky under
braking (back end can get very loose).
Are these enough FACTS for you?
Going to Driver's Ed events is fine with really any car, but if you
plan on putting some serious money into the car, a big Audi sedan is
not a good choice.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:29:05 -0500, Phil Rose <pjrose at frontiernet.net> wrote:
> At 10:11 PM -0500 1/23/05, Taka Mizutani wrote:
> >I didn't say it wasn't fun to drive, nor did I say you cannot track
> >it. Just that there are much better platforms to use for track cars.
> Gosh, you said *all that*, did you? The problem is that all we saw
> is...well, what you *actually* did say. So you (and Bernie) might
> need to re-read your original words:
> "... IMHO, a type 44 is a lousy track car. Benign, but lousy."
> That is a pretty unqualified condemnation. No modifying context
> available in that post to "soften" your intent, other than your
> admission, "... I had not really tracked the car that hard."
> >I'm sorry that you feel otherwise-
> Gosh--no reason to feel sorry for me-- I have loads of fun and
> continue to be challenged to get the best out of my car at the
> track--no matter what your opinion of "the platform" might be. My
> reason for questioning your opinion had less to do with you or with
> me, and more about the unjustifiably negative influence you comment
> could have on new owners who look forward to enjoying their cars at
> track events.
> Now, if one intends to *race* against the likes of a Porsche Carrera,
> or a Corvette , or even a 2004 S4 (and any number of other cars that
> are either lighter, better balanced or quicker than the "type 44"),
> then the hefty, understeering '91 200q would indeed be a "lousy"
> choice. But I think the racing mentality (which is easy to fall into,
> considering the race-course surroundings) runs contrary to the
> essence (or goal) of the track-event, which is based upon becoming a
> better driver, fun and safety. This means acquiring the skills to
> safely drive your car--whatever it is-- better and more smoothly
> each time. Bringing it closer and closer to its limits, and of
> course, doing that at speeds well in excess of what would be
> reasonable to do on public roads (that's the "fun" part). With that
> perspective, there's hardly such thing as a "lousy track car".
> Exceptions might be vehicles with utterly unpredictable handling or
> characteristics that make them difficult (or unsafe) even at legal
> highway speeds-- a Ford Explorer is a "lousy track car". Ditto for
> some others we might think of....
> So, you do admit that "...it was fun to drive..." What made it so
> unqualifiedly "lousy"? Not nearly enough bass response? Bad window
> tinting? Orange tail lights?
> I'll put in my own harsh opinion about the type 44 at the track: the
> comfort seats are "lousy".
> Phil Rose
> Rochester, NY
> mailto:pjrose at frontiernet.net
More information about the 200q20v