re. DANG IT! Re: My red 5k-t-q
t44tqtro at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 17:32:35 EDT 2006
Maybe it's a variation from car to car? My old '91 200q could achieve
26-27mpg on a long
highway cruise, with the A/C on, running 255mm summer tires and cruising at
a steady 85-90
the whole time. Lehmann chipset, 2.5 bar PT.
Now I couldn't get better than 17mpg around town in the same car with the
same tires and A/C
on, but the highway was the car's element.
I can't understand your neighbor- I would want the 20v simply for the more
management and better torque curve more than anything else. It's definitely
not an economy car-
that's the role of something like a Civic, which can easily do 34mpg in the
I wouldn't feel bad with the economy numbers you're posting- the Beetle
isn't much better- 20/25 city/highway
and that's a 2.slow slushbox that's not much fun to drive.
On 4/24/06, Ben Swann <benswann at comcast.net> wrote:
> Agreed mostly, and yes I have chipped the 2c20v's and my chips are as good
> as the others you mentioned BTW and cost less.
> I disagree on the fuel mileage, I never had problem getting 28+ MPG
> and 24 around town a 5000 turbo Q avant and chipped cars do better than
> unchipped - go figure. I have not been able to break 25MPG on the 2C20v's
> not bad, but around town they usually don't do better than 20. You simply
> can not beat the earlier aerodynamic and lighter 5000 and 200 models which
> is on par with a lot or todays economy cars.
> Would I take an earlier 5k or 200 over a '91 - NO. But my neighbor wants
> earlier model for the fuel economy, and I don't blame him.
> benswann at comcast.net
> 83 urq, / =oooo= \ alpine and Inga
> '90 Coupe Quattro (==\ oooo /==) ES2 Conversion
> 91 200qa20v, [ =!\=oooo=/!= ] avant and sedan
More information about the 200q20v