fun topic: 200q20v VS. URS4
mike.claire at gmail.com
Fri Jul 11 11:53:27 PDT 2008
Maybe the 200's so dated it's going retro? It still looks "old" to me, but
I have learned to like it.
But I didn't buy it on looks - it was cheap and had lots of recent work (the
right stuff). I might have been trying to make up for what I've done to
myself with the S4. Audi ownership hasn't done much for my judgment I
It's a really good car, and it's different than the S4. If I drove each of
my cars blindfolded (lol) I might pick my 200 over my S4. And I have spent
4X $$$ on the S4.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, robert weinberg <centaurus3200 at yahoo.com>
> hi all,
> please educate me on the differences b/t the URS4 (1992-1995.5) and the
> from what i currently understand:
> - URS4 has steel head gasket - so can handle more boost - easy enough fix
> for the 200q20v
> - both use basically the same engine and turbo
> - what are teh differences in the trannies? i've heard the URS4 has a weak
> 2nd gear.
> - URS4 has DIS ignition
> - i assume URS4 has a tighter chassis
> - URS4 has less niggly issues with the electronics
> - what else?
> from my personal opinion, i chose the 200q20v because the URS4 seem to be
> much more expensive. the bag for the buck award seems to go to the 200q20v.
> finally, i don't know about you guys, but the 200q20v looks much more sexy
> and original than the URS4. the 200q20v has, at least to me, has the perfect
> combination of swoopy lines, but still some sharp edges for contrast. the
> URS4 always looked like a bloated A4 to me. sort of just looked like
> everything else on the road.
> what are your thoughts?
> see ya,
> 200q20v mailing list http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v
More information about the 200q20v