Conference terri::cars_uk

>>    one of the possibilities. Comparisons against two wheel drive
>>    performance cars would be good.
    
    Is there any comparison ?
    
    J.R.

    Jeremy Clarkson seems quite impressed with the S2 in an article
    in the latest edition of Performance Car. He says that the S2 has
    been given relatively bad press recently due to it being compared
    to the old Quattro Turbo.  Considering the cars JC was comparing
    the S2 with though, I gather it must be quite a car. 
        Also, considering the weather in this country, if I had the 
    money, this would be the car for me. I can't imagine that any 2wd 
    car could compete. Don't buy one if you like oversteer though.
    
    
    Jerome.

>>    been given relatively bad press recently due to it being compared
>>    to the old Quattro Turbo.  Considering the cars JC was comparing
    
    In which case, why not go for the last of the Quattro's (20V) ?
    
    I find it hard to view the S2 as a 'performance car', even though
    it no doubt has impressive performance.
    
    It seems too much like 'just another Audi with 4WD' - whereas the
    original is much more like 'a classic'.  Having said that, I've
    tried out a couple of the early ones and found them boring and
    not all that fast.  The later incarnations are reportedly *much* better,
    but I've not been in any of them.
    
    J.R.

The old Audi Quattro's fly quite well...

:-)

>>The old Audi Quattro's fly quite well...
    
    Know someone who's performed a dodgy stunt in one then ?
    
    Or were you on about their performance (with 'flying' being used
    as a nice simple colloquial term) ?
    
    J.R.

    
    Audi S2 coupe was measured in one car mag here in Finland and it
    took 5.9 secs from 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph?). Top speed they didn't
    measure, but according to factory, it is 248 km/h.
    
    By the way, it went faster from 0-100 km/h than factory advertised!
    
    Torque in this car was also stunning.
    
    
    Hannu

    The S2 Quattro Coupe does compete well with the old Quattro Turbo Coupe
    in terms of sheer brute force. Unfortunately the traction and handling
    of the S2 is not as 'good' as the old Quattro.
    
    Audi have softened the ride, at the expense of the two points mentioned
    above, but this is still one hell of a machine. Where the S2 scores
    better is in safety and engineering refinement. 
    
    What you don't get with the S2 is that howling throaty roar that the old 
    turbo Quattro gave off......that really was/is  the best thing about it...
    truly superb! Nor do you get the 'macho' aggressive looks of the old 'beast'
    The Quattro Coupe is a legend within the motoring world, and Audi realise 
    that it cannot be directly replaced with the S2. They are different
    machines in many respects, but they are both 4wd turbo Audi's, and that's 
    good enough. Forget the 4wd Vauxhalls, Toyota's and the likes. Only the
    Audi offers the real thing!!!  
      
    As for comparing it with two wheeled cars...are you kidding?
      

    
    Most reviewers prefer the Integrale to ANY Audi Quattro (except
    possibly the very silly Sport).
    
    Mark

    
    re -1:
    
    	But how about after 5 years of driving Integrale? Do you think
    	it is still as new? I think you can push it to junkyard.
    	
    	
    
    	Hannu

    Most 'reviewers' that I've heard comment on 4wd could not tell the 
    difference between an ash tray and a steering wheel!
    
    As for the 4wd Integrale....nice car, but the Audi Coupe WAS/IS build and
    engineered to take 4wd, not have a basic two wheeled chassis modified
    to accept the 4wd drive train!
    
    Most manufacturers offer 4wd, but they are using chassis from two
    wheeled car development. The power to weight ratio's and distributions
    leave a great deal to be desired with SOME of the Audi 'clones'.
    On the other hand, I doubt if Honda have failed to get it right in all 
    aspects! 
    
    

    
    Well I've not driven an Audi Quattro, but are you seriously telling me
    that an Integrale is deficient? Have you driven one? I wouldn't argue
    about the longevity of the Audi over the Integrale and I've read/heard
    some horror stories about Integrale reliability, but on the road it's
    an amazing piece of machinery.
    
    The old Quattro is rather agricultural in design compared with the 
    Integrale (and things like the Celica), but I don't know how the new
    S2 compares with the old in design (mechanical, not bodywork). I read
    a review which was quite complimentary about the S2, saying it was the
    spiritual successor to the old Turbo Quattro, but maybe they were
    having trouble with ashtray identification too! :^)
    
    Mark
    
    PS Wasn't weight distribution one of the old Quattro's biggest
    problems? (Being very nose heavy).

    Having driven a 4wd Toyota Celica on a few occasions, and having
    driven the Audi Quattro Coupe I gained a blunt understanding of how the 
    Japs approach 4wd technology.....quite simply they don't really!...ok
    the Celica went well and handled fine, but it just did not
    'feel' as solid, or as well engineered as the Quattro Coupe Turbo, a car 
    which has the most amazing road holding/manners, and 4wd engineering 
    refinement that I have ever came across....truly superior! 
    
    No, I have not driven a Integrale, so I cannot comment.
    
    However I'll say it again.....the Audi Quattro/S2 is/was ENGINEERED and 
    developed around 4wd technologies!!....it makes the world of difference 
    when you get behind the wheel. 
    
    
                                                             
       

>>    The old Quattro is rather agricultural in design compared with the 
>>    Integrale (and things like the Celica), but I don't know how the new
>>    S2 compares with the old in design (mechanical, not bodywork). I read
    
    I also don't know about the mechanical design under the S2, but I
    would be VERY surprised if it was substantially different to its
    predecessor.
    
>>    PS Wasn't weight distribution one of the old Quattro's biggest
>>    problems? (Being very nose heavy).

    
    Yep, original Quattro was a development from a front-wheel-driver,
    in which the engine was further ahead (of front wheels) than in
    almost all other front-drivers.  Adding 4WD trickery to this was
    a definite recipe for serious understeer.  But, more grip was still
    the result, with turbo-power this led to the Group 4 rally winner.
    
    J.R.

    Diving in on the 4WD arguement...
    
    The noter who could not distinguish the ashtray from the steering whell
    has a real problem  ;-)
    
    I drive a Sierra Sapphire 4x4 (a rarity in itself).  Having had several
    Sierras this one is definitely different.  Although no ball of fire in
    the straight line, traffic light grand prix, the traction and grip on
    corners is terrific.  With a 60/40 bias to the rear through viscous
    coupling it makes the handling well balanced and neutral.  Limited slip
    diffs ensure that traction is always there even in the wet or on loose
    surfaces.  On a wet road you can make it understeer or oversteer
    depending on how you set it up for the corner but it's always
    controllable.  You would have to be a *real* prannie to `fly' it!  IMO
    you can forget 2WD.
    
    I have not driven the new Audi but it is on my list for next time along
    with the Mitsubishi Galant 4WD.  The original Audi Quattro was fast but
    as already noted the handling left a lot to be desired mainly due to
    the drive being split 50/50.  A decade has now passed and the engineers
    at Audi have had some stiff competition to measure up to and from what
    I have read so far, they have produced a fine car for the enthusiast
    driver.  It's just the price tag......
    
    
    Alan

    re .14 
    
    A Sierra?.....what a "pile of junk" in the road holding department.
    
    Please put your head in gear before your mouth. MY opinion is
    solely, that most, but not all of the people who test drive these cars 
    have no mechanical engineering/design background, and would not know a 
    good car from the bad one! All I hear/read in these reports is silly 
    little comments like 'I don't like the Audi because it does not have 
    enough room in the boot for 23 suitcase's, a great dane, my granny, and a 
    washing machine.  
    
    It was NEVER built for that purpose, just like the Sierra never being 
    designed as a 4wd express 
    
    It's quality not quantity that counts....the Sierra cannot even sit on
    the road at speeds over 110 mph, before it's nose starts to lift, and
    the steering becomes vague. That's according to a friend who has a
    Sierra as his rep mobile. the "pile of junk" statement was his quote.
    
    As for me, well lets just say that I know a bit about cars, and can
    usually tell the difference between the ashtray and that thing one
    steers the car with
    

    Re. 50/50 torque split on old Quattro
    
    This was the case up until the late years of its life.
    Eventually, Audi came to their sense and fitted a decent diff
    to the central transmission.  They also improved the engine,
    which was just a nice bonues for anyone who bought these cars.
    
    Re. :-
    
>>    A Sierra?.....what a "pile of junk" in the road holding department.
>>    
>>    Please put your head in gear before your mouth. MY opinion is
    
    Without trying to get stroppy, I think you should put your head in
    gear before making this sort of statement.
    
    Your comments on the 'pile of junk' handling you have passed on from
    someone with the rep-mobile version.  Consider that the suspension
    of the 4x4 will be 're-engineered', then your statement is not exactly
    going to be directly relevant.
    
    Otherwise, we could spout on about the Quattro being crap because it
    has the same handling as the front-wheel-drive coupe (also untrue).
    
    Re. your comments on the Quattro being engineered as 4wd, I would
    beg to differ, barring my above comment relating to the Ford.
    The design of the Audi is that of a front-wheel-drive transmission
    with an additional drive being taken to the rear.  Quite reasonable,
    and effective - in Audi, Lancia, Mitsubishi, Toyota versions too.
    
    If you want to discuss the 'correct' technical solutions for forming
    four-wheel-drive, you would probably end up deciding that it is
    better for the transmission to be based on a rear-wheel drive
    model originally (if not to be designed from scratch).  The position
    and orientation of the engine would likely enter this discussion.
    
    
    Note, I am not a Ford fan, nor an Audi fan, but I can see the merits
    of each of these vehicles (and of the integrale which I had).  Since
    most comments are personal opinions, we will all differ, but to go on
    that other peoples opinions are crap but then to state that your own
    opinions are much better is not going to reach any conclusion.
    
    J.R.

Re: .5

>    Know someone who's performed a dodgy stunt in one then ?
    
Well there was this Quattro, which managed to get from the road, over a high
grass verge, over a low stone wall, down a drop of about 10 feet and landed on
all four wheels about 70 feet out in the middle of a heavily ploughed field,
and not a mark anywhere to show how it got there... 

So therefore...they must fly well :-)

    
    Re .17
    
    Works with Mk2 Escorts too!
    
    Mark

    re .16 and .17.....we should enter that statement in the VOGON BALLS
                       next time round...a classic!
    
    Once again the Sierra can't sit on the road at high speeds....and it's
    got nothing to do with the steering, 4wd or suspension. It's because the
    chassis/body of the Sierra just thing ain't up to it!. Of course Ford
    bolt on just about everything on to the front of it (spoilers) to keep it
    down, but still it's a "pile of junk" at high speeds...from the same
    rep who has driven a 4x4 too!
    
    Audi: Contrary to popular belief, the original Coupe was designed and 
    engineed as a 4wd machine, first and foremost. The two wheeled variants 
    came later.  
                                        

    
    Why did Audi stick the engine so far out in front of the front wheels
    then? It would seem a pretty poor move to provide good handling.
    
    Mark

    re .16 again!
    
    Oh I forgot...the Audi Coupe 2wd handles great even at high speeds (not
    crap)....and thats NOT my own self-centred biased opinion...just a
    fact!
    
    I've NEVER heard anyone slagging it off, on the handling stakes, but
    the Sierra on the other hand.....oh dear!

>>    down, but still it's a "pile of junk" at high speeds...from the same
>>    rep who has driven a 4x4 too!
    
    Don't knock it untill you've tried it yourself.  I have driven a normal
    Sierra 4x4, and have little doubt about it's handling capabilities.  As
    for the high speed stability, perhaps you will be able to enter a
    qualified response when you have been there in person !
    
    Shaun.
    

    
    Are we suffering from a wind-up here?
    
    Mark

    I ain't knocking the Sierra, I just don't think we are comparing apples
    with apples here. The Sierra is a good car, but as a high speed express
    it has had a GREAT deal of bad press (all models).
    
    My old man gave me his Sierra for a couple of days, and I must admit it
    felt stable and sure footed enough, but to compare it with my Audi Coupe
    is not really fair...they are completely different cars. 
    
    However, I know the one I'd like to be sitting in, if I had to drive
    at a high speed.

    The argument seems to have changed tack a bit now.
    
    Are we comparing four-wheel-drive systems and 'performance cars',
    or comparing the difference in how manufacturers have implemented
    4wd, or simply whether a plain vanilla Audi Coupe is better than
    a Sierra (I'd favour the Audi myself) ?
    
    As for body styles, this is a problem for just about all of the
    'common' vehicles on the road when they make faster versions.
    
    The faster they make them, the more this is a problem.
    Witness the massive rear spoiler on Cosworth Sierra's (and Escorts)
    or for even more proof check out the aerodynamic aids on the
    Audi Quattro Sport, Evolution model !
    
    Mind you, that had so much power it could lift it's front wheels
    on tarmac - that's serious understeer !!!
    
>>    However, I know the one I'd like to be sitting in, if I had to drive
>>    at a high speed.
    
    If I'm going to be driving at high speed, it probably won't be in
    either of these vehicles (and it won't be in my Jeep, even though
    that has got permanent four-wheel-drive). 
    
    
    On to your comments of the Audi being originally deigned for 4wd,
    can you provide a bit more info ?  I will accept that Audi had an
    intention to equip their cars with 4wd, and that may have been
    considered when designing the coupe model.  Thing is, wasn't the
    four-wheel-drive tried out in some form as a VW Iltis, *after*
    the Audi Coupe had been in production for some time ?
    
    Of course, once Audi did decide on their 4wd implementation, they
    persuaded the motorsport controlling body to allow it in rallying.
    The rest, as they sat, is history...
    
    J.R.

    
    I'm not sure of the exact Coupe/Iltis history, but isn't it true that
    the Audi Coupe is and was based on the Audi 80 floorpan?
    
    Mark

    Audi's Prof Piech thought out the Quattro concept in the mid 1970's.
    the Coupe concept was borne out of the rear-driven Jensen Interceptor
    7.0 litre FF.
    
    Before all this, Piech looked at a big-engined, 2wd drive Audi version of 
    the big Jensen, as Audi were planning an attack on the world rally
    scene...still only a concept. 
    
    The Prof decided not to lump the big engine into a "Coupe" of some
    sort, and began experimenting with 4wd..he "hacked" he took an Audi 
    2wd 80, and fitted it up with his thought out 4wd torson based drive 
    train.
    
    He then took the Audi management up to a hill which the local fire
    brigade had covered in a sea of water..from which came mud. the Audi 80
    4wd concept car was driven up the hill.....the Audi management were
    sold!.
    
    The Coupe (code name A1) shell came out of the 80, with the Coupe being 
    the first Audi PRODUCTION car to have the 4wd system fitted. 
    
    The later 2wd, 2.2i 2.0i 1.9 and 1.8i coupes came afterwards
    
    The rest is history!
    

    
    The FF was a 4WD car. FF stood for Fergusson something-begining with
    F?. 
    
    The Coupe may well have been first released in 4WD form, but the 80
    front wheel drive floorpan restricted the layout. It wasn't "designed" 
    to be 4WD (I can't think of any road car with that distinction).
    
    The Quattro concept was streets ahead of the competition when first
    released, but in terms of 'technology' (which from your comments on 
    the Toyota I suspect you are confusing with build quality) it was 
    quickly surpassed by much of the competition. As I say, I don't know
    the spec of the S2, I'd imagine it must be more advanced than the
    original Quattros.
    
    I'd rather be in a Quattro than a Sierra, but then again the word
    Lada could well be exchanged for Quattro! (Only joking :^)).
    
    Mark
    
    PS I think the new coupe is a great looking car from most angles. Very
    aggressive looking.

    Re .19 and other ridiculous comments by ::WILSON
       
�    Once again the Sierra can't sit on the road at high speeds....and it's
�    got nothing to do with the steering, 4wd or suspension. It's because the
�    chassis/body of the Sierra just thing ain't up to it!. Of course Ford
�    bolt on just about everything on to the front of it (spoilers) to keep it
�    down, but still it's a "pile of junk" at high speeds...from the same
�    rep who has driven a 4x4 too!
    

    Well ::WILSON, if I mixed with reps I wouldn't advertise the fact.
    Talking to reps clearly helps you to become a know it all.
    
    You'll know that the chassis and suspension of the 4x4 was modified by
    FORD SVE (you'll know what that stands for too).

    You'll also know that I owned an XR4x4 and did 80,000 miles. And
    you won't need reminding that I did many of those at high speed.
    You can't have forgotten how good the car was can you? But you'll
    know you haven't driven one, so you couldn't have forgotten could
    you?
   
    I could tell you. But I'm not a rep so you're probably not listening.
    
    

� The FF was a 4WD car. FF stood for Fergusson something-begining with F?. 

    Fergusson Formula (and it was 6.3 or 7.2 litres)

    Fergusson converted a lot of cars like the Senator and the Stag. 

� ...a Sierra Sapphire 4x4 (a rarity in itself).

    Not round these parts it's not !

    It seems that not `tuning in' yesterday afternoon I missed al the fun.
    
    I do not intend to sink to Mr Wilson's level.  He adequately displays
    all the features of someone who has never driven the Sierra 4x4 and
    clearly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
    
    Interesting that the Jensen FF has cropped up here.  I drove one of
    these in the early 70's courtesy of my then racing partner who had his
    own garage business.  He used to service this gents cars - an Aston
    DB4, the Jensen FF and an Interceptor II as well as an early 3.8 E
    type.  As he did a collect and deliver service and I was registered on
    his trade plates I used to get to drive all of this exotica.  The
    lasting memory of both the Jensens is one of shere solidness.  This
    massively heavy car that (for its day) had excellent road manners and
    brakes (the original Dunlop ABS).  The only thing that let it down was
    the vague steering.  The FF was well ahead of it's time but was to the
    best of my knowledge the first of the performance 4x4s.
    
    The original Audi Quattro was undoubtably a milestone in the
    development of road going 4x4s and it stands to reason that other
    manufacturers will improve the design and therefore `leap frog' the
    original.  I suspect from what I read that Audi have returned the
    compliment with the S2.  At the first opportunity I will try one as my
    Sieera 4x4 leasemobile will be for a change in less than a year at the
    current mileage rate!
    
    
    

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    Well, Butcher, you can't have one if you can't spell it properly.

    The S2  is  brill,  steering  is a bit light for me, but very stable at
    high  speed (better than the M3).  I'm still running it in (50Km to go)
    so  I've  not had it over 220 yet, but its official registration papers
    (Fahrzeugshein)  here  shows it to max out at 248.  (M3 was 235).  This
    is 154 MPH.  It's much faster than the Old "Quattro".

    The Audi  Coup�  is  a follow on to the previous coup�.  The Coup�s all
    came  with  optional  4WD,  but  there was a top line model called just
    "Quattro"  which  was  the  mean  beast.   It  had  flared arches, a al
    Integrale,  so  they're easy to spot.  All Audis now come with optional
    4WD.   The  old  80's  used  to  be  poor  mans 90s, but now the 90 has
    dissappeared.

    I don't  think  Audi  will  market  the S2 as a replacement for the old
    "Quattro",  but  it's  certainly  better  than  all  the old Coup�s.  I
    would've loved the replacement for the old Quattro.

    I'll give  the  Integrale  a  comparison as soon as it's owner gets his
    licence back :)

    I've also  driven  the  new  V6  in the Audi 80 and 100.  They are VERY
    competent  cars  at  speed.   I've  also been for a bash in the old 200
    Quattro  turbo,  and  the  stability at speed is amazing.  You just sit
    chatting while it belts along at 230.

    The S2 is very quiet at speed, not the wind noise as was in the old M3.
    The  biggest  problem I have with it is finding the space to accelerate
    into.   You  pick up speed VERY quickly.  The Turbo pulls like a train,
    and  the  deceptiveness  of speed means you can be just cruising around
    town  at  twice  the  limit with realising it.  Lack of noise means you
    have  to  keep  your eye on the speed to stay within the limits.  NO M3
    type  burble  to  impress the girlies.  At 220, you stamp on it, and it
    jumps, while the M3 would just change engine note.

    4WD can't  be beat, handling is magic.  The front end tends to wash out
    at  the  limit.   Getting  through  corners  under  full  power  is the
    technique I'm working on perfecting at the moment.

    The Turbo  must  be  kept  spinning,  off  boost  it's  snappy, but not
    awesome.  The V6 is absolutely amazing in the torque dept (spins wheels
    all  the time off the mark), but doesn't rev so well.  It's also got an
    annoying  buzz  on  backing  off.  You pull the first 2,000 rpm off the
    line really well, and then you sit there watching it struggle up to the
    red-line,  before  heading  back  into  the torquey region again.  It's
    tempting  to changeup early.  Even the front wheel drives handle really
    well, although the steering is too light.

    It chews  juice.   I  think  the car is fairly heavy.  The m3 (for it's
    power)  was amazing on fuel consumtion.  Driving the thing like a demon
    (redline  all  the time) I never got below about 22MPG around town, and
    it would go over 40 MPG at 60 odd MPH.

    A mate of mine could give me (in the M3) a real good run for money in a
    Corrado  G60  (he's a REAL maniac), although I could pull away from him
    on  the  autobahn,  if I could get him out of my slipstream.  Even if I
    got  a  substantial lead he'd just about catch up on the "merge" and up
    the exit ramp.  A real maniac.

    He's raced  one  of  these S2's in his Corrado, and he said he couldn't
    get near it. I'm hoping this will give me the edge.

			    I'm not a contractor.

    Dennis,
    		Well I can't speel and I haf nown thys four sum tym. Maybe
    when you have the time you can come and scare the living sh*t out of me,
    like when I was over here about a year ago and you were asked to take
    a rather sickly looking me back to Ismaning for my luggage that I had
    forgotten ( This has now proven without a doubt I am thick 1.
    forgetting my luggage and 2. asking Dennis to show me how the M3
    'goes'. That'll teach me to try and keep up with Dezzzz on the old
    Guiness and tequila :-) ).
    
    So come on Dennis finish your breakfast and your reports and get that
    beast over here as soon as possible. Dennis have you driven a Ford 4x4
    to compare the S2 with ?
    
    
    		Chris
    
    P.S. I totally agree with the very accurate description of the 'man
    possessed' image given to our Corrado driving friends.

    
    
    Mebbe that S4 prototype - the orange beastie - will replace the
    image of the old Quattro. Have Audi agreed to build it yet?
    
    Richard.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

	    The S4 is an ordinary old Audi 100 with 230 horsies.

    
    
    So what's the name of the orange beast Audi have been dragging round
    the motor shows?
    
    It's some kind of 4wd super machine.... (probably not as super as
    yours though. Den ;-))
    
    Richard.

    
    Is it the Avus? A suitably Teutonic name, what is it with Audi and
    these pseudo Nazi phrases?
    
    Mark

    
    
    The yellow thing is the spyder isn't it, due to be released in limited
    numbers in 1993. Its being priced below the entry level Porsche and
    causing some problems for Mr Piech (sp) in the process.
    

    .38�    The yellow thing is the spyder isn't it, due to be released in limited
    .38�    numbers in 1993. Its being priced below the entry level Porsche and
    
    I'm afraid this is only a dream. Audi officials have said they did not
    plan any production of the spyder.
    
    The silver beast is the AVUS (shown at Tokyo Motor Show). It's got 4WD,
    plenty of hp and plenty of other things. Won't be produced either.

I'm looking at picking up an '85 Quattro. Very tidy 2 owner vehicle. Anyone
out there got any comments about owning one of the earlier examples ?

Yup, the MOST important thing is a full service record! Mine had no service history
but I was lucky. It was an 83 (I owned it three years ago) it had 95000 miles on
the clock (yes really) and it was almost in showroom condition. In the time I 
owned it I did another 30k miles. It cost me 7K to buy, the most expensive thing
I had to buy (apart from tyres) was  a new exhaust manifold (450 quid). The turbo
was never a problem. The front engine mountings went early on, and cost a 100 or
so to replace. When I sold it (for 7.5K ;-) ) I had been warned by the garage 
that I would need a new exhaust (900 quid!).

As a road car I loved it (almost as much as my 911S), but if you drive it like
it's mean't to be driven, buy a push-bike, it'll be the only legal transport for you
soon!

If you are really interested, call me or mail me, I had a fair experience with it,
I reckon it's probably the best value performance machine you can get, but the 
final analysis was that it cost more than my aircraft to own! 

So, I kept the plane and bought a 2CV!

  Nigel

    well done .40 - now the proud owner of an 85, two owner wee red racer.
    
    cant wipe the smile off his face!!!

Well, some driving impressions vis a vis the old 309 GTi.

The quattro is very solid and stable. Brilliant at speed. Build quality and
"ambience" leave the Pug for dead.

Chassis feel doesn't compare to the gti. The Pug communicates with you every
second so that you are always aware of what is happening. This means that you
can drive a->b safely fast. The Audi is faster but at the expense of leaving
you a bit in the dark as to whether you're at 5/10th's or 8. Disconcerting.
I need to find a large open piece of gravel to find how the car responds
at the limit. Initial understeer tendancy but evens out at speed. Never really
changes though. The Pug has absolutely brilliant turn in to corners which lets
you place the car to within cm's to achieve the fastest lines. With the quattro
it doesn't seem to matter much.

Great brakes and large pieces of rubber on the road mean that roadholding and
safety (including it's weight) is awesome.

Very strong engine in the quattro. It will run all day at high speeds without a 
hint of temperature of other problem. It doesn't have the jerky low speed running
of the GTi although I miss the throttle response of the Pug at times.

A lovely looking car. Mine is deep red, and has leather, roof and air con.

2 days after buying it I had the owner of the top Euro importer in town aproach 
me with an offer on the car. He told me (as I've already figured out) that 
the original quattro would be an appreciating asset.

Overall a good move after the Pug.

    As a owner of a quattro 10v, and thinking of splashing out for a 1990
    quattro 20v, is there anyone out there who has driven both the 10 and
    20v *and* the S2 who can post comparisons here?
    
    I'm interested in what you can get an immaculate 1990 20v for in the UK
    at the moment as well...
    
    Any comments from UK noters about the respective depreciation rates of
    the S2 versus the last of the (real) quattro's?
    
    Thanks,
    -Dave.

    Taken for the yesterdays Sunday Times :-
    
    S2	1991	20,000 miles	�22,000
    S2	1992	27,000 miles	�29,950
    S2	1991	20,000 miles	�21,000
    
    No 10v or 20v ``classic'' quatros for sale.
    
    Also ...
    
    	Ferrari	246GT		�34,000
    		328GTS		�29,995
    		308GTS		�28,000
    		308GTB QV	�23,995
    	Honda	NSX		�35,000
    
    	Noter will swap Linn Audio System for any of the above :-)

    Thanks Rik, but I've already got a Linn :-)
    
    -Dave.

    well, it's decision time on the quattro turbo 20v...
    
    it really is a more refined car then the 10v, more supple suspension, as
    well as having an edge in absolute perfromance, especially through the
    gears-type performance...
    
    anyone out there who can make comparisons with the S2, or other cars of
    similar performance, quality etc. etc. etc.
    
    -Dave.