g

Hi

We have a 1994 Audio 80 with rear seats that don't fold down. Has
anyone tried putting in the split folding seats? It seems like it's
possible -- but would love to hear of others' experiences on what is
involved.

Thanks,
g

Rachael

> We have a 1994 Audio 80 with rear seats that don't fold down. Has
> anyone tried putting in the split folding seats? It seems like it's
> possible -- but would love to hear of others' experiences on what is
> involved.

Hi Gina

I haven't tried it myself and nor has anybody else here it seems. If you can
remove the existing seat back and there's no permanent looking bodywork or a
big upright fuel tank sitting between the boot space and cabin, I would say
you have a fair chance of making split/folding seats fit. You really need to
get a good look at an 80 with the split seats, to make some comparisons with
yours for bracketry, fixing points, trim differences etc. I have a '94 80
with folding rear seats, but I'm a long way from Dublin, sorry.

Good luck

Rachael

Spider

gina.joue@ucd.ie (g) wrote in message news:<c40b4026.0309210614.19ed0d65@posting.google. com>...
> Hi
>
> We have a 1994 Audio 80 with rear seats that don't fold down. Has
> anyone tried putting in the split folding seats? It seems like it's
> possible -- but would love to hear of others' experiences on what is
> involved.

My understanding is that the sheetmetal structure behind the seat is
necessary structural stuff. My sis-in-law has a 1990 80q - and I
don't see how it would be possible to get all the mounting stuff in
there without some major surgery. Maybe the 1994 is different.

Good luck,

Spider

Rachael

"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0310041646.3d3d1e88@posting.google.c om...
> gina.joue@ucd.ie (g) wrote in message
news:<c40b4026.0309210614.19ed0d65@posting.google. com>...

> My understanding is that the sheetmetal structure behind the seat is
> necessary structural stuff. My sis-in-law has a 1990 80q - and I
> don't see how it would be possible to get all the mounting stuff in
> there without some major surgery. Maybe the 1994 is different.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Spider

Indeed Spidey Man

Whilst both cars look pretty much identical externally, my old ('87) 90E has
fixed rear seats, a bulkhead and the fuel tank in the way. Our '94 80 TDI
has folding rear seats - the fuel tank is sort of wrapped around the spare
wheel well, under the floor, and I guess the bodyshell is designed for the
opening. I have seen the later 80's with and without split folding seats. It
may be that all the later 80 shells are constructed to allow the folding
rear seats, it would make sense from a production line point of view. I
suspect the quattro versions, with the diff, wishbones and subframe wouldn't
have the room to allow the fuel tank to sit under the floor, but I've never
looked underneath one to be certain.

As you say, if there is a bulkhead and tank in the way, it would be a right
old rigmarole to modify it for folding rear seats. Gina would be better off
buying a car with them already in.

Cheers

Rachael

Spider

"Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<blpk8u$fc5$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0310041646.3d3d1e88@posting.google.c om...
> > gina.joue@ucd.ie (g) wrote in message
> news:<c40b4026.0309210614.19ed0d65@posting.google. com>...
>
> > My understanding is that the sheetmetal structure behind the seat is
> > necessary structural stuff. My sis-in-law has a 1990 80q - and I
> > don't see how it would be possible to get all the mounting stuff in
> > there without some major surgery. Maybe the 1994 is different.
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Spider
>
> Indeed Spidey Man
>
> Whilst both cars look pretty much identical externally, my old ('87) 90E has
> fixed rear seats, a bulkhead and the fuel tank in the way. Our '94 80 TDI
> has folding rear seats - the fuel tank is sort of wrapped around the spare
> wheel well, under the floor, and I guess the bodyshell is designed for the
> opening. I have seen the later 80's with and without split folding seats. It
> may be that all the later 80 shells are constructed to allow the folding
> rear seats, it would make sense from a production line point of view. I
> suspect the quattro versions, with the diff, wishbones and subframe wouldn't
> have the room to allow the fuel tank to sit under the floor, but I've never
> looked underneath one to be certain.
>
> As you say, if there is a bulkhead and tank in the way, it would be a right
> old rigmarole to modify it for folding rear seats. Gina would be better off
> buying a car with them already in.

Considering what those cars might resell for, I suspect that the cost
of modification for a fixed-bulkhead car to be about the price of a
used example with that already in place!

Now, over here, prior to 1989 (IIRC), the 80 was called the 4000. We
got the redesign in '89, but I owned a couple of 4000 models previous
to that release. In both cases, they did not have folding rear seats.
The sheetmetal behind the seatback was perforated for a ski
pass-through, but it was stamped and triangulated in a manner that
screamed "I'm a structural member! Don't cut me out!" Both cars were
quattro, however. The fuel tank was under the boot floor, IIRC. It
has been a while since I was last under that car, so I don't remember
exactly what the configuration was.

I have seen several early '90s Audi 80/90 cars around, and so next
time I walk by one, I'll check to see if they have the split seat
stuff. Since there are a few FWD examples, I'll see if that makes a
difference. I completely agree that the body shell would be alike for
both drive configurations - trying to keep that straight down a single
line would suck. One would think the bits of the right type would
screw right in.

Spider

C.R. Krieger

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0310060843.50456ab3@posting.google. com>...
>
> Now, over here, prior to 1989 (IIRC), the 80 was called the 4000. We
> got the redesign in '89, but I owned a couple of 4000 models previous
> to that release. In both cases, they did not have folding rear seats.
> The sheetmetal behind the seatback was perforated for a ski
> pass-through, but it was stamped and triangulated in a manner that
> screamed "I'm a structural member! Don't cut me out!" Both cars were
> quattro, however. The fuel tank was under the boot floor, IIRC.

Sorry to tell you, but you do *not* RC. As I had a few encounters
with the 'Bowling Ball in the Trunk' Syndrome over the years in our
'84 and '86 4KQs, I remember these cars vividly. The 4KQ had the fuel
tank mounted right behind the rear seatback (and in front of a cover
in the boot/trunk), so you couldn't even get a ski sack to work (much
less folding seatbacks) unless you poked a hole right through the
center of the tank. Now, that didn't stop BMW from putting a front
driveshaft through the oil pan for the 325ix ...

> I have seen several early '90s Audi 80/90 cars around, and so next
> time I walk by one, I'll check to see if they have the split seat
> stuff.

I've got a '90 90 20V sitting beside the house. Gotta clear out the
trunk (selling it), so I'll look tonight. As small as that trunk is,
I won't be surprised to find a fuel tank impinging on the front half
of it. There was a mid-series redesign because, although Audi claimed
it had the same amount of trunk space as the old 4K, nobody (including
yours truly) really believed that. So they stretched the butt a
couple years later ('93?).

> Since there are a few FWD examples, I'll see if that makes a
> difference. I completely agree that the body shell would be alike for
> both drive configurations - trying to keep that straight down a single
> line would suck.

Oddly, at least in the 4000, that was *not* the case. According to
the Bentley manual (VW/Audi's official factory manuals), the 4K
Quattro shared a platform with the FWD *Coupe*, but *not* with the FWD
4K.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; redlined that)

Spider

warp2_shadow@yahoo.com (C.R. Krieger) wrote in message news:<a8a578a8.0310070623.43185080@posting.google. com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0310060843.50456ab3@posting.google. com>...
> >
> > Now, over here, prior to 1989 (IIRC), the 80 was called the 4000. We
> > got the redesign in '89, but I owned a couple of 4000 models previous
> > to that release. In both cases, they did not have folding rear seats.
> > The sheetmetal behind the seatback was perforated for a ski
> > pass-through, but it was stamped and triangulated in a manner that
> > screamed "I'm a structural member! Don't cut me out!" Both cars were
> > quattro, however. The fuel tank was under the boot floor, IIRC.
>
> Sorry to tell you, but you do *not* RC.

I read this and racked my brain to figure out where in the heck I
remembered this from.

After having thought about it some more, I remembered a camping trip
with my '85 4kq, and the trunk was completely lined in molded plastic
- no pass-thru. The bulkhead I am thinking about was some mid-'80's
Jetta. My apologies.

>
> > I have seen several early '90s Audi 80/90 cars around, and so next
> > time I walk by one, I'll check to see if they have the split seat
> > stuff.
>
> I've got a '90 90 20V sitting beside the house. Gotta clear out the
> trunk (selling it), so I'll look tonight.

I wish I could find a good example of a 90 20V. Every one I've ever
looked at has some problem with the climate control system. They
drive really nicely, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try and
troubleshoot that overly-complicated system.

> As small as that trunk is,
> I won't be surprised to find a fuel tank impinging on the front half
> of it. There was a mid-series redesign because, although Audi claimed
> it had the same amount of trunk space as the old 4K, nobody (including
> yours truly) really believed that. So they stretched the butt a
> couple years later ('93?).

The 80/90 series does not have much trunk room. It seems like it had
more than the 4kq, but because of the different shape, it's hard to
tell.

> > Since there are a few FWD examples, I'll see if that makes a
> > difference. I completely agree that the body shell would be alike for
> > both drive configurations - trying to keep that straight down a single
> > line would suck.
>
> Oddly, at least in the 4000, that was *not* the case. According to
> the Bentley manual (VW/Audi's official factory manuals), the 4K
> Quattro shared a platform with the FWD *Coupe*, but *not* with the FWD
> 4K.

That sounds like it's quite inefficient. The Germans have a weird way
of doing things, to be sure.

Thanks for the info, and the corrections.

Spider