JP Roberts

However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
> >>>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
> >>>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
> >>>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
> >>>the drivers were idiots to get beaten by a Honda. The point is that
> >>>my car, which is rather old at 150,000 miles plus, still out performs
> >>>the majority of driver-vehicle combinations I come across. So even if
> >>>the Audi does have more torque at low revs, I don't see why it
> >>>matters.

I remember someone trying to outperform my A4 1.8TQ in his '95 Honda Accord.
That was before I had it chipped. Now, let me say that at lower revs, the
power/weight ratio is still favourable to the Honda in this comparison.
Anywhere else my A4 beat the Honda, although the Honda was surprisingly
close in terms of low-speed acceleratio, which meant we were on a par in
start-and-go traffic but then I left it behind.

Now that my car is chipped it bears no comparison but of course a Civic R -
with 200PS and its low weight should accelerate relatively faster than any
stock A4. I always thought the A4's biggest handicap is its weight, and may
I say I'm not happy with its 5-gear manual tranny, either.

Saintor

American Accord are more powerful and the VTEC engines were available in the
upper versions. An Accord 2.4L 160HP will keep up with a Passat/A4 1.8T
170HP, while being more economical and running on regular fuel.


> I remember someone trying to outperform my A4 1.8TQ in his '95 Honda
Accord.
> That was before I had it chipped. Now, let me say that at lower revs, the
> power/weight ratio is still favourable to the Honda in this comparison.
> Anywhere else my A4 beat the Honda, although the Honda was surprisingly
> close in terms of low-speed acceleratio, which meant we were on a par in
> start-and-go traffic but then I left it behind.
>
> Now that my car is chipped it bears no comparison but of course a Civic
R -
> with 200PS and its low weight should accelerate relatively faster than any
> stock A4. I always thought the A4's biggest handicap is its weight, and
may
> I say I'm not happy with its 5-gear manual tranny, either.
>
>
>

ccnewto@rogers.com

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:08:29 -0400, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>
>American Accord are more powerful and the VTEC engines were available in the
>upper versions. An Accord 2.4L 160HP will keep up with a Passat/A4 1.8T
>170HP, while being more economical and running on regular fuel.

But it is stll an Accord. Boring.

I tested the Acura TSX and it was OK up to a point but the 200 hp
going thru the front wheels is a great way to be pulled into a turn.
And the TL? 270 hp, same problem but you get pulled into the corner
faster and with less control.

When I went looking I didn't consider the vanilla Japanese econoboxes
for a second. If I wanted one I wouldn't have even bothered testing
it. I would have just ordered a Camry XLE or the equivalent Accord.

And the Passat is heavier than the A4 (with quattro) and has less
trunk space etc. The Passat 1.8T 4Motion is a consolation prize
compared to the A41.8Tq. And more turbo lag. Nice but not good enough.


I know when some young gun revs up his tarted up Honda/Acura I can
whip him. Neither can outdrive the A4q, no way. But since I am
geezerly and sedate, I can be happy in the knowledge that I don't have
to show off. I know. The kid doesn't. Mmmm smug.

>
>
>> I remember someone trying to outperform my A4 1.8TQ in his '95 Honda
>Accord.
>> That was before I had it chipped. Now, let me say that at lower revs, the
>> power/weight ratio is still favourable to the Honda in this comparison.
>> Anywhere else my A4 beat the Honda, although the Honda was surprisingly
>> close in terms of low-speed acceleratio, which meant we were on a par in
>> start-and-go traffic but then I left it behind.
>>
>> Now that my car is chipped it bears no comparison but of course a Civic
>R -
>> with 200PS and its low weight should accelerate relatively faster than any
>> stock A4. I always thought the A4's biggest handicap is its weight, and
>may
>> I say I'm not happy with its 5-gear manual tranny, either.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Saintor

> When I went looking I didn't consider the vanilla Japanese econoboxes
> for a second. If I wanted one I wouldn't have even bothered testing
> it. I would have just ordered a Camry XLE or the equivalent Accord.

Don't assume that your choice will be the best fit for others. It is all
between your two ears.

>
> I know when some young gun revs up his tarted up Honda/Acura I can
> whip him. Neither can outdrive the A4q, no way. But since I am
> geezerly and sedate, I can be happy in the knowledge that I don't have
> to show off. I know. The kid doesn't. Mmmm smug.
>

Funny because virtually in ALL comparaison tests I have read around the
planet that includes both Acura TSX (AKA Euro Accord and Audi A4), the Euro
Accord won. The A4 is obese (3-500lbs heavier) and underpowered for all
this weight.

The Quattro system is dead weight that won't make the car more agile or any
safer, to the contrary. It can be fun on mud/snow. That's it.

Steve Grauman

>The Quattro system is dead weight that won't make the car more agile or any
>safer, to the contrary. It can be fun on mud/snow. That's it.
>

It's Ghee #2!! Run for your lives!!

JP Roberts

> Funny because virtually in ALL comparaison tests I have read around the
> planet that includes both Acura TSX (AKA Euro Accord and Audi A4), the
Euro
> Accord won. The A4 is obese (3-500lbs heavier) and underpowered for all
> this weight.
>

I have not read those comparison tests that you're writing about but I guess
none included neither a chipped A4 1.8T nor a 3.0, and probably not either a
1.9TDI 130 PS. You wouldn't believe what those TDI's are capable of thanks
to their huge torque already at tilt.


> The Quattro system is dead weight that won't make the car more agile or
any
> safer, to the contrary. It can be fun on mud/snow. That's it.

While I must concede the Quattro has now become a bit outdated if we compare
it to the 4WD of a Subaru Impreza STI or a Mitsubishi EVO, if you believe
it's dead weight it's probably because you've never tried a Quattro. And
anyone will tell you that a stock Quattro is not usually more fun, but it's
way much safer everywhere except driving downhill - and then it's still
probably just as safe as any Honda.

JP Roberts

nospam@home.com

On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
wrote:

>I have a 2000 A4 2.8 with manual transmission, no quattro and the
>optional sport package (stiffer springs and 17-inch wheels/tires). I
>drive with a lead foot and take turns a little hard, but I don't take
>the car racing or offroad or anything like that.
>
>I just had to spend about $700 replacing the motor mounts and
>replacing a worn tie rod end (front right). The drive train had been
>shifting noticeably on throttle lift after hard acceleration, and they
>noticed the tie rod problem when they did the motor mount work.
>
>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>with performance heritage, and I'm not beating it up or anything, and
>yet it needs this work after only a few years? This doesn't seem
>right. I had a lot less problems with my 12-year-old Honda Civic ...
>and I realize that maybe nobody can match Honda/Toyota reliability,
>but I would expect the basics of drivetrain and suspension to be well
>done in a car at this price level.
>
>Can anyone comment on this?
>
>If you're going to point me to a recall or a tech bulletin, then what
>are my recourse options considering the car's out of warranty and I
>already paid for the work?

I had a tie (track) rod end go at less than 30K miles on my A6 Avant.
I drive quite gently - that whats suits the car . There was a
recall on some Audis for track rod ends but, of course, mine was not
covered. I think this is still a weak spot on some Audis.

M

darren

I had a 2001 Honda accord EX-I4 manual for the past 2.5yrs - and then sold
it in two seconds when I drove the 2001 A41.8Tq (with sports package) the
other day!

What can I say - unbelievable, the torque, power and Quattro is amazing! I
didn't get nearly the same excitement for the A4 2.8q. (and one of my
friends has a chipped 99 A41.8Tq - that put a bigger smile on my face let me
tell you!!!)

I test drove the Acura TSX last summer (ps I'm from England and now living
in Canada) and I was not impressed - For me personally there is no
comparison.

Well I sold my accord last November, and I am still saving money to this
day to put a big chunk down on the 2002 A41.8Tq. Yep I going for the new
shape!

The 325 BMW just did not give me the big smile on my face that the A4 gave
me - yes it's all about smiles for me! yes the BMW was refined and silky
smooth engine - but that A4 - throw that car round a corner at 80 km/h and..
and... oops sorry I seem to be smiling again.

Anyway that's just my opinion!

Tha Ghee

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040417181624.27202.00000021@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >The Quattro system is dead weight that won't make the car more agile or
any
> >safer, to the contrary. It can be fun on mud/snow. That's it.
> >
>
> It's Ghee #2!! Run for your lives!!

and both of us are smarter than you, so you run.

Tha Ghee

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040417181624.27202.00000021@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >The Quattro system is dead weight that won't make the car more agile or
any
> >safer, to the contrary. It can be fun on mud/snow. That's it.
> >
>
> It's Ghee #2!! Run for your lives!!

are you upset both of us are correct and you have nothing to say to the
contrary??