Not really forgotten but I just remembered it having done an engine job on one last month> Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Its Jap yes, but pretty plain, and fast-ish...
Post #1 states that you are not permitted more than one nomination! Please delete. ps. VR-4s were grand cars so. They wreaked the Galant by stinking a stupid 6 cylinder motor in them!
AKA typing failure, combined with iPhone spell checker! Don't go round bends?? 827 Vitesse is still fastest road car to ever lap the Isle of Man TT circuit... The Old SD1 V8 smashed BMW in Touring cars thoughout the early 80's. Best handling FWD car at Ten Of The Best was an 820 Vitessee.. The T-16 turbo motor is as tunable as the Cosworth YB more than a few over the 500 bhp mark, andy nicholls had 805 from one (can't say how long it lasted though!). I could go on.. I think that just proves the ultimate Q car status even more! The biggest problem with them is not getting power from the engine but stopping the crappy japanesse gearbox from destroying itself.. somthing many VW owners should be able to understand given the 020 penchant for spitting diff rivets! While the standard 827 was not great the Vitesse variant is another car, but it would not be much of a Q car if the ordinary version was a fantastic car would it?
I don't think many UK available cars would meet Daved true interpritation of a 'Q' car, these days it's mostly used on cars that have poke but don't scream it (shouting is fine), I've read the V8 version of the RS4 described as a Q car in top gear mag. In Oz and the US though it's a different matter, I think until quite recently in Oz you could completely spec a new car, I.E. buy a Holden Commodore tick the box for a 'CL' spec body, black bumpers, flat seats, steel wheels with plastic covers, and still tick the box for a 5.7 LS V8
No anymore it's not... TT Record for car smashed In fairness it held it for years, but it wasn't like people were trying to beat it ether.
Having owned a 20v Quattro I think it was prone to more understeer than my current vitesse on road surfaces. All that weight stuck way out front is never going to make it easy. Gravel, Snow and ice however is a different story! Not seen any reports of 1100 bhp from a t-16, but then not seen any 2.3 litre ABYs, pretty sure the only inline 5 pot 2.3L Audis were the 7As which were never turbocharged (ran somthing like 10:1 CR IIRC) and the the ABY was a 2.2. But then the T-16 is doing well for an engine that can trace its roots to before WW2 the ABY is a far more modern engine. But the no audi is ever going to be the Q car a rover is, it's just too well respected so no real surprise if it goes well, unlike a rover which is a suprise if it starts!
Sorry, you are quite right, the AAN was the 2.2 L Turbo Motor in the UR S4! My 90 Q 20v, on BBS 8 x 16" RGs, 215/45 Dunlop SP 8000s and Koni Adjustables, is just about as neutral as you will get. A beautiful handling and roadholding car.
that's the same as my old Quattro Coupe 20v? my only quibble with that was its inability to do better than 29mpg, and having no practical way to fit an LPG tank! H942ABD where are you? Sold it to a Polish guy who took it to scotland!
shakey ground dave, the crappy rover 200s were double wishbone all round as it was on a civic platform, the torsen diff is pretty useful and the weight distribution MUST be better than an inline iron 5 poking out the front. surely it must be like driving an early 911 in reverse
I would have voted for a UR S4 Avant for the ultimate Q car but I saw daved had posted so knew I was beaten to it, not many non car people today even know audi make mental estates let alone back then, plus they just looked so plain where so many of the other cars mentioned on this thread looked sporty when they first came out, and as daved said get MTM to breath over it and you could have had a super car beater that would get the average driver through the twisty bits faster than most top end motors of that era. Rover should be added to the swear filter like **** is, all this talk of them is making me ill.
Even shakier ground there prof. Early 911s had Strut/Single Wishbone fronts and, from the 356, Swing Arm rear suspension. To quote the book - Vol. 1 - p. #345: "Strut-Type front suspension was the 911's most daring chassis feature"
You'll never get me to own anything with more than 5 cylinders. Unless you can find me a late model Spitfire! And. I know that they had four-valve heads! Mrs daved's next car though, will be a 6/2 cylinder car. If we can ever find one with the right spec., at the right price.?[:^(]
Actyually it was not quiet the same as the civic, but the concerto. The R8 200 (the Mk2) in fact had a McPherson strut up front and sort of double wishbone at the back. The later Bubble (spit, the begineing of the nosedive to oblivion) 200 was the same at the front but with a Mk2 like beam at the back. But either way they are far better than many give credit for. Even the K sereis was an amazing engine (114 BHP in 1989 from a 1.4), till BMW worked their engineering prowess on it and turned it into a steam powered turd
I remember when MIRA had a prototype K series on twin SU carbs, went like fook. they were very dissapointed with the production version
Really? Is that why every other Derv Audi I see has been specced to the gills with S-Line goodies and because the fleet manager won't spring for an RS6? Audi may have made one or two Q-cars in their time, but not any more. Tbh it p!sses me off when some lazy journo babbles on about 'subtly flared arches, carefully placed discreet badging', etc - they're usually the stand-out features of the car, and mark its presence quite loudly as 'a bit tasty'.
