RE: SOTW: Audi Coupe GT

RE: SOTW: Audi Coupe GT

Author
Discussion

skeggysteve

5,724 posts

216 months

Friday 26th February 2010
quotequote all
ultegra said:
I had one like that in a odd shade of brown metallic (Garlick are listening wink ).

It had many common part with the standard coupe - but if the the Audi parts dept. knew the part was for a Quattro then the price went up.......a lot!

If SOTW is a solid as my Quattro then it's a bargin.


Shropshiremike

23,164 posts

202 months

Friday 26th February 2010
quotequote all
stewy68 said:
Shropshiremike said:
Weren't they called 90 quattros if they had a 5-pot in or was it a very early one?
It was an early one '83 A plater in red. I had standard steel wheels, so was a bit of a sleeper (apart from the sound).
I suspected it might be an early one!

Always puts me in mind of the cover of the very first issue of Performance Car ( the ashes of which grew into EVO mag ) smile

greatscot

21 posts

184 months

Friday 26th February 2010
quotequote all
I had one of these as well. Brings back good memories.

The car went through me and 3 off my mates. Started its life as one of the boys by being bought at auction for £200. It then passed through everyone hands with a fresh MOT and was straight swapped each year for (respectively): a case of tennents lager, bottle of whisky and finally when I "bought" it a mobile phone charger.
Bird hated it. She called it the batmobile.

But for 200 quid it lasted for 4 years and did about 40,000 miles between us and it was already way, way past the 100K mark when we got it(and over 20 years old when it was scrapped!)

My mates were gutted as I killed it.
Still bombproof but I had found a new car.

The Audi had the last laugh as it was being towed to the scrappies. It ripped the back bumper and chassis leg off my mates Peugeot who was laughing at it being towed away. The Audi was untouchedlaugh

What a great car. My bird isn't letting me buy this one though.

martynr

1,076 posts

173 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
annodomini2 said:
Gridl0k said:
Yay!

They never did a 2.3, that was the later ones. The 2226cc was the biggest.
The Early 2144cc is called the 2.2 and the later 2226cc was called the 2.3 to differentiate them.
The 2144 and 2226 could be referred as 2.2 and 2144 more likely as 2.1, but never 2.3, the 2.3 had a displacement of 2309cc 10v with 133bhp(I had 80 B4 with this engine) and other was 2309cc 20v with 170bhp. And the 2309cc were going into B3 and B4 90, 80, coupe.

By the way, the coolest shed ever! No doubt! jester

Davidonly

1,080 posts

192 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
I too owned one of these a 1984, white in 2144 5 cylinder guise. I think 130bhp was all it came with (but mine was on 100k when I bought it). It was my first performance car and despite needing new valve guides (smoke on overrun) I did 40k in it. Loved the warble and it seemed really keen at lower rpm in particular. Always a bit dissapointed at the top-end, but it was an ancient example.

Had some problems with pre-ignition and no-one seemed to know where to adjust the timing. Ended up costing a fair chunck for new injectors, bypass valve etc, and a cracked exhaust manifold. I broke a spring at the front once too. Even as a novice I said to the garage, 'shouldn't I change the left one too? only be told, 'it's not worth it, springs hardly ever break'. A week later the other side went bang! frown

As it lurched into money pit status I sold it and got a Corolla 16GTi 16v...........another story smile

LuS1fer

41,085 posts

244 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Memory suggests a lot of these old Audis smoked in their dotage.

predding

455 posts

215 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Had this before 2 URQ's - mine was the very early GT5S with 'Econometer' and cookie cutter wheels. In some ways its actually a better car than the quattro in terms of day to day driving (and economy!). FWD is not an issue as loads of lift off oversteer - you had to be there, plus the 4 people legroom is superb.

Would contemplate this if it wasnt for the fact its the 4-cyl engine - also this run-out model was the better looking IMHO with the deeper front and rear bodywork, and lovely st st infill panels on the bumpers...

Also one of the best colours for this car...

Small Car

877 posts

198 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
When I was 19 I bought this beast as a px from my Uncle's garage. It had a new 2.2 5 cyl engine and went like a rocket. I parked it outside a friend's house one evening and heard a noise, only to see the aftermath ! What a wonderful car. Cost £650, I spent a little on it (mainly bushes) and it was incredible fun at that age. This was in 1995.




Ahonen

5,015 posts

278 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
TEKNOPUG said:
980kgs???? I think not.
My 2.2 Coupe weighed 1050, so it's not far out.

Ahonen

5,015 posts

278 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Kazlet said:
Good OLD Audis, blander than a very bland thing in a bland competition.
So you felt the urge to make a smart arse comment, but didn't teally know what to write, so you thought 'bland' would be a safe line of attack because it's an Audi. It might have been a better idea to read a few of the other comments first, by people who have owned them, then tried to formulate a different type of smart arse comment with some accuracy.

'Understeer' is usually a good one.

Shropshiremike

23,164 posts

202 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
predding said:
Had this before 2 URQ's - mine was the very early GT5S with 'Econometer' and cookie cutter wheels. In some ways its actually a better car than the quattro in terms of day to day driving (and economy!). FWD is not an issue as loads of lift off oversteer - you had to be there, ...
Would certainly believe the lift-off oversteer bit - the Audi 80CD with the 2 litre 5-pot ( pictured earlier ) was great for it

Shropshiremike

23,164 posts

202 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Strawman said:
LuS1fer said:
1050kg according to this for the 2.0:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...
But 980kgs for the 1.8L version which this weeks shed is.
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...

Just shows despite all efforts at weight saving materials how bloated cars have become.
I must admit I was quite sceptical of that weight even for the 1.8 4-pot version. If you look at the car it looks fairly hefty and being as it is an Audi you imagine it might be fairly substantial.

However, had a quick scan through the old Autocars at the later facelift versions and they are surprisingly light.

Even the 4wd C-reg one with the 136bhp 2226cc 5-cylinder only weighed in at 1212kg! Quite impressive economy on test as well at 24.2 mpg especially as they remarked they drove it quite hard and at high speed.

A few months later they tested the front wheel drive version of the same car ( 5-pot 2.2 litre with 136bhp ) and this one weighed in at 1035kg! Quite front heavy though with 64.2/35.8 f/r distribution.

At 1035kg for the 5-pot facelift you can well imagine the 4-pot 1.8 being a few kg lighter so maybe that 980 kg isn't far off

StevenJJ

541 posts

208 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Shropshiremike said:
Any chance of this in a bigger res?

Shropshiremike

23,164 posts

202 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Small Car said:
When I was 19 I bought this beast as a px from my Uncle's garage. It had a new 2.2 5 cyl engine and went like a rocket. I parked it outside a friend's house one evening and heard a noise, only to see the aftermath ! What a wonderful car. Cost £650, I spent a little on it (mainly bushes) and it was incredible fun at that age. This was in 1995.

Blimey, what happened to the other vehicle that hit it?

It reminded me looking at that at the accident damaged Quattro that PPC brought along to the Classic Car Show at the NEC. They had a bit of an off ( Cadwell Park?)



Edited by Shropshiremike on Saturday 27th February 14:18

audicoupepartsco

1 posts

169 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
I ve had about 30 of these in 21 years.Plus saloons and ur quattros.
I ve had about 45 other cars but still come back to the Gt as a classic, different car.
Great simple cars to restore and use everyday, can be made to handle and go well.
Only trouble I ve seen is that some people give up on them and weigh them in-loads of spares going to waste, getting hard to source good stuff now, even for me!

DWT

16 posts

179 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
E50 JBC is still alive!!!!!!!!!

Small Car

877 posts

198 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Shropshiremike said:
Small Car said:
When I was 19 I bought this beast as a px from my Uncle's garage. It had a new 2.2 5 cyl engine and went like a rocket. I parked it outside a friend's house one evening and heard a noise, only to see the aftermath ! What a wonderful car. Cost £650, I spent a little on it (mainly bushes) and it was incredible fun at that age. This was in 1995.

Blimey, what happened to the other vehicle that hit it?

It reminded me looking at that at the accident damaged Quattro that PPC brought along to the Classic Car Show at the NEC. They had a bit of an off ( Cadwell Park?)



Edited by Shropshiremike on Saturday 27th February 14:18
It was hit by a Rover 400 - I was surprised how much damage it did (you can just see it in the background of the first photo with the 'mature' driver). Was gutted about it but the insurers were excellent and I bought it back to save others in need.



Edited by Small Car on Saturday 27th February 15:53

alfamonk

31 posts

183 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
Had a 2litre 5 version of this, found it a heavy and not particularly fun car to drive. Looked cool in white, with the Quattro ring decals, but it wasn't fast, even with a few tweaks. I'd have a UR in a heart-beat mind

Shropshiremike

23,164 posts

202 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
StevenJJ said:
Any chance of this in a bigger res?
Probably not Steven frown

At least not unless I get a much better scanner. It was taken on 35mm film ( days before non-digital camera ) and although the pics are reasonably sharp I've only got a very bottom of the range scanner so I doubt I can improve on that. If I get a chance to borrow a better/film scanner I'll have a go

ross78

7 posts

180 months

Saturday 27th February 2010
quotequote all
This car was amazing last year, got so much positive attention at Le Mans and made the whole 800+ mile journey without missing a beat, it shall be missed.....