rob rules

That's my wife's car, and if I can get anywhere near that level of action, I'm gonna be one happy camper.<p>99.5 1.8TQS-Tip

iceman

I would say that turbo lag slightly bigger on A4 (compared to GSX)

Wesley Walls

The arguement has been made that the cars are equal in acceleration. Although they make similar power, the added weight and girth comes into play with the A4. Subsequently, it feels as thought the 1.8T is being worked a little harder and is under a little more stress - it is after all 200cc smaller in displacement.

The chipped 1.8T is quick, but not as quick as my '92 Talon Tsi. Note: It's widely accepted that the '94 and earlier models of the turbo DSM cars were notable quicker than subsequent models - and I can attest to that fact having driven both on numerous occasions.

You will find the power similar, and it would be an interesting stop-light run! Let us know how they compare after you chip!

Wesley Walls
'98 A4 1.8TMS APR (previous '92 Eagle Talon Tsi)

rob rules

<p>99.5 1.8TQS-Tip

WJM

my friend has a 99 GS-X
It is a "bit" faster than my 1.8T.
Off the line the A4 can beat a none GSX but the gearing and weight difference between a GS-T and an A4 make the Eclipse win in the long run (aka it will catch up).

But the 1.8T chipped is pretty close. (my friend and I would change positions, at every shift)

search the archives about 6-8 months ago my friend and I wrote a longer review on our comparison drives.
-Will

White BMW 330I

As a Previous 1995 GSX and a 1990 Talon TSI owner I would say that the eclipse would probably take a chipped 1.8t. I've driven 30v A4s and the Eclipse is quicker. I've also driven a friends chipped 1.8t. I was in a parking lot so I was unable to get out of first gear. My initial impression was that in first gear his car didn't feel any stronger that my Stock 1.8tQ, and definitely not as fast as the GSX was in first gear. The GSX has some really good low-end torque. I'm not sure about my friend's car, he said that it (Power) really starts to come on in second gear. My Eclipse was quicker than the 30v almost to the point where I would say that is was a lot quicker. If a Chipped 1.8 can make that claim, it would be a good race. The A4 is a much better car quality wise.


My 1990 Eagle FWD was quicker that my Eclipse GSX. The 1999 GS-T is even faster still.<p><IMG SRC=" http://home.att.net/~amitch1/images/sigpic.jpg">
98.5 1.8TQMS 17" Ace Desires, Y2K Projector Mod, more to come.

TurboAddict

...and I'm buying a A4 (2001). I'm addicted to the power of the Eclipse, and I haven't driven a chipped A4 yet. I did drive the 2001 though, and although it's slower than my Eclipse, it's also alot smoother. I'm guessing with the 230-odd ft-lbs of tourqe there should be more than adequate acceleration. Also, the Eclipse might FEEL faster for a couple of reasons: 1) it's not as smooth as the A4 (75 mph FEELS LIKE 75 mph) 2) the turbo lag of the Eclipse, ie boost coming on HARD at 3000 rpm, makes it feel quicker (that rush is FUN!). Don't forget the Eclipse also has more displacement (2.0 L) and a bigger turbo (I think) coupled with lighter weight.
Bottom line, the Eclipse is a GREAT performer, but I think with the chip the A4 should offer comparable performance and MUCH better handling, stability (Quattro!) and refinement. If not, I quess it's gonna be K04 time!

CMH

<p><a href="http://registry.audiworld.com/audi/registry/details.asp?car=5395"><IMG SRC="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/audiworldpics/2000/cmhatp0016.jpg" border="0"></a>