boxerfan

OK.. it isn't like I haven't done this a bizzilion times... HOWEVER... true to form... this car has something different...

Victim: 1989 200 FWD

The lower bolt has a weird head. It isn't an allen, hex, or 12 point. It's more of a **** like you'd see on a stove for the burners. The nut on the opposite end is a 19mm but isn't accessible at all. I managed to turn the nut just a hair but now I am out of clearance and cannot budge it.

At the **** end I tried to jam a 22mm, 23mm, 24mm, and Imperial sockets on there to turn it but nothing fit adequately. Vise grips had to be applied end on and I could not apply enough torque.

I'm out of ideas. How do I get this sucker off? There must be some trick to it that someone here knows.... <whispers to self... don't say special audi tool part number xxxxx PLEASE>

atunicus

you have to remove the nut on the back of the bolt ( pain in the *** may have to turn a hair at a time ), then pull the bolt out, or in my case hit it repeatedly with a punch and a hammer from behind.

boxerfan

Looks like I need a 19mm wratchet wrench or a stubby wrench I even cut the exhaust down pipe off just past the WG vent. the subframe is in the way... OK... thanks for the answer. More tools please....

RussB

I got through most of my life with a simple set of hand tools. I can't believe how many additional tools I've needed just to do simple tasks on 5000s . . .


p.s. This is a hallmark of crappy design.

MarkPan

doesn't mean its a crappy design.

RussB

Every time that I work on my Audi, I'm amazed by the plethora of fasteners and tools that are required. For example, I've never tallied all the self-tapping screws that go into the interior, but it's staggering: various diameters, lengths, and heads. A rational design would use just a few different fasteners. Okay, some may not be optimum, but who cares?

Germans are wonderful people, but they do love complexity, even when not required. Case in point: a ten-year old Mercedes came to a local dealer with the complaint that left side front turn signal was inoperative. Dealer quoted $1300 to replace the left headlight assembly. A friend quoted $900. Car came in, part was replaced, and problem persisted. Diagnosis eventually uncovered an intermittent rear signal multiplexer (new MB's multiplex signals for their journey between the front and rear of the car . . . dumb), which was replaced for something like $300 + labor. Total repair cost was close to $2000.

Q: What was wrong with the $1.50 turn signal flasher?

IMO, good design eases maintenance. Poor design ignores the poor shlub who must maintain the system. Poor German design adds complexity not because it makes sense, but BECAUSE THEY CAN.

boxerfan

No bolt? Why the heck not?!?! And the nut is recessed in such a way that no socket will ever fit. So that means a 12 point wrench... OK... not so bad... IF you have the clearance to be able to turn it at least 30 degrees! this is the lamest design I've ever seen... OK... well almost... but the bolt specification is beyond contempt!

SteveJ_in_TX

Especially Hondas...gotta take off the entire top of the pyramid to get to the stuff underneath. They cram so much stuff into such a little area, yecch.

I do agree, though, that the more modern German cars are somewhat, um, odd on certain design aspects.

But then again, how many times have you lifted the hood to show your engine compartment to a non-Audi person and have them say "Why did they put the radiator off to the side? And why is your power steering fluid $14 a liter?"

To each his own...

punkbomb138

i had to point out where the radiator was and the the thing where the radiator should be was the intercooler. but on a plus note my friend who owns a 98 eclipse gsx was so surprised when i took him for a ride. he was like that is a 2.2 under the hood? and of course i told him it was the best motor ever made except for the 20 valve 5 cyl. it apparently shocked him that my 21 yr old car was faster on take off and ran smoother than his mitsubishi. i lmfao his car has fewer miles than mine and is slower than my stock 200. he he he


power+a heavy gas pedal= making the friends jealous with a 2.2

RussB

I like the idea of multiplexing signals (to save weight) from one end of a vehicle to the other . . . on AIRLINERS, with distances of 100 feet and more. In cars, its nonsensical. In fact, without adding redundancy (which would be dumb for what, eight feet?) it creates a single point of failure.

Dumb. Impressive accomplishment? Yes. Neat technology? Certainly. Does it make sense in a car? No.


Another example of mis-applied Teutonic cleverness is the BMW 745. The BMW 740 was a decent car. The 745, which could have improved it, is actually a step backward because of senseless complexity. Its central computer which forces the driver to wade through menus to adjust the simplest things, is awful. It adds to the driver's unhappiness by being far less reliable (due to its comlexity) than its predecessor.

But then, BMW drivers, who behave like Navin Johnson, deserve this overpriced rubbish. "Ah yes, but no more 1966. Lets splurge! Bring us some fresh wine!"