Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
"Dave C." <spammersdie@ahorribledeath.now> wrote
> Tie rod ends wear out . . . especially if you take a lot of hard corners.
> 35,000 seems a little low to be replacing them already, but it's better if
> something like that is caught early. The motor mounts aren't really
> suspension. In a small car with a strong engine (like an A4 2.8, for
> example), it is possible to stress the motor mounts with very aggressive
> driving. Torque is your enemy here, so the manual tranny didn't help.
Thanks for the insight. I guess I do corner fairly hard, and 90% of
my driving is in the city. I'd think they would have sized the motor
mounts for the engine. I mean, it's not like this is an afterthought
turbo bolted onto a smaller engine, it's a straight-up V6.
> Try shifting before 7 grand from now on.
The very first thing I had to get used to in this car was how the V6
engine really did not like to be reved super high, unlike the little
1.8L 4 in the Honda -- gawd I beat the crap out of that engine and it
kept going. Redlined it nearly every low shift for 12 years. On the
Audi I rarely go over 5000 revs and never over 6000. Redline is at
6500 I think. So I don't really think I'm reving it hard, although I
routinely plant the throttle at low revs. Thus torquing up the
drivetrain pretty good, I guess.
> On a side note, how many sets of tires you been through already?
I'm about halfway through the second set (at 35K miles). Both sets
were factory approved Dunlop SP/8000E's. OK I hear the gallery
spinning up to flame each other about tires now so I'll step out of
the way
> Tie rod ends wear out . . . especially if you take a lot of hard corners.
> 35,000 seems a little low to be replacing them already, but it's better if
> something like that is caught early. The motor mounts aren't really
> suspension. In a small car with a strong engine (like an A4 2.8, for
> example), it is possible to stress the motor mounts with very aggressive
> driving. Torque is your enemy here, so the manual tranny didn't help.
Thanks for the insight. I guess I do corner fairly hard, and 90% of
my driving is in the city. I'd think they would have sized the motor
mounts for the engine. I mean, it's not like this is an afterthought
turbo bolted onto a smaller engine, it's a straight-up V6.
> Try shifting before 7 grand from now on.
The very first thing I had to get used to in this car was how the V6
engine really did not like to be reved super high, unlike the little
1.8L 4 in the Honda -- gawd I beat the crap out of that engine and it
kept going. Redlined it nearly every low shift for 12 years. On the
Audi I rarely go over 5000 revs and never over 6000. Redline is at
6500 I think. So I don't really think I'm reving it hard, although I
routinely plant the throttle at low revs. Thus torquing up the
drivetrain pretty good, I guess.
> On a side note, how many sets of tires you been through already?
I'm about halfway through the second set (at 35K miles). Both sets
were factory approved Dunlop SP/8000E's. OK I hear the gallery
spinning up to flame each other about tires now so I'll step out of
the way
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
In message <ba42132e.0404072015.21ac971c@posting.google.com >
chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell) wrote:
> The very first thing I had to get used to in this car was how the V6
> engine really did not like to be reved super high, unlike the little
> 1.8L 4 in the Honda -- gawd I beat the crap out of that engine and it
> kept going. Redlined it nearly every low shift for 12 years. On the
> Audi I rarely go over 5000 revs and never over 6000. Redline is at
> 6500 I think. So I don't really think I'm reving it hard, although I
> routinely plant the throttle at low revs. Thus torquing up the
> drivetrain pretty good, I guess.
Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
revs. The Honda will thrive on high revs. The Audi V6, however,
develops a good deal of torque in the lower to mid-band rev range, but
the power falls away at high revs.
It sounds as though you've learnt that the V6 makes best progress in the
2500-5500 rev range. The only reason for reving higher than that is if
it's the wrong moment to momentarily lose drive with a gear change. If
you are driving more sedately, the engine will pull smoothly, and
reasonably strongly, from 1500 rpm, or less. All in my experience from
owning an A4 V6 2.6, and A6 V6 2.7T and an RS6 V8 4.2T and previous
experience of Honda 1.5 and 1.6 I4 engines.
--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')
chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell) wrote:
> The very first thing I had to get used to in this car was how the V6
> engine really did not like to be reved super high, unlike the little
> 1.8L 4 in the Honda -- gawd I beat the crap out of that engine and it
> kept going. Redlined it nearly every low shift for 12 years. On the
> Audi I rarely go over 5000 revs and never over 6000. Redline is at
> 6500 I think. So I don't really think I'm reving it hard, although I
> routinely plant the throttle at low revs. Thus torquing up the
> drivetrain pretty good, I guess.
Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
revs. The Honda will thrive on high revs. The Audi V6, however,
develops a good deal of torque in the lower to mid-band rev range, but
the power falls away at high revs.
It sounds as though you've learnt that the V6 makes best progress in the
2500-5500 rev range. The only reason for reving higher than that is if
it's the wrong moment to momentarily lose drive with a gear change. If
you are driving more sedately, the engine will pull smoothly, and
reasonably strongly, from 1500 rpm, or less. All in my experience from
owning an A4 V6 2.6, and A6 V6 2.7T and an RS6 V8 4.2T and previous
experience of Honda 1.5 and 1.6 I4 engines.
--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:
>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
presume, yet they generally don't.
As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
wrote:
>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
presume, yet they generally don't.
As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:54 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>
>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>presume, yet they generally don't.
>
>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
you now.
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>
>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>presume, yet they generally don't.
>
>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
you now.
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:43:59 GMT, Cam Newton (ccnewto@rogers.com)
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:54 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>>
>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>>presume, yet they generally don't.
>>
>>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
>
>You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
>on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
>you now.
You are an idiot. I am responding to a post in rec.autos.driving.
Have you heard the expression "go yourself?"
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:54 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>>
>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>speaking" part. 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. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>>presume, yet they generally don't.
>>
>>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
>
>You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
>on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
>you now.
You are an idiot. I am responding to a post in rec.autos.driving.
Have you heard the expression "go yourself?"
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
wrote:
>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>with performance heritage,
Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
wrote:
>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>with performance heritage,
Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2ntb70l5loevuijguh1alsbdnc8shps1su@4ax.com...
> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> wrote:
>
> >This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
> >with performance heritage,
>
> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
>
You've got a point there. The A4 is nice, but is it that much nicer than a
Jetta with the exact same engine? I don't know. I almost bought a Jetta,
but I don't think I'd drive either a Jetta or an A4 very hard. There's a
fine line between aggressive driving and abusing your ride. If I
really wanted to, I could probably torque the motor mounts of an A4 2.8
manual. But I think I'd have to deliberately TRY to do it. I can't imagine
shifting that hard in everyday driving, but that's me. -Dave
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> wrote:
>
>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>with performance heritage,
>
> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
"performance heritage"?
--
Ignasi.
(using SPAM trap e-mail address)
> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> wrote:
>
>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>with performance heritage,
>
> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
"performance heritage"?
--
Ignasi.
(using SPAM trap e-mail address)
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<2ntb70l5loevuijguh1alsbdnc8shps1su@4ax.com>. ..
> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> wrote:
>
> >This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
> >with performance heritage,
>
> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
LeMans? Ever heard of it? Big race, in France, I think. Oh, and
something about rallying. Maybe you're a NASCAR fan and haven't heard
of these other, minor forms of racing.
Last I heard, Audi's N. America market gets about 95% or so vehicles
with AWD layout. Maybe you're still annoyed that the car mags prefer
the S4 and the RS6 to just about anything made by your
spinning-propeller brand. Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
--
Jonesy
> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> wrote:
>
> >This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
> >with performance heritage,
>
> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
LeMans? Ever heard of it? Big race, in France, I think. Oh, and
something about rallying. Maybe you're a NASCAR fan and haven't heard
of these other, minor forms of racing.
Last I heard, Audi's N. America market gets about 95% or so vehicles
with AWD layout. Maybe you're still annoyed that the car mags prefer
the S4 and the RS6 to just about anything made by your
spinning-propeller brand. Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
--
Jonesy
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
In article <73da2590.0404091022.23058721@posting.google.com >,
beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898
W: 26601 Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91302-1959 (81 444-3685
beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898
W: 26601 Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91302-1959 (81 444-3685