2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Rob Guenther" wrote
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the
>2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only
>"need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required,
I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs <synthetic oil>, which is true.
Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and
that's what caused the sludging issues.
> they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the
> first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can
> fail, natural aspiration *can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil
consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a
tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy
to modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with
modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component)
problems.
>
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line,
Yeah, even more so with quattro.
> doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of
> in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly
city driving.
Cheers,
Pete
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
big-foot ;o)
--
Gio
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
big-foot ;o)
--
Gio
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dtm7r2$rk5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better...
>> I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and
>> highway driving (120-135kph).
>
> That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city
> driving.
Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt
Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing
big-foot ;o)
--
Gio
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
"Rob Guenther" <rguenther@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
news:3iuLf.54$8d1.10@read1.cgocable.net...
>I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told
>me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet,
>they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it
>wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these
>were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding
>issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration
>*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.
Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd
still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine
protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower
viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel
consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on
(and more expensive) should any work be required due to any
lubrication failure.
> With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't
> seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.
Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as
well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with
manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in
general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly
poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but
still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4
not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6
manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).
The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to
the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll
probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate
low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for
me!
> V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot
> better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather,
> mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).
Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine
displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are
exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V
do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in
(anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)
> A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front
> of the car.
I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The
1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the
twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6
can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different
driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the
front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive
hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub
off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners,
rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must
be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same
rate as the fronts (to within ˝mm), without any tyre/wheel
swapping at all.
Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very
good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully
independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry
double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.
Rgds, Sean
> I'm glad I picked the V6 version tho, seems better suited to my
> driving tastes (lots of cruising on the highway, occasional
> spirited drives down the back roads).
> <sheehan888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140720338.000996.255570@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my
>> only
>> hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror
>> stories
>> about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was
>> wondering
>> wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other
>> people would
>> like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting
>> $$$
>> outflow.
>>
>> I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was
>> only
>> available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has
>> been in
>> service much longer. Is it because there were problems with
>> the 3.0?
>>
>> Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot
>>
>
>
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Ok, weighing in with props for the 1.8T... I didn't really consider
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Ok, weighing in with props for the 1.8T... I didn't really consider
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8
Ok, weighing in with props for the 1.8T... I didn't really consider
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA
the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before
that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is
around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just
okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have
gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the
engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily
achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6.
I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.
Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA