Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
of his car.
Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
in helping me decide.

BOB

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

In article <1179209754.423132.249620@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
koumer@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.
>
> BOB

I'd go with a midrange Japanese car if pillowy handling and mundane
styling aren't a problem. They're cheaper, more comfortable, and
usually very easy to maintain.

Based on my personal experience, I'd stay clear of the Honda hybrids.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

In article <1179209754.423132.249620@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
koumer@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.
>
> BOB

I'd go with a midrange Japanese car if pillowy handling and mundane
styling aren't a problem. They're cheaper, more comfortable, and
usually very easy to maintain.

Based on my personal experience, I'd stay clear of the Honda hybrids.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

In article <1179209754.423132.249620@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
koumer@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.
>
> BOB

I'd go with a midrange Japanese car if pillowy handling and mundane
styling aren't a problem. They're cheaper, more comfortable, and
usually very easy to maintain.

Based on my personal experience, I'd stay clear of the Honda hybrids.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

In article <1179209754.423132.249620@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
koumer@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.
>
> BOB

I'd go with a midrange Japanese car if pillowy handling and mundane
styling aren't a problem. They're cheaper, more comfortable, and
usually very easy to maintain.

Based on my personal experience, I'd stay clear of the Honda hybrids.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.

There's no reason why the turbo engines won't be long-lived and reliable if
they're maintained properly. However a NA engine has one less thing to go
wrong so I'd expect it to be more reliable.


I'd have thought that you'd be able to get a 3.2 A4 for similar price to the
325i if you'd rather have a NA engine. The Volvo is a step down in terms of
quality

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.

There's no reason why the turbo engines won't be long-lived and reliable if
they're maintained properly. However a NA engine has one less thing to go
wrong so I'd expect it to be more reliable.


I'd have thought that you'd be able to get a 3.2 A4 for similar price to the
325i if you'd rather have a NA engine. The Volvo is a step down in terms of
quality

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.

There's no reason why the turbo engines won't be long-lived and reliable if
they're maintained properly. However a NA engine has one less thing to go
wrong so I'd expect it to be more reliable.


I'd have thought that you'd be able to get a 3.2 A4 for similar price to the
325i if you'd rather have a NA engine. The Volvo is a step down in terms of
quality

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
> looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
> ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
> wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
> lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
> turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
> regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
> a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
> of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
> in helping me decide.

There's no reason why the turbo engines won't be long-lived and reliable if
they're maintained properly. However a NA engine has one less thing to go
wrong so I'd expect it to be more reliable.


I'd have thought that you'd be able to get a 3.2 A4 for similar price to the
325i if you'd rather have a NA engine. The Volvo is a step down in terms of
quality

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On 14 May 2007 23:15:54 -0700, koumer@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm short and retired. I polish my cars frequently. So, when
>looking for a low (I can polish it without having to get up on a
>ladder), short, functional car, I've narrowed my shopping to three
>wagons - the Audi A4 2.0T, the BMW 325i and the Volvo V50 2.4i or T5.
> I don't have the reactions any more for sporty driving. And I
>lean away from harsh suspensions. Alhough I like the Audi and Volvo
>turbos, But I doubt they're low maintenance nor long lived. I had a
>regularly aspirated Volvo before for 8 years, but a friend who bought
>a Volvo turbo at the same time only got three trouble free years out
>of his car.
> Any insights about the suspensions or the turbos would be welcome
>in helping me decide.

Audi has been "doing" turbos for many years. I've had three and none
of them gave me any problems. Audi is noted for its trouble free
turbos. I have put more than 100k miles on two (1990 200T wagon and
1994 S4) and currently drive an RS6 with twin turbos.

Dave