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

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

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

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

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

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.

Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

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.

Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

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.

Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

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.

Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"G-man uk" wrote>
> Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
> correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

There was a time in the US when Volvo dealers would put mineral oil in
turbocharged Volvo engines (like the T5) and suggested keeping it there
for the duration of the oil change interval which was something like
7.5k miles. I could see where the turbos wouldn't fancy it.

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"G-man uk" wrote>
> Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
> correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

There was a time in the US when Volvo dealers would put mineral oil in
turbocharged Volvo engines (like the T5) and suggested keeping it there
for the duration of the oil change interval which was something like
7.5k miles. I could see where the turbos wouldn't fancy it.

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"G-man uk" wrote>
> Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
> correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

There was a time in the US when Volvo dealers would put mineral oil in
turbocharged Volvo engines (like the T5) and suggested keeping it there
for the duration of the oil change interval which was something like
7.5k miles. I could see where the turbos wouldn't fancy it.

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"G-man uk" wrote>
> Perhaps your friend was not aware of how to let the turbo cool down
> correctly? Or maybe he just got a bad 'un.

There was a time in the US when Volvo dealers would put mineral oil in
turbocharged Volvo engines (like the T5) and suggested keeping it there
for the duration of the oil change interval which was something like
7.5k miles. I could see where the turbos wouldn't fancy it.

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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

Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
expensive than the ones you list.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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

Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
expensive than the ones you list.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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

Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
expensive than the ones you list.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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

Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
expensive than the ones you list.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese,

Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese,

Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese,

Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

"Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese,

Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?

Pete

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
> It's got a
>
> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>
> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>
> Pete

I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
> It's got a
>
> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>
> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>
> Pete

I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
> It's got a
>
> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>
> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>
> Pete

I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
> It's got a
>
> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>
> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>
> Pete

I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On 17 May 2007 06:39:05 -0700, Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
>> It's got a
>>
>> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>>
>> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
>> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>>
>> Pete
>
>I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
>I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Can we get this in a manual tranny? The other half is lusting after
the Lexus RX300, and I really want to avoid buying a SUV, but she's
not really interested in getting another Subaru (we've got a 1999
Legacy OBW, which is fine with me), so this is a point of contention.
One advantage the Lexus does offer is a hybrid version, so ....

Me: I just want a TT sooner or later. I love my 98.5 A4 and will keep
driving and feeding it, but ultimately I need my little sportscar.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On 17 May 2007 06:39:05 -0700, Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
>> It's got a
>>
>> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>>
>> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
>> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>>
>> Pete
>
>I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
>I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Can we get this in a manual tranny? The other half is lusting after
the Lexus RX300, and I really want to avoid buying a SUV, but she's
not really interested in getting another Subaru (we've got a 1999
Legacy OBW, which is fine with me), so this is a point of contention.
One advantage the Lexus does offer is a hybrid version, so ....

Me: I just want a TT sooner or later. I love my 98.5 A4 and will keep
driving and feeding it, but ultimately I need my little sportscar.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On 17 May 2007 06:39:05 -0700, Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
>> It's got a
>>
>> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>>
>> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
>> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>>
>> Pete
>
>I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
>I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Can we get this in a manual tranny? The other half is lusting after
the Lexus RX300, and I really want to avoid buying a SUV, but she's
not really interested in getting another Subaru (we've got a 1999
Legacy OBW, which is fine with me), so this is a point of contention.
One advantage the Lexus does offer is a hybrid version, so ....

Me: I just want a TT sooner or later. I love my 98.5 A4 and will keep
driving and feeding it, but ultimately I need my little sportscar.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On 17 May 2007 06:39:05 -0700, Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:37 am, "Pete" <nou...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> "Dano58" wrote> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon?
>> It's got a
>>
>> > nice V6 and being Japanese,
>>
>> Doesn't it use Ford engines (not that they're bad or anything)? Or is it
>> only the 4 cylinder ones that come from Ford?
>>
>> Pete
>
>I think it was co-developed by them, since Ford owns a chunk of Mazda,
>I believe. But I think it's primarily a 'Mazda' engine.

Can we get this in a manual tranny? The other half is lusting after
the Lexus RX300, and I really want to avoid buying a SUV, but she's
not really interested in getting another Subaru (we've got a 1999
Legacy OBW, which is fine with me), so this is a point of contention.
One advantage the Lexus does offer is a hybrid version, so ....

Me: I just want a TT sooner or later. I love my 98.5 A4 and will keep
driving and feeding it, but ultimately I need my little sportscar.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 2:23 am, Dano58 <dan.dibi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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
>
> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
> motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
> expensive than the ones you list.
>
> Dan D
> '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
> Central NJ USA

Thanks for the suggestion. The Mazda6's are a bit long. Unfortunately,
I live in Hawaii, where the garages are absurdly small (most people
park on the street and use their tiny garages for storage). I can
barely shoe-horn in my two cars.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 2:23 am, Dano58 <dan.dibi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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
>
> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
> motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
> expensive than the ones you list.
>
> Dan D
> '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
> Central NJ USA

Thanks for the suggestion. The Mazda6's are a bit long. Unfortunately,
I live in Hawaii, where the garages are absurdly small (most people
park on the street and use their tiny garages for storage). I can
barely shoe-horn in my two cars.

Re: Audi vs BMW vs Volvo
 

On May 16, 2:23 am, Dano58 <dan.dibi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:15 am, kou...@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
>
> Why wouldn't you consider something like the Mazda6 wagon? It's got a
> nice V6 and being Japanese, should give you many years of trouble-free
> motoring. It's a great-looking car as well, and certainly less
> expensive than the ones you list.
>
> Dan D
> '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
> Central NJ USA

Thanks for the suggestion. The Mazda6's are a bit long. Unfortunately,
I live in Hawaii, where the garages are absurdly small (most people
park on the street and use their tiny garages for storage). I can
barely shoe-horn in my two cars.