"Dave" <dave@nobody.com> wrote in message news:...
>> 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
>
I'll try finishing my post before sending it!

Can't speak for BMW or Volvo but there isn't much difference between the
maintenance programs of Audi NA and turbo engines.

The Volvo is a step down in terms of quality but maybe that doesn't bother
you too much

HTH