hey what's up audi people.

I'm chris, and I'm new to your forums, and the world of german cars. I've owned both japanese and american cars, and I'd like to try an audi. I'm currently in the market for an A4, should hopefully be driving one by new year's. model years 96-2001 are what I'm looking at, and quattro is a must of course. I'm undecided as to which engine I want, I like the idea of the 1.8T because, well, it's turbo charged, and the potential for it seems higher. however, a part of me, probably the part that's realizing I'm not 18 anymore, likes the idea of the 2.8, because it's supposed to be more reliable. I should point out that I'm looking for a daily driver, but I want something that's able to get out of it's own way too. how quick are these cars stock? I'm open to being convinced either way, so do your worst.

cheers

 

both are reliable if they are looked after like any car regardless of its name, having said that if your young then the 1.8T is for you the other speaks for its self

edit: welcome

 

thanks for the welcome. I'm 23, I think that's still young.

it's true that any engine should be reliable if properly maintained and cared for. however, it's also generally true that on average, a turbo motor is going to have been thrashed on a lot more than a non turbo motor, all things being equal. so I think that if I'm going to get a 1.8T, I want a car with service records. I'm not eager to buy someone else's problem.

 

I was in the same boat as you - drove a 1.8T and was disappointed with the turtle-like feeling it had. (wee lil turbo and factory de-tuned) Drove a 2.8 and while I wasn't beside myself with amazement, I was adequately pleased with the engine's performance.

Sure, the 1.8T can be mod'd to outperform the 2.8 (and then some), but I'm done doin major mods and want reliability with class and some get-up-an'-go. So far, after two weeks of owning my A4 2.8, i'm still happy I went with the 2.8

To each their own, but I had years of fun and headaches w/ a 2.0L turbo. My money's better spent in other areas.

Good luck!

 

fellow vancouverite!

thanks for the insight, that's pretty much my feeling on these things. I had an 88 RX-7 turbo II when I was younger, and as good a car as that was, it was constantly in need of attention. the 86 RX-7 non-turbo that I had prior to that was much more reliable and easy to maintain.

what mods have you done to your 2.8?

 

K&N air filter - that it so far. Been a busy few weeks at work and with Chrimbo and such in the near future I am savin my pennies. There's a chip for the 2.8 for like 5 bills that gives you around 10hp and 15tq, hardly worth it. But there's a TipTronic chip that supposedly brings the shift-time down from 1.0 to 0.2 ... that could be more fun and value for teh 3xx bill.

Where abouts in Van are ya?

 

did you notice any gains with the k&n? the chip you mention, what does it do? I assume that since there's no forced induction, it only alters timing and fuel maps, probably necessitating the use of premium fuel all the time to avoid detonation. for 10 hp and 15 ft/lbs, that's hardly worth the money in my opinion. I would think that there would be at least that much to gain with a free-flowing exhaust system. as for the tiptronic chip, that won't be an option for me, I'm part of the group of people who will be standing in line for the last car on earth with a clutch pedal.

I'm in surrey, cloverdale actually. you?

 

If you buy an A4, be prepared for 91+ oct fuel anyways. Tis the manufacturer's standard.

As for the K&N difference - I noticed better throttle response and more aggressive acceleration from a stand-still, but my butt-dyno hasn't given me much else than that. The OE Filter is ginormous in comparison and doesn't allow as free of a flow as the K&N. I'd say the biggest gain is found in low rpms and in fuel economy. But I haven't even gone thru a tank yet since the K&N, so hard to say.

I'm in New West. no bridges! w00t!

 

ah, thanks for the heads up on the fuel. probably would have read that in the owner's manual anyway, but it's good to know. I'm surprised though that audi would recommend 91 on a naturally aspirated engine such as the 2.8L. I don't believe the compression ratio of that motor is insanely high. it is understandable that they would recommend it for the 1.8T though of course.

I read a thread last night about an airbox mod people are doing to their cars, it's in the A4 section and it's stickied. might want to check that out if you're handy with tools and stuff. let me know how many kms you get to a tank, it'd be good to know that too.

 

re: mileage...

hiway - 590-630km
city - 480-520km

Basically, from New West to Everett = 1/4 tank if I stay around the speed limit (110-120[65-75])
I think she's a 60L tank, haven't verified that yet.

Slightly worse economy than my NA Talon, but much better than my TSi Talon.

As for the airbox mod - will look into it early spring. Right now i'm just happy drivin a car that runs w/o any issues. As for the high-oct fuel for a NA engine - no clue. I had assumed 89oct woulda been fine, but that's not what the manual/gasdoor says. *shrug* It's like 10 bucks difference on fill-up's. Shell often offers triple/double airmiles on their 91+ which sometimes works out for me anyways.