My car is up for change and after two problem free Volvos I fancy a change and was thinking of an Audi A4 cab.
The reviews wax lyrical, but the customer reviews and forums suggest a lot of problems (particularly with A4 coils and engine management systems). This surprised me as I thought Audi build quality was top notch.
Before I go test driving and risk heart overuling head - has anyone got any experience, good or bad, of the A4 petrols?
|
Nice car. The coil problem was sorted before the Cab came out (think it was 2001-oct 2002 build cars). So no worries there then.
Friend has A4 1.8t Avant bought new march this year and loves it. Wishes he more power tho. He's only had an issue with one of the doors 'hanging wrongly' and not shutting cleanly but all sorted first time by dealer.
|
Personally I'd go for the 2.5 TDi.
No coil packs, more torque, and more fuel efficient than the 1.8t, though it is taxed at 25% (instead of 24).
Also worth £750 for the sport pack. Expect a bit of a wait though.
|
|
Dont or didnt EVO mag run a 2.5tdi on the long term fleet and weren't that enamoured with the fuel consumption compared to the 1.9tdi?
|
Probably in the saloon, the 1.9 is the better buy.
But Steve's looking for a cabrio so...
|
|
|
|
I have had a 1.8T(163 bhp) for 2 months and 4,000 miles.
Obviously too soon to talk about reliability, but I must say the build quality exceeds anything I have previously experienced and, in particular, has a far more solid and luxurious feeling than a 3 Series BMW.
The ride quality is superb as well (don't get the "sport" suspension) and the handling exceptional for a FWD car. That said, a little torque steer can be induced and,overall the BMW comes first for handling/balance.
The performance is superb with diesel-like torque from 1,900 rpm but petrol like acceleration from rest with a 6,000+ red line. I believe the 1.8T is now 190 bhp, but I always seem to have some of my 163 to spare. Refinement at any speed is superb.
Economy wise,I have averaged 32 mpg,but this includes a lot of crawling in the South London mire. On long runs 35 mpg is easy and 40 mpg obtainable at the sacrifice of hard acceleration.
Overall, I think the A4 is a great car.
|
|
Having compared my BMW 3-series and SWMBO\'s A3 I can affirm all that you say Woody. The quality of package apart from suspension is superb - little design touches that seem to elude BMW.
|
|
Definitely more of a "driver's car" than the first gen A4 2.6 I used to have - which means distinctly less comfortable. The standard setup handles well and sports suspension is not a great idea for UK roads. Well detailed, feelgood cabin but refinement is only OK - the petrol engines (including 3.0 V6) are surprisingly noisy so don't expect a mini-A8. Still a very good looking, capable car.
|
|
The Passat is virtually the same car with slightly better internal finishing and more extras for a lot less money.
|
"The Passat is virtually the same car with slightly better internal finishing and more extras for a lot less money."
Probably is Jeds - but I'm looking at the rag top.
Must say though, having looked at one without testing yet, the interior is a bit disappointing even with leather. I'm used to plenty of comfort and space in my C70 and sitting in the A4 felt a bit claustrophobic.
The external build and looks are impressive so testing next week.
|
|
|
|
i was reading the latest literature on the Avant this week, to slit hairs the new 1.8T is 190ps, not bhp, am i correct in saying this is a couple of bhp less. i do find quotes in ps irritating
|
Well I tried it - and I may just be in love. Very tight hardly and noise you really wouldn't think it was a cab.
Question.
The one I tried was not a quattro and seemed full of grip and handled very well - is the quattro worth the extra? Or does the extra weight of the 4 wheel drive take the edge off performance?
|
Audi's literature says "Please note: The maximum power output figures are quoted in PS (or Pfederstarke, which is the metric equivalent of brake horsepower). To convert from metric to imperial horsepower, divide the PS figure by 1.0139.
So, there you have it "190 PS" is 2.6 bhp more than "190 bhp".
|
Actually I make it 187.4 bhp, so it's an increase of 2.6 units over the bhp figure.
Of course, if you can tell the difference, given the variation in condition and tightness of the engine, age of the air filter, oil, etc., the variation in your revs and where the maximum power is developed, and so on, you should probably be testing Formula One cars.
And for the avoidance of doubt, the 1.8t in the cabrio (but not the saloon) is still the 163 unit, at least for the time being.
|
Decision made.
I've gone for the 3 litre non quattro with black everything (the quattro takes too much off the performance) and I'm no racer so the grip of the two wheel drive is enough.
I've also ditched the "sports suspension" - the std is already firm enough and I wish to keep my fillings!
Thanks to those who replied. Can't wait to get my hands on it.
|
|
|
|
|
