1.8t vs 2.8l and manual trans vs. auto
03-05-2007, 03:48 PM
#1
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.8t vs 2.8l and manual trans vs. auto
I'm going to be buying a used 98-01 A4 in the next month or so and wanted to get some input from you guys.
Going strictly by reliability issues, what is the best engine/transmission combo for the A4? I've done a lot of searching here, but most of the discussion between these engine and transmission combos centers around performance. I'm really just looking for the combo that *should* be the most maintenance free.
Going strictly by reliability issues, what is the best engine/transmission combo for the A4? I've done a lot of searching here, but most of the discussion between these engine and transmission combos centers around performance. I'm really just looking for the combo that *should* be the most maintenance free.
03-05-2007, 04:53 PM
#5
Elder Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bwhahaha in this forum "maintenance free or even relative" does not exist.
but a manny V6 given all conditions are equal are your best bet. Chick tronic has numerous problems and the 1.8t with its turbo also has its issues.
03-05-2007, 06:41 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a guy whose sig indicates just a chip and exhaust, that's the pot calling the kettle black . . .
Deride the V6's when you get a 1.8t with upgraded turbos.
A well-modded 12v V6 developing approximately 240 hp is nothing to triffle with, especially when you consider it weighs less than a 1.8t (thank you Audi for carbon fiber drive shafts, lighter weight heads, and only 5 on-board computers for the weight savings on the 1996-97 12v V6's):
A 1996 2.8 QM weighs in at 3228 from the factory; (I have shaved off at least 70-80 sprung lbs and 20 unsprung lbs more off mine).
A 2001.5 1.8t QM weighs in at 3241 from the factory.
Who has the power to weight advantage?
It just costs a lot more to get hp from a V6; just ask the BMW I-6 guys who have gone broke for more normally aspirated power.
So, cost advantage goes to the 1.8t, but please do not label the V6's as inherently slow. You might get surprised one day when you lack the power pass one.
A well-modded 12v V6 developing approximately 240 hp is nothing to triffle with, especially when you consider it weighs less than a 1.8t (thank you Audi for carbon fiber drive shafts, lighter weight heads, and only 5 on-board computers for the weight savings on the 1996-97 12v V6's):
A 1996 2.8 QM weighs in at 3228 from the factory; (I have shaved off at least 70-80 sprung lbs and 20 unsprung lbs more off mine).
A 2001.5 1.8t QM weighs in at 3241 from the factory.
Who has the power to weight advantage?
It just costs a lot more to get hp from a V6; just ask the BMW I-6 guys who have gone broke for more normally aspirated power.
So, cost advantage goes to the 1.8t, but please do not label the V6's as inherently slow. You might get surprised one day when you lack the power pass one.
