2004 a4 3.0 or 1.8

Hi everyone im currently looking at purchasing a 2004 A4...my only hesitation is in choosing the engine. Ive heard some horror stories about engine problems that audi has had in the past and i was wondering wich engine is less prone to problems. I like most other people would like to avoid catastrophic engine failure and the resulting $$$ outflow.

I love the idea of having the inline 6 but i noticed it was only available for 3 modle years ( i think) whereas the 1.8 has been in service much longer. Is it because there were problems with the 3.0?

Any input form anyone would help....thanks alot

Reply to
sheehan888
Loading thread data ...

Inline 6? To the best of my knowledge, Audi has never made a straight six - certainly not in recent years. My 2002 A4 3.0 has a V6. Nice engine, too. Can't say anything about the reliability, though - firstly because it's only done 35000 miles and secondly because I've only had it since April.

Downside to the 3.0 is that it's a bit thirsty. I average about 24mpg (UK - dunno what that converts to in US measurements). For comparison, I used to average 29 mpg out of a 1998 2.5 BMW 323i (E36).

None of which I'm aware. As far as I know, it's simply a case of Audi replacing a 2.8 with a 3.0, and then increasing that in turn to a 3.2.

Peter.

Reply to
Peter

I'm not aware of any plague of catastrophic engine failures affecting Audi. Coil packs have been the main issue in recent years and I believe that was limited to the 1.8 engines.

Don't know where you got your info but the 3.0 V6 was available all the way through the B6 production run. i.e. 5/6 model years.

Reply to
Dave

What have you heard? For a German car, they are fairly trouble-free.

Compared to a Japanese car, they might be considered trouble-prone.

Audis don't suffer from catastrophic engine failure without much help from inattentive owners.

Your info is wrong. No I-6 (V-6), and the basic 2.8-3.0 has been around since the early '90s

Do some more research. Seriously.

Qualitatively, some folks think they detect some difference in smoothness between the two engines. If you look for it, it can be felt at idle and at WOT. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. The 1.8T gets decent mileage, too.

E.P.

'95 UrS6

Reply to
Ed Pirrero

Dave and peter thanks for the replys and for the correct info. I have a friend whose an audi fan and he told me to go with the inline six(not much of a fan i guess) ...thats where the info came from...ill pass it on.

thanks again

Reply to
sheehan888

The 1.8 had an issue with sludge but if you and the previous owner stick to the oil/filter change interval religiously and use synthetic oil you should be OK. The 2.8 V6 had an issue with oil leaks - not sure that's been resolved with the 3.0. The latter problem is not catastrophic but is a nuisance and several hundred $'s to repair. Tming belts should be changed before 75,000 miles - if one breaks, you will do thousands of $'s damage to the engine. Search Audiworld.com for more info on A4 problem areas including those not related to the engine. The current A4 is probably as reliable as any European car which is not saying much. They don't have the reliability of Honda or Toyota. Even Hyundai has surpassed the Euro makes in reliability. Basically, you don't buy a European car for reliability these days.

Reply to
Ian S

thank you everyone for the replies... i thingk the problems ive been hearing about were all the result of the broken timing belt that ian mentioned and ed thakn you for your input on th edifferences between the two engines...i like most of you cant bring myself to buy a japanese car and will never drive another american one so im looking very seriously at the audi

Reply to
sheehan888

I have a 2002 A4 3.0 also - it just passed 80,000 miles. It was afflicted with the coil pack problem at about 40K, but otherwise has been solid.

According to the computer, I have averaged 26.3 mpg (US gallon) over the last few months - that's 31.6 mpg to an imperial gallon. I commute 110 miles daily, 30 of which is in town, 50 of which is at around 65mph, and

30 of which is around 80-85.

Steve

Reply to
Steve Thompson

I just bought a 2001 A4 with a 2.8 a month ago... Mechanic told me the 2.8's (bumped up to 3.0L and now 3.2L) are the safer bet, they only "need" regular oil, whereas the 1.8T needs it, but it wasn't required, they also needed a larger oil filter, and these were not used for the first few years... Leading to sluding issues on some cars. Turbo's can fail, natural aspiration

*can't*. A V6 is smoother then a 4 cylinder.

With an automatic the 1.8T has some lag off the line, doesn't seem as annoying with a manual transmission tho.

V6 fuel economy isn't all that great, the 1.8T would be a lot better... I'm averaging 12L per 100kms in this winter weather, mix of in town and highway driving (120-135kph).

A 1.8T car will handle better due to less weight at the front of the car.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

seems like no one has any regrets with the V6...thats good im gettign closer and closer to beign able to excuse audi's expensive running costs in return for a car that most people seem to be pretty passionate about.

Reply to
sheehan888

"Rob Guenther" wrote

I'm assuming you meant the 1.8T needs , which is true. Dealers used to put bulk dino oil in them at 10K mile intervals and that's what caused the sludging issues.

The 2.8 has some problems of its own like oil leaks or high oil consumption. But yeah, it's still probably a safer bet. The 1.8T was a tuner's paradise, hence why it was so popular. The 2.8 is not as easy to modify for higher power with little resources. Of course with modifications come higher risks of engine (and other component) problems.

Yeah, even more so with quattro.

Yup, I was quite happy with mine, especially after chipping it.

That's not bad. I was getting similar mileage with a 1.8T in mostly city driving.

Cheers,

Pete

Reply to
Pete

"Pete" skrev i en meddelelse news:dtm7r2$rk5$ snipped-for-privacy@inews.gazeta.pl...

Im averaging at 10,1L/100km in a ´98 A4 Avant 2.4 tt Just DONT look at the consumption *here and now*, when you´re playing big-foot ;o)

Reply to
Gio

Even though the 3.0 V6 only 'needs' regular dino/mineral oil, i'd still be inclined to use synthetic, as you get much better engine protection at start-up, particularly cold starts. The lower viscosity of synthetics will also help with slightly better fuel consumption. Don't forget, the V6 motor is harder to work on (and more expensive) should any work be required due to any lubrication failure.

Agreed - before I got my S4 V8, I considered the A4 3.0V6 q, as well as the 1.8T 2wd and 4wd, and tried both the V6 and 1.8T with manual and auto transmissions. I was mighty disappointed in general with the Audi auto box, but I thought it was particularly poor with the 1.8T - the auto box was better with the V6, but still not on a par with the auto box in a BMW 330i. Had the S4 not have been released, I would have settled for the 3.0 V6 manual (this was around Xmas 2002 when I was looking!).

The OP didn't indicate what he drives ATM, but if he is used to the low-down torque of lazy V8s with slush boxes - then he'll probably be disappointed/frustrated with the lack of immediate low-down torque from the 1.8T - it was a real deal-breaker for me!

Yup - horses for courses and all that. Larger engine displacement usually means worse fuel economy, though there are exceptions. Though it is known that Audi vee motors (V6 and V8) do improve their fuel ecomomy after they are truly run-in (anywhere from 5k to 10k miles)

I don't really know if I agree with the 'handle better' bit. The

1.8T may be 'slightly' better/easier to throw around the twisties, but hustling the (only slightly) heavier lump of the V6 can be more rewarding - it just takes a slightly different driving style. Even my S4 V8 (with 195kg of motor ahead of the front axle) can be great fun, and extremely rewarding to drive hard round the back roads - you just have to remember to scrub off your speed BEFORE you turn in, and power through the corners, rather than cruising round them on a trailing throttle. I must be doing it OK because my rear tyres are wearing at the very same rate as the fronts (to within ½mm), without any tyre/wheel swapping at all.

Don't forget though, all variants of the B6 A4 are generally very good and competent in the handling department, due to the fully independent suspension on all four corners - variable geometry double wishbone up front and multi-link at the rear.

Rgds, Sean

Reply to
Juan King

Ok, weighing in with props for the 1.8T... ;-) I didn't really consider the V6 because I'm a 4-cylinder guy, and have had turbo cars before that ran up lots of mileage with no issues. Since most of my driving is around town, I wanted the better mileage of the 1.8T (which is just okay - I average 24 around town, again mostly short trips, and have gotten as high as 34 on all-highway trips). I plan to upgrade the engine software once I get out of warranty, 200 - 210 hp is easily achieved with no penalty. But if you want an automatic, go for the V6. I have heard that the 1.8T is sluggish with the slushbox.

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

Reply to
Dano58

Doesn't sound bad, but that's a very different mix from mine. I have to do a lot of fairly short (< 6 miles) stop-start journeys with only the occasional longer run. And when I do get a longer run, it's mostly motorways, on which I tend to do 85 - 90 mph.

Peter.

Reply to
Peter

"Gio" wrote

2.4 twin turbo???

Pete

Reply to
Pete

"Pete" skrev i en meddelelse news:dtnedk$d2q$ snipped-for-privacy@inews.gazeta.pl...

*arrh*..Come on, Pete...are you bored!? ;o)

tt = tip-tronic

Reply to
Gio

I don't look at the trip computer consumption (it scares me sometimes)... I calculate L per 100Kms when I fill up.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Oil leaks and/or consumption??? Really

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Reply to
Rob Guenther

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.