nearly bullet-proof. Sure, it would cost a lot if you had to replace it, but
the fact is, it rarely ever needs any fixing/maintenance.
Agreed. It makes little sense at all here in the US where every soccer
mom is driving around in a gas guzzling 4WD SUV. For me, the driving
experience, safety, and creature comforts far outweighs the slightly
lower mileage. As for repair costs, my experience with Audi vehicles
doesn't jibe with the original poster's hearsay.
I have been googling AWD and also similar vehicle comparisons for the
past few months. I hve been collecting qualitative info before I
'actually' get in the cars I am interested in trying/buying.
I will try the FWD and AWD A4 saturday. Should be interesting.
150k miles Quattro perfect, infact tyre wear is less with quattro, FWD cars
waste front tyres for a pasttime.
You will regret not getting Quattro because people will say, "why didnt you
get it" and you have no argument to back up the fact :)
Oh and its safer.
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:36:04 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Potato) wrote:
I own a 1990 Audi 90 Quattro 20V bought in 92 with 65,000 kilometers on
it. Presently nearing 300,000 kilometers. Not a single Quattro related
problem during the time I've owned the car.
Taking a chance on this car was the best investment I have ever made in a
car. I was expecting it to cost me a small fortune in maintenance, but
this has not been the case.
Less that driving a 2WD vehicle into a tree? Or other relatively fixed part
of the landscape? ;o)
TBH, it all depends upon how you drive, how you'd prefer to drive (given the
opportunity), how many miles, and the likely terrain.
Impossible to comment without more information (the country might help, as
well, as running costs can vary a /lot/ between (e.g.) the USA and most
Hairy One Kenobi
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:06:25 -0000, "Hairy One Kenobi"
Cost related to higher consumption of consumables related to more
moving parts. Trees and other unmovable objects are the subject of
Not very many km's, highly varied terrain but mostly 11 km back and
forth to where I type out these missives. And highway speeds, <95km/hr
for 1/2 the trip. Which is why I am not looking at the 3.0 l A4
Quattro. Too much bhp for too little road.
Canada, wet coast. Everything is more expensive here than any where
else in the couuntry except for the rain. Falls from the sky year
round here except during the summer and other times of the year.
The opinion of the mech is just that. Ultimately the question would
be: Audi but no quattro? I am just trying to stay away from the
emotional part of this thing but ask me on monday after the test
If you're determined to get an Audi, then get a quattro. It's the most
reliable part of the car, IMHO. Indeed, I don't recall EVER hearing of
people having problems with it in the over two decades and several versions
it's been around. One caveat, A4s are not known for neck-snapping
acceleration so an un-chipped 1.8T quattro may be a little anemic in that
department. The 3.0 quattro would be more balanced IMHO. However, chipping
the 1.8T is a way around that problem. Be aware too that there are not a lot
of independent mechanics who work on Audis so you might be forced to have
work done by the dealer. Nice thing though is the long and comprehensive
Driving a '80 quattro with about 160k miles now the only
quattro-related costs I had, were the bulbs for the
illumination of the diff-lock switch symbol plate...:)
In my view the "higher consumption because of the
AWD" practitcally is a myth. Since you need less braking
*before* and (therefore) less acceleration *after* a bend
to gain the same *average* speed over a given (twisty)
strech of street you actually will use *less* gas than with
the FWD version; all else equal of course. I never used more
than 5% over the figures for the FWD version of my car, and
thats with a tiny 4cyl engine.
If you drive faster -- and you will :) -- it's your problem :-)))
The added weight in my car over the FWD version is 80kg, as
much as a passenger. Compare that little more gas for city
driving with the absolutely even wear between front and rear
tires and you are quit.
My last 3 cars have all been quattro, and I have been more than happy with
the fuel consumption,given the performance and handling. All have averaged
over 33 m.p.g. (UK Imperial gallons).
***Watch Spam Trap***
I average about 24mpg in the US with a '99 A4 1.8T quattro with a number
of performance modifications (ECU upgrade/exhaust/etc) and "spirited"
city/highway driving. On a long highway trip with a light foot, I get
It appears I'm the one guy who has spent the *most* on Quattro-related
The rear differential seals can eventually leak - at around 150K miles, IME
and IIRC. It costs about $80/side to replace them. It takes a long time
for it to actually damage the car; it won't strand you anywhere, and you
should have noticed the drips and fixed it well before that time. You'll
only ever do it once per side on a car. All other rear suspension issues
(struts, bushings, etc.) you might encounter are similar to those of the FWD
I also have had one Quattro (a '90 90 20V) get loose rear driveshaft
splines. I understand this happens in the higher-powered older cars like
the turbos and the 20V 5-cylinders with manual transmissions. It's very
progressive. I had a noise from 132,000 miles (when I bought the car) that
gradually got louder until 178,000 miles (when I sold the car). It is not a
debilitating problem, only a growing annoyance. On 3 other older Quattros
I've owned, I saw 232,000-266,000 miles with no AWD-related problems other
than the diff seals.
That said, I love the Quattro drivetrain and I would *not* consider an Audi
(Been there; done that)
My last company car was an A6 Quattro which replaced a 2WD A4 - the big A6
gave much better tyre milage and was a much more balanced car to drive fast
on twisty roads. In terms of overall cost, I didn't have it long enough (60k
miles) to discover whether the drive train was problematic in any way, but
I'd have been very surprised indeed if it had given trouble!
The only issue which was drive train related in any way was having to
replace ALL four tyres having written one off! The remaining three were all
relativly worn and the advice was to change the lot. Whether that was good /
accurate / real advice I don't know as I wasn't paying for it at the time.
If I were paying for it, I'd have been more concerned.
When finances allow, I'll be back with a Quattro - what superb roadholding
There are more CV joints and boots on the quattro. The CV joints as in most
cars are pretty much bulletproof UNLESS the rubber boots tear and then dirt
in the CV joint will rapidly destroy it just like any FWD car. Other than
that, I have driven quattros for 17 years and found them to be trouble-free.
the AWD part that is. Other components are less reliable. My 98 A4 offers
the renowned old British car feature of external lubrication of the garage
floor. I am preparing for a timing belt change at 66,000 miles that the
owners' manual says is due at 90,000 miles but which often fails prior to
that point taking a variety of expensive engine parts with it. At least my
electrical coil has been reliable which is more than can be said for some
newer A4s. Good grief, wasn't that technology pretty much perfected a
century ago? I will grant that Audi has finally mastered the technology of
door handles that don't fall off. I've heard they're now working on tie rod
ends and control arms.
email@example.com (Richard Potato) wrote in message
Your local mech is uninformed. Long-term expense? If you factor in
the 5% additional fuel cost, then maybe he'd have a point. Here's
something that would blow his mind: In the Seattle/Portland area, the
resale value on the quattro cars is so much higher that you come out
AHEAD on fuel costs, FWD vs. AWD. If you keep the car a very long
time, of course there will be a break-even.
Something not mentioned yet (well, that I haven't seen yet) is the
4-wheel alignment that should be done once every two years or so. The
2WD cars don't need a 4-wheel alignment unless you change suspension
bits or hit something.
On the wet side of the Cascades, you can't swing a dead cat without
hitting a German car indy mechanic. I'm sure it's the same in the
Great Wet North.
Considering that the car performs better in slippery conditions, and
that you'd be able to avoid an accident better in those
once-in-a-blue-moon snowfalls (like this winter) the quattro system
might pay for itself the first time out. And then some.
The system is mechanically bulletproof, like the other folks have
said. Be careful to look at the CV boots all around, every oil change
(whether you change your own oil or not.) If they are whole, your CVs
will last damn near forever. Actually, this is good advice for a FWD
car as well, but since the quattro has an extra car-end of CV
For me, the A4 1.8Tq has been a wonderful piece of equipment, with no
real faults (a few burnt-out bulbs) and has been steadfast in it's
winter service, both on snow tires and all-seasons. Warms up quick,
gets around in crummy weather, stylish, and quite luxurious for a
decent price. Add to that the fact that a light foot gives me about
28mpg (U.S. gallons), I'm damned happy with it. AND, if we ever
decide to sell it (over my dead body), we'll at least get double of
what a FWD car brings. At least, in SEA/PDX that's about what the
differential is for a 7-year old FWD/AWD of same model. About.
On 8 Jan 2004 10:59:08 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonesy) wrote:
Thanks. I live north of the Cascades in once a year snow country. Damn
I am pretty much sold on the A4 1.8T Q; the rubber hits the road this
weekend when I will test the FWD and AWD, sequentially. I am not too
interested in looking at other vehicles so it will be (hopefully)
negotiating the price. That part I wil enjoy.
Not to beat this discussion to death, but one thing that has not been
mentioned here is that while you have duplicate drive train components
in AWD, you also have on average only 50% of the load. Beyond the
uncomplicated, bullet-proof use of a mechanical Torsen center
differential in non-TT/non-A3 Audis, *that* is the main reason you see
virtually no failures on the drive train components past the
transmission on these cars, and it also helps understand the superior
thread life on tires and other components.
I am tomorrow replacing my crap Michelin tires after almost 60K miles,
just because they would not die (although they became noisy and I have
not trusted them after about 20K). The same tires lasted only about 20K
on my Golf (10K-15K of that showing halfway acceptable performance).
My 18" tyres are now on 30k miles and I have never owned a car that is like
this on tyres<good>, there is no need to rotate the tyres on a quattro, they
do wear almost perfectly, you do get a little more wear if your one of those
people who use the power steering to much while the car is stopped.
My Audi dealer has said he has *never* heard of a quattro drive train going
I've just passed the 150k mile mark, and it still drives like new its a new
servicing can be a little more expensive on one point, changing the fuel
filter, this is because the quattro has a dual tank design that sits either
side of the prop shaft, you dont have this on fwd car, this makes it harder
to change. oh and the quattro holds a little less fuel. maybe a gallon less.
some garages will charge you more because it's a "quattro" if they do they
are ripping you off, they think they can get away with it being that its the
better vehicle of the range, iirc there is no difference in charge for a
service from Audi.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.