1. Home
  2. Audi Cars Forum
  3. Quattro vs. Accord, a true story

Quattro vs. Accord, a true story

I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even more important.

I've owned both an Accord and a 90 Quattro. Both cars were 1988 models and both had about 120K on them. The Accord was butt ugly in my artistic opinion but it faithfully moved me down the road for 4 years until it decided to develop an unpredictable massive electrical failure that would pop up now and then unexpectedly. While it was for the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn. The seats were broken down so you could feel the frame against your thorasic spine. This proved problematic when I was rearended by a Voyager at low speed.

I ended up dumping the car for $50.00 when I found my 1988 90Quattro. I was immediately reminded of what I like about German cars. The suspension was still tight after all those miles, the seats still provided support where needed, the body was more solid providing a quieter ride and it is overall just a better made car. I has a MUCH better sound system MUCH better back seat and MUCH better handling and braking characteristics. My biggest complaint is that the normally aspirated 5 cyl engine is a bit underpowered for the car's weight.

Anyone who thinks that the Quattro system is dead weight except in snow or on wet pavement either hasn't driven the car, or doesn't know how to drive except in a straight line. I realize that for kids speed off the line is important. I was there once. But when I learned how to drive on winding roads I then realized my priorities were out of whack. Today, for me, handling characteristics at high speed are much more important.

Finally, in '02 when we were looking at new cars, my wife an I looked at the A4 and A6 and accepted the fact that they were out of our price range. We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion. We then made the obligatory visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord. Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW! Since the

4Motion was only about $3K more than the Accord, it it was an easy decision.

1987 Mercedes 300 SDL

1988 Audi 90 Quattro 2002 Passat 4Motion
Reply to
Earnest
Loading thread data ...

I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of hauling that vehicle with any authority. It's haevy, heavier than the old B5 A4 (has anyone checked the B5.5 Passat's curb weight aganist the B6 A4?) Having driven a 2004 Accord sedan I can say that it's much more "lively" than the Passat, and the auto is better than VW's Tip. However, I find the Passat to have a more "mature" interior of higher quality, and in terms of grip and ride quality it is equal to or better than the Accord.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

[Ah, these kids! How short their memories!] The '88 90Q was powered by the venerable inline 10-valve 5 cylinder - unless it was a 20V version that put out about as much power as the contemporary turbo. Neither one likely had any 'authority' as you, no doubt, define it, but they were both a ball to drive.

-- C.R. Krieger (BT, DT)

Reply to
C.R. Krieger

Ummm, unless that Accord had some *serious* suspension modifications, that was *under*steer, not oversteer. Not that a Quattro won't do it, too, but at least it turns neutral at speed.

-- C.R. Krieger (BT, DT)

Reply to
C.R. Krieger

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Quattro is my car, the Passat my wife's. She isn't a demanding driver. BTW, the 2.6L in the Passat is quite adequate for most drivers, and it definitely outperforms the 2.2L 5cyl in my Audi. 130k miles difference may have something to do with that. The Quattro still outhandles the Passat hands down.

Which is exactly why we chose to spend the extra money on the Passat. After riding in our friend's '03 Accord, I'm convinced it was money well spent. (...if money spent on a new car ever could be money well spent!)

1987 Mercedes 300 SDL 1988 Audi 90 Quattro 2002 Passat 4Motion
Reply to
Earnest

I was sticker shocked when looking at a almost fully loaded A4q (no Bose radio) and compared it against the 4Motion. Having driven Jetta's for 19 years (two) and one Golf I couldn't look at the same VW symbol and the steering wheel anymore. We bought the A4. The 4Motion was OK but the trunk was too small and it is heavier by 500 lbs. But a good compromise.

Reply to
Anonymous

"Earnest" wrote

You can say that again.

I actually made a mistake of buying a new (back then) '00 Accord EX-V6. Back then, it was my first NEW car, and the only thing I was considering was the reliability record. What a tremendous mistake that was. The car was incredibly boring to drive (obligatory automatic - no other choice back then), and it wasn't even all that reliable - poor manufacturing quality.

Half a year later I drove an A4, and then I really started kicking myself - what the hell was I thinking with the Accord???

Needless to say, I took a hit and sold the Accord in 2001 and got a new A4 1.8TQ manual. It's been 3 years now, and I still love everything about this car. I just wish I had hotten it sooner and skipped the whole Honda fiasco.

Cheers,

Pete

Reply to
Pete

2.8L.

-- Mike Smith

Reply to
Mike Smith

As compared to any garden-variety Accord, just about any VAG product is a ball to drive.

VW diesel pickup, anyone? LOL.

Reply to
Jonesy

The W8 in the Passat really makes it move out. I'd love to see the Audi 4.2 V8 in the Passat (As a 4Motion, 6sp, Avant) and call it the R42 Avant. Aww, crap, there's already an S6 Avant. ;)

Anyway, the 2.8L is a decent enough motor. I wonder what the car would be like if it had 270HP like the TL-S?

Reply to
Jonesy

Well it's a 2.8, not a 2.6. And I guess "adequate" is subjective. That same motor did a damn fine job moving my father's 98.5 A4 Quattro. But it was a

5-speed, not a tip, and lighter weight than the B5.5 Passat. I've driven the Passat as a 1.8T FWD, V6 FWD w/ 5-speed and V6 4Motion with Tip. With the clumsy tip and the added weight it was underwelming to say the least. And before anyone goes on ranting about how I must be a Honda-lover, I drive a Volkswagen, a 2002 GTi.

Undoubtedly. But to go from a *very* underpowered car to a car that's "adequately" powered at best isn't a big step up IMHO. I would've taken a 1.8T

5-speed FWD or at least not have saddled the V6/Tip combo with 4Motion. But that's just me. The Jetta with the 24 valve 2.8 was a blast, even with the Tip it felt fine, but it had 10 more Hp than the Passat V6 does and weighs less.
Reply to
Steve Grauman

I'm aware of the shortcomings of the 90's power output. But with great used buys like the (previous Gen.) 260Hp TL Type S sedan, I can't see paying out for a V6, 4Motion Passat which is anything but exciting. Of course, the Acura is little more than a glorified Honda, but there are other buys out there, I'm only making a basic point.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Well, that's exactly as much power as the W8 makes...

-- Mike Smith

Reply to
Mike Smith

Slap a PES supercharger on that 2.8 and you'll get about 300hp right there. Haven't driven one personally, but those who have say it's a blast. :-)

Cheers,

Pete

Reply to
Pete

Should be. It's got more torque and Hp than a W8 with a similar curb weight and probably peaks at lower RPM. However, it'd be nice to see a factory-built 260+ Hp Passat that doesn't cost $40k.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

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.