[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1.8 v. 2.8

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Jonathan Linkov wrote:

> I've seen a great deal of discussion on this topic and wanted to put my $.02 
> in.  I am new to the mechanics of Audis, but not Audis themselves.  But when I 
> bought my A4q (96) I knew the turbo was arriving a year later, and the 
> "mythical" 30 valve v-6 was down the road.  However, I am not a big fan of 
> turbos, no matter who makes them, and I know Audi has a long history of good 
> turbos, but I still think they stress the engine too much, especially a little 
> four.   The natural breathing engine was just, I don't know, better off in the 
> long term for me.  I know this will generate criticism and comments that I am 
> clueless in this matter, but after rebuilding a 2 vavle V-8 in my '67 Vette, I 
> know engines (to an extent), just not Audi engines, (yet).
> Jon Linkov
> '96 A4q - 2.8
> valiumnj@msn.com
	Although there there have been many improvements on turbo's, they
will still wear your engine faster than w/o them.  If you are looking for
a car that you will keep for a long time, you may be better off with the
2.8 instead of the 1.8T. After you make chip upgrades in both, the 1.8T
only has 4-5 hp more than the 2.8 v6,...nothing huge, but because it is
heavier the 2.8 would be a tad slower off the line. The European 30-valve
2.8 v6 is supposed to come to the U.S. in a few years and it would be the
obvious favorite, but untill then the normal 2.8 is the way to go.