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

RE: 1.8 v. 2.8

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Peter Henriksen wrote:

> The way to go for what?
> As far as I know, a 1.8T can be taken to well over 200hp with relatively
> minimal investment as opposed to the 2.8 which needs all sorts of
> expensive hardware to get more than 5-10hp more than it already has in
> stock form.
> It seems to me that if you want performance, take the 1.8T and hop it
> up. If you want smoothness and ultimate longevity, take the 2.8.
> Make mine a 1.8Tq Avant with somewhere just above 200hp and suspension
> modifications.
> - peter
>   peterhe@microsoft.com - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1001
>   91 200qw
>   94 acura legend gs
>   issaquah, wa, usa
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:	Zumbrennen  Damien [SMTP:zumbrenn@bvsd.k12.co.us]
> >Sent:	Monday, December 02, 1996 10:06 PM
> >To:	Jonathan Linkov
> >Cc:	Quattro
> >Subject:	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. 
> >
To my knowledge the stock 1.8T has around 150hp. The 2.8 v6 has about 
174hp.  With the chip upgrade the 1.8T gains 30-50hp (because its a 
turbo), the 2.8 on the other hand only gains about 14hp.  This would 
leave them with about the same hp.  However, a friend recently told me 
that the newer Audi Turbos are very effecient and wear down the engine 
(and themselves) a lot less since the the days of the 5000T and the GT.  
It's a tough call but I still do not trust the turbo completely.  Make 
mine the 2.8...and make it yellow.