[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
> - peter
> firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1001
> 91 200qw
> 94 acura legend gs
> issaquah, wa, usa
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Zumbrennen Damien [SMTP:email@example.com]
> >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
> >> 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
> >> turbos, but I still think they stress the engine too much, especially a
> >> four. The natural breathing engine was just, I don't know, better off in
> >> long term for me. I know this will generate criticism and comments that I
> >> 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
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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.