B5 A4 2.8 vs. A4 1.8T chipped
rahqlist at gmail.com
Fri May 25 14:41:39 EDT 2007
Get a chipped 1.8t, use synthetic oil, change it every 5k miles, and never
look back. The 1.8t is rock-solid. The only issue that has come out is oil
sludging because of owners using dino-oil. The 2.8 has nothing on the
1.8tin terms of reliability.
On 5/25/07, Jason Kohls <jasonkohls at gmail.com> wrote:
> Been poking around the forums and have seen quite an impressive gain
> in hp and torque from the various chip manufacturers for the 1.8T:
> they seem to bring the numbers in close to the 2.8 for hp and exceed
> the torque by a fair margin. There's also the weight penalty of a 100
> pounds or so.
> Reliability on the other hand -- with all things maintenance being
> equal -- would favor the non-chipped, NA engine, correct? However, the
> 1.8T, from what I've read, is destined to be a "classic" and I think
> it made Edmunds Top-10 engines list, so perhaps this is not the case?
> My question is: what would you rather have, power/reliability/gas
> mileage -- a B5 A4 2.8 or a chipped B5 A4 1.8T?
> I'm looking at getting a "new" daily and have seen quite a few
> high-mileage for B5 A4s for dirt cheap. My priority is reliability
> but obviously I'd like some around town pep and some highway passing
> and would like to know what the listers think.
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com
> Watch this space for ads :)
More information about the quattro