bimmers2

My first car, of course used, was a bit cheaper ... $500

snagitseven

I think I've got everyone beat. My father bought my first car from my uncle in 1966 - a 1954 Studebaker for $50. It died on my first drive out; my dad got his $50 back.

snagitseven

Jneth522:

I left you a private message.

Nostromo

My first car in the early 90's was my grandpa's 1966 Chevy 1/2ton pickup. Everyone in the family owned that car at one point... it was a total hand-me-down.

awesome truck. way more character than my A4.

gheffty93

Just know that 2009 A4s had the old MMI for the navi system and the 2.0T gets better mpg which hould be a concern for a first car.

snagitseven

Not to dust off and revive the old 4-cyl 2.0 vs 6-cyl 3.2 debate but there are advantages to both engines. I chose the 3.2 after several test drives as smooth, linear power, engine note and improved highway acceleration were more important to me than the additional $300 or so per year gas cost (assuming 12K miles @ year at a real world difference of about 4 mpg @ $4 per gal average). When spending $48K, the additional gas cost was not a concern to me nor should it be assumed it would automatically be to a first time buyer. As always, to each his/her own.

While the 3G Nav has additional bells and whistles starting in 2010, the 2009 2G Nav is still very functional with essentially the same maps and voice commands. It's all relative - the 3G Nav completely revamped the sorry 1G. The Prestige with the B&O with the full digital, "high-MMI" is the real advantage in my opinion. Love it.

Randolph

I agree. We looked at many A4s (used) and though we would have went with a 2.0 if the right car came along we wanted the 3.2.

I would also like to add something that the OP should keep in mind and that is the 3.2 is not plagued with the oil consumption problems that seem to infinitely come up on the forums. Along with a timing chain that doesn't need service vs the 2.0 with the timing belt. That 3.2 is a great motor. I also have a hard time with a 40K plus car and a 2.0 4 cyl that sounds like a little motor at startup and on the highway. Our next A4 will probably have to be an S4 since I'm not sold on the 2.0's.

I don't care how much you can "mod" it either. To spend 40-50K for a 2.0 then have to mod it for more money is insane. Now you have a slightly molested car that is not running as Audi designed it and on top of that you get to wonder if Audi is going to deny any warranty claims the car may have do to the tuning of it. To me its not the best choice for an engine. Just my $0.02

R

gunsmoker

@Randolph, 2.0T has a timing chain. To be honest, I don't see much of a difference in how it sounds compared to a 6-cylinder. Can't hear the engine inside if you don't push it anyway. Have you driven a tuned 2.0? It's a major difference for 1500 bucks (from Stasis). I agree on the oil issue. I don't keep count of how many people have posted on AZ about buying 2009 CPOs and running low on oil a few weeks after that!

gunsmoker

@OP, I hear you about the reasons why you want a Q or the Avant. There is time for you to be reasonable later in life. Get yourself a 2009 Porsche Boxster for this money and have fun.
Rent a bigger car if you need to haul stuff occasionally.

av_audi

There is a simple solution. Spend only mid to high $30Ks on it All those stupid gadgets don't add much to the car. Premium quattro/manual already comes with more than enough entry-luxury features.

If I could order a la carte, I would get P+ + wood + sport, minus the following: sunroof, heated seats, ipod, and bluetooth.

I could also happily live with a Premium + Lighting package. I might splurge for the above is I end up getting an A4.