Hi everyone:<p>I got turned onto this very cool site by a friend who owns a '98 1.8T with a chip. After riding in his car, I'm keen on the idea of getting an A4 myself, but I'm torn between the smooth, quiet V-6 and the spunky Turbo 4 with a chip. Both deliver about the same horsepower (if you believe the chipmaker's claims of 40 additional horsepower on the 1.8), but I'm having a difficult time making up my mind. Checking out the specs on this page, I didn't notice a huge difference in the std. equipment levels of 1.8 vs. 2.8. So, my question is, is a V-6 model worth the extra few grand over a 1.8T with a chip - and if so, why? I believe it might be worth it for me, as most of my driving is on long (120+ miles) freeway commutes, and I'd like the car to be as quiet and smooth as possible. Please share your opinions!!! -MKL '98 Harley XL1200C / '97 Honda Civic EX

This has come up many times before. I know I am going to get flamed for this, but most A4 owners (including many 1.8T owners, I would guess) would likely opt for the 2.8, if money were no object.<p>As you pointed out yourself, the 1.8 and 2.8 produce about the same output (after chipping the 1.8). In stock form, however, the 2.8 is definitely the more powerful and faster ride. <p>If the power can be considered roughly equal, why get the 2.8? Well, its not really the power, but the manner it generated its power. The 2.8 is smoother and quieter, and generally goes about its business without making much of a fuss.<p>Moreover, the 2.8 generates considerably more torque than the 1.8T in stock form (and I would wager in chipped form as well, although I don't know the numbers). This means that you have to work less to use the power (like passing vehicles without downshifting).<p>And lastly, since the 1.8 is making its power with about 1000cc of less displacement, it is pretty much always working harder to make that power. There have been several reports of blown turbos, stuck wastgates, and the like. Granted these are probably the exception rather than the rule, but why risk it (and you still have to worry about whether the dealership will still honor the warranty after finding out about your chip).<p>Otherwise, your assessment is pretty much correct. Both cars differ very little in equipment. Purists might deride the extra weight and fuel consumption of the 2.8, but I think that its other qualities more than make up for this. <p>The 2.8 has a few extra luxury goodies (like power seat, wood trim, and available leather) which gives it the (mistaken) impression of being a luxury cruiser around here, but it is every bit the sport sedan the 1.8 is.<p>Tom Halter<br>98.5 2.8 QM Pearl/Onyx

Here is my opinion (many others' opinions will differ). I got the 1.8T because the extra $3500 for the 2.8 was simply out of my budget. If I could afford it, I would go with the 2.8. More power than the base 1.8T and a smoother/quieter engine. Price differential has come down a bit since metallic paint is now standard on both.<p>The only problem I have with my car has been something with the turbo (which was fixed). Many others have had problems with the turbo (particularly the wastegate). I have not heard of a single problem with the 2.8 engine. DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that most 1.8T turbos have problems or anything like that, just that I read more about turbo problems than I do about 2.8 engine problems.<p>Chipping is an option on the 1.8T if you want to take some measure of risk for more pep.<p>Bottom line - they're both good values in my opinion. Let your budget and your test drives of both decide. Good luck.<p>Tom<br>1.8TQMS Silver/Ecru

If you're a Tiptronic buyer, I would definitely go for the 2.8. If you really prefer and enjoy a stick, then either car will satisfy you, with the 1.8T probably being a bit more "fun" if you define fun as having to learn to use the powerband, shift more often, etc. I'm very happy with the 1.8T and find its power quite adequate (I'm not much of a street racer anymore, though).<p> Doug G<br> 98 1.8TQM

I went for the 1.8 because it is 200+ lbs lighter, gets about 12 mpg better mileage, and it is very smooth. With the stock exhaust you can barely hear it and I certainly don't feel any roughness. I couldn't see paying $4000 for wood and chromed plastic trim.

Don't forget long term insurance costs....Depending on your age, most insurance companies really jack-up the rates for ANY car that has a turbo. Get a quote from your agent for a 1.8 and a 2.8 and check the difference.

Only you can decide. Spend lots of time with both and drive them back to back. I'd echo one caveat, if you must have the Tip and you don't want to chip, go for the 2.8. <p>My choice was a manual 1.8T for a number of reasons. Most important was price. I simply could not justify the extra thousands for 2 cylinders. Second was availability; when I bought, 2.8's were tough to find. Third, maybe it's just the altitude, but I find the 1.8 to be a much more potent engine at low revs, even without a chip. The torque curve is completely flat and you hit the meat of the curve by 2K. The 1.8 also offers some peripheral benefits like better gas mileage, improved balance and less complexity. For a 4, the 1.8 is remarkably smooth and well mannered, from the first time I drove it, I was hooked. I know I'm in the minority here, but V-6's really don't do anything for me. I much prefer inline engines, my favorites being BMW sixes and a variety of 4's. Of course, I don't mind V-8's and V-12's. <p>Yes, the V6 is marginally smoother and more powerful in stock form. The real question is whether or not the purported 40 hp is worth the 4000 bucks. You'll get lots of different opinions here and nobody's really wrong.<p>Andy

If your 1.8T is "very smooth", and I don't doubt that it is, then I would say that the 2.8 is "extraordinarily smooth". And as little "roughness" as you feel in the 1.8T, there is even less in the 2.8.<p>Does the 1.8T really get 12 MPG better mileage? That seems like a lot. If it does, more power to you. I think the 200 lbs and gas mileage are negligible. I wouldn't buy either of these cars for the criteria of weight or gas mileage. That's not their best features.<p>Now let's be fair: 2.8 buyers are not paying $4000 for wood and chromed plastic trim. Did you forget that the engine is different? Also, I found out recently that the 1.8T (at least up to 1998) does not have the power driver's seat. Moshe started this thread and mentioned that they drive 120-mile trips regularly. Moshe, you will want the 2.8 just for the power driver's seat alone! I wish my passenger seat was as good. I might let other people drive my car more often if I had a power passenger seat. The passenger seat just doesn't have the same adjustments as the driver's seat in the 2.8. Also, the 2.8 has 16" wheels as standard equipment. I realize most 1.8T buyers will opt for the sports package and thus, get 16" wheels, but I'm just trying to be fair in the comparisons here.<p>Moshe, you seem like a perfect candidate for the 2.8. Your routine of driving many highway miles will be much more enjoyable (IMHO) in the 2.8 with the power adjustable driver's seat with adjustable lumbar support. But, don't take my word for it - drive them both!<p>Drew S.<br>

So, $4000 for incremental smoothness? That's what we are really talking here. An inline six is even smoother than the v6. How often are you moving through the rpms on the highway? That is the only time a person really feels the motor anyways.<p>The seats? I personally don't care for the seats at all (exc. for the heater). Manual or electric and I tried them both. The lateral support is very poor, but better than USA for sure, and the lumbar just doesn't fit me.<p>I get 31 mpg highway average. The worst mileage I ever had was 18 highway at 120 mph continious. I get 24 ave. in the city. Try that with the v6.<p>200lbs is a huge difference in handling. The penalty for quattro which took them half a year to make up was less than that.

Your not saying the 1.8T is smoother than the 2.8 are you?<p>Steve S.<br>97 2.8QM

Life is too short to mince words. The 1.8 is very smooth, but it will never be as smooth as the six. <br>I guess I'm less sensitive to this issue than some folks.<p><br>I've driven a number of "smooth cars" and it makes little difference to me. I've driven a number of really poor feeling v6's too. The car is not thrashy like many 4's, esp. at high rpms. It's not as smooth as an inline six. Personal taste. <p>The sewing machine firing pattern of 4's can only be reduced (makes an offbalanced + in crossection), never eliminated. The bastard GM (90 deg block) V6 is even more off-balanced. The (90 deg block) V8 balances out the 4's pattern. And the inline six makes a perfect 120 deg firing pattern.

see my post above comparing 1.8T/2.8 to 323.<p>Maybe you have a "forum A4" <G> old joke - check archives. personally, i have a "my A4"<p>Darryl<br>98.5 1.8T qmsb

.<br>

If you want a list of differences I can produce it. Certainly the $4000 difference in price is not for one specific feature. It is not just for wood and chromed trim, and it is also not just for incremental smoothness. It's a total package. In your eyes, and many other people's eyes, it's not worth it. I don't have a problem with that. I only debate these claims that seem to trivialize the differences.<p>Here's the differences:<p>- 2.8 30v V6 engine. 40 more HP. 52 more ft-lbs of torque. Subjective increase in smoothness.<br>- 120 amp alternator (vs. 90 amp in 1.8T).<br>- 16" alloy wheels (5-spoke).<br>- power adjustable driver's seat with adjustable lumbar support.<br>- Do you want leather? If so, then you must get the 2.8. I wanted it, I got it.<br>- wood and chrome trim.<p>As I said, I don't have a problem if you find none of these features appealing, just don't act like the difference in price is just for an extra 40 HP of smooth power. It is worth it to a lot of people (I wish I had some sales numbers to quote).<p>Since I don't have any fuel mileage numbers of my own, I looked at the ones on www.edmunds.com. According to their numbers, the 1.8T sedan gets 23 MPG city and 32 MPG highway. These numbers appear to be close to your numbers. Edmund's lists the 2.8 sedan's mileage as 20 city and 29 highway. This is a difference of three (3!) MPG, not even close to the 12 that you claimed. I don't know how Edmund's gets their numbers (with or without Quattro) but on the basis of this information, I think the gas mileage issue is a moot point.<p>Happy Holidays!<p>Drew S.<br>

What is your point with this message? I would assume that any new car bought now, whether it's a 1998 or 1999 model will have the recall item checked and fixed before this guy takes delivery.<p>Are you merely trying to say that the 2.8 is a lesser design because it had a recall? If so, we are getting a little bit nitpicky on a fact that will most likely not affect a new car buyer.<br>

HK dollars of course!<p>I agree that it is strictly a personal decision. That's why the two models exist! I have no problem with the 2.8. It is a fantastic car.<p>I didn't want those features, I'm happy with my car, you are happy with yours. He asked for opinions. Not a real issue for me.<p>The hp is meaningless to me because you can get a $200 chip to make up the difference. The gas mileage is real issue. In the last two surveys on this board I'd say the average mpg for the v6 was 16-7mpg. But if $4k is not an issue, then 12 mpg is not going to be a factor either.<p>Have a great Holiday!

As soon as I get 10K on the odometer, "chipped" 1.8's won't be in the same league.

I am not sensitive about this...I was just curious about how you felt about the 2.8 in terms of quiet ride. I am really looking forward to seeing how the V6 2.7 biturbo sounds and feels. Regarding the 12 mpg gain over the 2.8.....ah....you might be exaggerating a tad there. Yes, I admit the 1.8T gets much better gas mileage, but not 12 mpg. I would say 6 mpg is about what I have seen and heard, and experienced. I just have a led foot...I blip the throttle about as frequently as I breathe a breath of air...and I alway engine brake/downshift in addition to applying the brake pedal. That is why I get 18.5 mpg since I bought the 12V car in July 97.<p>If I were to do it again...I would have got a 1.8TQM...chipped it..and enjoyed a lower insurance premium and better gas mileage...but I am sleeping in the 2.8 now...so, I will suffer thru the damn smooooooth ride. :-)<p>Steve S.<br>97 2.8QM<p>

Now you're talking! The turbo six is obviously the best of both worlds. Esp. with a six-speed.