Does anyone have an idea of how well the turbo holds up over time? Is it just better to get the 2.8 if I'm worried about maintenance problems with the turbo?

I have the 2.8, and am a fan of the smoothness of the V6. However, I don't think that you need to worry about the reliability of the turbo on the 1.8. I know a number of people with high-mileage Audi turbos (150K+ miles), and the turbo has held up admirably.<p>The 2.8 and 1.8T are both great cars with different personalities, but they both have a lot of character. It comes down to personal preference, as well as financial concerns in some cases. There are those on the forum who swear by the 1.8T, and others who feel the 2.8 is the way to go. Drive them both and see which one feels right to you...<p>Mike

nt<br>

Particularly when the 1.8T is chipped.

If youre gonna live in the mountainous regions...the turbocharged cars are less affected by the lack of oxygen...as compared to normally aspirated cars.<p>Steve S.<br>97 2.8QM<p>P.S. That is why the Vail CO (Vail Mountain) Police Department had Turbo Saabs<br>

A good friend of mine has a '92 audi quattro 5 Cyl 20V turbo - has 250,000 miles on original<br>engine and turbo. THese turbo's in stock trim are not being pushed very hard. Also there have<br>been alot of developments to improve cooling and such. In any event turbo's are relatively cheap.<br>In Europe you can get the Hoppen MTM chip as an option at the factory, so this would indicate that the 1.8T has not reached it's maximum effort at all. -

And this affects the comparison how? Both the 1.8t and the 2.8 are 5 valves per cylinder. The 1.8t is the quicker car, when chipped to 200hp.<br>Torque curve is wider, and taller, and horsepower builds very quickly.<p>I love my 2.8Q, but I'm not going to sit here and try to claim that it's faster.<p>98.5 Wett RamAir'ed Santorin Blue 2.8QMS