How long is the motor in the 1.8T good for in miles?

nt

That's why I have a 2.8

Take in consideration that the 1.8T is a turbocharged engine then it's really left in the hands of the owner. What about a 2.8, it may not be as cumbersome to maintain but it may last longer if you are looking for a lower maintence car.

nt

where do you guys come up with these low #'s???

Tom,

Sounds to me like your pulling mileage numbers out your !ss. Your statement has no basis on fact. If 1.8T's were only getting 70k you have to know that VW would not be putting it into so many cars.

Standard chipping takes the engine to 1 bar and about 195hp. If the 1.8T w/ more horsepower was a problem you know Audi would not have used it in the 180hp TT.

If you mean a drasticaly modified 1.8t..say to 300+ hp - then I have to say any V6 that would be as heavily modified would also have a decreased life expectancy. How long will a 2.8 Supercharged last? We don't know.

The 1.8T is used in the Passats/Beetle/soon to be Golf/Jetta. VW offers all cars with 10year/100,000 miles warranties on the power trains includeing the 1.8 and its turbo.

If all these engines start dying at 70K Volkswagen would go bankrupt and 3-4years from know we'd all being complaining about how VW/Audi is just like Fiat or Renault by pulling out of the US market and leaving the owners high and dry.

The reality is that they must expect these engines to last at least to 150K or more. Any less and the margin of error would have the engines dropping left and right.

The Acura Integra's 1.8L VTEC engine is way more advanced than any 1.8T. It produces 170hp without the need for a turbo. Its low-end torque is not spectacular, but neither is the 1.8T's (especially with its turbo lag). It has variable lift and timing on both the intake and exhaust valves. Frankly, a 1.8T owner bragging is just ludicrous. The 1.8T is an engine meant for econoboxes; it is standard in a $18K Beetle!!! Until you can afford the A4 2.8 V6, just shut up and accept the lower status.

I thought the turbo was supposed to blow, even when new! (Something like .48 bar)

This from the same pathetic dip-wad who made that "Low lives" post. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? If you knew what the hell you were talking about to begin with of course.

I heard it's not uncommon for an A4 to just burst into flames for no apparent reason... That's about as educated a comment as that 70K estimation

First I'm going to start off by saying you are comparing HONDA to AUDI. Off the line, one car is superior, and one car is inferior. If you want to tell me your $14k Honda Civic Si VTEC is superior to my A4 1.8T Quattro, I'm going to laugh in your face.

While VTEC is a good valve timing system, it is no way "far more advanced" than any of Audi's engines. Audi's 5 valve technology happens to be quite a marvel in itself. There is more to a car than simple liter-to-hp ratios. A bored out 1.8t can hit 400hp. That's 200hp per liter. BIG DEAL.

What does honda make that compares to Audi's Quattro system? That joke of an all wheel drive system they put on the Accord wagons back in the early nineties? How about that for advanced. Quattro is easily one of, if not THE best, AWD system in the WORLD.

I will give credit to honda for making reliable cars as well as making fantastic engines/gearboxes. What I will not give credit to is some idiot like yourself who comes on here and tries to put Audi down in comparison with HONDA. Who the hell are you? Don't come here and waste my time, or anyone elses, with your ignorant posts. Honda is a great company but it isn't the god of all companies because of VTEC. But you probably have a big 5' long VTEC sticker across the hood of your Integra.

A 1.8T owner has all the right to brag if he/she wishes to. Audi makes fantastic cars with great agility and handling, especially with the quattro system. Don't come to our forum and say we have no right to brag about our cars, the people here LOVE their cars and will BRAG all they want to. No one was putting down Honda's here, just saying they have great cars, and they do.

It's been a rough day, thank god it's bedtime.
Marcus Frost
1.8TQM (could be brilliant black?)

Folks, it's almost the year 2000. We aren't living in the Chrysler turbo era anymore. These cars are way more advanced technologically than any turbo car ever manufactured before it. All this skepticism is really quite shocking. I don't know where it comes from.

Marcus Frost
Awaiting a long&prosperous 1.8 engine life, with whatever supercharger/turbocharger I put in it...
99.5 1.8tqm (???)

Tell it like is Marcus :)

First of all, I do not own a Honda or Acura. I simply possess superior clarity of thinking that you buyers of stripped-model A4s simply don't have. You stating that "Audis" (as a marque) is superior is as laughable as Acura Riceboys claiming that their Integras are superior because the NSX shares the same nameplate. Face it: your 1.8T is the equivalent of the BMW 318ti. It's a gussied-up VW econobox, complete with an econobox engine, made for not-very-well-to-do workers who yearn and clamor for anything German, usually because of some mental complex.

As to the 1.8T engine itself and it's potential: wake up. The wheezing 4-banger itself already has enough questions surrounding its long-term reliability in stock form. Is it any wonder that Audi will void your warranty if you chip it? You only wish that the Audi TT 180hp 1.8T is identical, except for the chip, just to satisfy your insecurity. Sorry, but willpower alone will not transform your engine from a stripper to engineering marvel (which, by the way, Honda does provide even in their $17K cars). Furthermore, there has been controversy as to whether or not the 5-valve-per-cylinder actually produces any tangible results, other than serving as a marketing gimmick.

The only claim to fame for the 1.8T is the Quattro system, which is only notable because other manufacturers see no profit in providing this option in most of the US. With an automatic tranny on a 1.8T Quattro, you're looking at a 0-60 time of 10 seconds. You don't have to be an enthusiast to curse at the lack of power and acceleration in this car. However, after all, it's an econobox engine, gussied up in a $30K car. How sad.

Sure, you have every right to brag, just as every Riceboy can boast about the size of his tailpipe tip. Others just snicker. Get a clue and buy a 2.8. A REAL engine in a REAL car...

Your lack of skepticism in the longevity of turbo engines is also quite shocking, especially considering that evidence is lacking to prove otherwise. Based on your arguments, Hyundais must be the new cars of the decade, since the Elantras have been reliable for the first 2 weeks of ownership. After all, it's almost the year 2000. Audis (the A4 2.8) are nice cars, but they have had no reputation worth mentioning before the introduction of the A4.

What, do you identify with the "lowlife" under discussion? If so, the problem is not mine, but clearly your own. My condolences...

How about this tough guy I'm a 19 year old owner of an A4 want to know why? rich damn parents. I'll problobly only keep the thing for 2 years before moving into an S4. By that time I still won't be half the age of some bitter old man like you.

Will the engine "wear out" sooner. Probably, but spirited driving will probably wear out the rest of the car before the engine. The turbo on the other hand may go sooner. Over 100,000 miles thats about 1 penny per mile.

I think I spent 60 cents today on my wonderful drive to and from work in my chipped 1.8T. Of course the coke at White Hen cost me $1.40 and only lasted part of the ride on my way home. I had to finish it so I could hit the curves hard.

Hugh

1.8Tqms Avant APR'd

In the word of Col Sherm Potter. The Audi turbos have had a long reputation of being bulletproof. The I-5's have gone upwards of 300K miles (some heavily modified) without problems. There were other problem areas on the cars, but the engine has never been one of them. The cars were very technically advanced for their day (Group B rally, Trans AM, Mt Washington and Pikes Peak hillclimb to name a few of the races they dominated). Anyone who knows about cars from the 80's will acknowledge that. Just because you are unaware of the history of older Audis does not mean they did not have a reputation.

over the 1.8T motor, however, referring to it as "way more advanced technologically than any turbo car ever manufactured before it" is simply untrue. Although I admire the 1.8T motor (just got my first ride in a chipped one at LRP) IMHO, it is not in the same league as the 20V turbo motor from the early '90's.

2.22l 5 cylinder DOHC 4 valves/cylinder Motronic electronic fuel injection
9.3:1 compression ratio sodium filled exhaust valves dual exhaust with twin cats
K24 turbo with external wastegate and electronic boost control
227hp @ 6000RPM 258 lb-ft @ 1950RPM 1.0 bar max boost pressure 7100RPM redline (7800 rev limiter)
Aux. turbo cooling system Aux. radiator and other stuff I can't remember.
0-60 6.1 sec (in a 3850lb car)

An lets not forget the RS2 version which made over 300hp (from the factory).

Not even the new S4 motor is as advanced (IMHO). It's got over 20% more displacement and generates the same amount of torque. And as for reliability, the 5 cylinder motors are beyond reproach.

Like anything else, it depends on how you care for it. I managed 155K with no motor or turbo problems whatsoever with my '87 Mazda 626GT, by changing the oil every 3000 miles and following the other recommended services. Also, careful warm-up and cool-down is important.

Dan H.
1.8TQMS (at 37,500 so far)

Audi doesn't modify internals (pistons, connecting rods, etc.) until 225hp. They ought to know what will work. IMHO, maintenance and driving style mean far more than horsepower ratings. You want the machinery to last, don't abuse it.

DEAD

...a very solid base made the 5 cylinder engine probably one of the best engineered powerplants ever, and created a worthy platform for turbocharging. I might add that I love the way the 5 cylinder engines feel and sound, with or without the turbo. May the ever so faithful 5 cylinder rest in piece! :-)

Charles

...stale sales in the US, doesn't mean they were not a major player in Europe. It was we stupid Americans who caused the whole acceleration issue, and we were the ones who actually believed it (well, not me personally!), despite the fact that Audi was obviously not responsible.

Regardless, those of us who have kept the faith are fully aware of how truly great the 5 cylinder engines were, and know that any of those cars during that time were highly underrated and sadly dismissed by the US consumer. I can say, without reservation, that I think my '89, 90 quattro was one of the finest automobiles ever manufactured and is every bit as good as or better than most cars produced today in terms of looks, features, comfort, handling, and braking performance. Some extra ponies wouldn't hurt, but the lack of power does not destroy the overall greatness, IMO. Infact, my 90Q is so good that when I searched for a new car last fall, I could not find anything that offered anywhere near the driving enjoyment except for the new Audi's, BMW's, and some cars in the stratospheric price range.

The fact that the US market was so dreadful for Audi made my 90Q affordable also, and I don't see very many of them on the road, which makes the sight of another something special. Well engineered, affordable, exclusive, and comfortable. What more could anyone want? :-)

Charles

The answer to my question is...a 225HP TT Roadster! :-)

A good friend of mine has a 92 audi 200 with 2.2 liter 5 cyl turbo. Has done nothing other than
standard maintenance - car (and engine) have 270,000 on it and running strong. It seems
technology today should be better than 1992 - I would suspect 1.8T engine would run forever,
especially at the low boost levels it comes with standard.

of our beloved 5 banger (10V, 10V turbo, 20V & 20V turbo). I found the 10V's were always smoother (and sounded better) than the 20V.

nt

nt

Mercedes replaced the turbo in his 1989 300D Turbo for free. I think it was a defect though. Something to do with some kind of ceramic part. Besides that he put 160,000 miles on that car with no problems. Another 90,000 miles on the new turbo with no problems.

As Mark had pointed out. 200 hp/liter is possible with the 1.8T. I have yet to see that on a 2.8. Unlike beamers, a 318 is that. That's it. It's a 318 with after supercharging, can only go as high as 175hp. A 328, is a much better, stronger engine base to start with. They are both NA engines, so souping up a 328 the same way a 318 will need - via supercharger - will yield more horsepower than a 318.

Audi is apples to oranges comparison when it come to the engines. The 1.8T is forced induction and every enthusiast should at least know that turbocharged cars with their lower compression ratio are ready for higher pressures at less cost, hence the variety in upgrades. For an NA 2.8, unfortunately, the only solution is a PES at 280 hp. That's it. Any less, you get 205hp.

Honda is great at getting 120 hp/liter . But to go any higher, is lots of engineering and bucks. That goes for the NA Subaru and most NA Japanese/European cars. Might as well start with a forced induction engine and go all the way. Also, the 1.8T was originally designed to have 150hp, so that it will not eat the sales of the 190hp 2.8. That is why they are starting to offer the 180hp 1.8T version as it is capable of higher hp while sustaining a long engine life.

In the race track, at least from my experience, 1.0 bar chipped 1.8T's are much faster than chipped 2.8's So, I see the 1.8T as the soupable- race ready engine for the enthusiast. 2.8's are for the everyday drivers. My solution to this, get the 2.7T, then there won't be any comparison.

I'm not putting it down - this is my 3rd Audi.
78 100 with 1.6L 4cyl :)
88 5000s with 5cyl (not sure if 10V or 20V)
98.5 A4 1.8T

Just curious why. I seem to remember that one of the main reasons for creating the 5cyl was so it would fit longitudinally and allow for AWD (they tried a 6cyl that was too long).

adc

why doesn't Honda get into turbos? I think the 4-valve head is not as good at handling boost. The 5-valve head has higher port speed and better combustion, and can run high compression even with 14psi of boost (1.0 bar chip). Yamaha has been pioneering 5 valve heads for years, they're getting 200hp/liter, normally aspirated, on a street engine! I don't think it's a gimmick!

...cylinder engine is pretty long, tall, and heavy. It requires a long, tall front end, and puts a lot of weight out in front of the front wheels. The 4 cylinder and the V6 take up less space lengthwise, allowing more efficient packaging. Indeed, an inline 6 would make for a very long front! As it was, the 5 cylinder comes right up to the hood latch, and requires that the radiator be placed off to the side. Other than those reasons, I can't explain, because the 5 cylinder engine is capable of tremendous (400+ HP) amounts of reliable power, and it is amazingly smooth and sounds great.

The '88 5000S had a 130 HP 10V engine. 20V's came along in '90 in the US.

My interest in Audi began in '79 when my parents bought a 4000S, and then a 5000S about a year later.

Charles

...Which together with the cost of the car is a hell of alot more than that old man car your talking about. 1.8T's are for drivers 2.8 are for talkers

I mean all turbo cars in general are technogically superior to ones made before... not just Audi...

Regards,

Marcus Frost
99.5 1.8tqm (....)

and a lot of the parts on our fours sure look like the ones on the five so I think it's still with us, as you noted it just got shorter.

as to why the 5 cylinder was dropped.

1) Marketing hype - Audi felt it couldn't compete with BMW, MB, Lexus, et.al. with a 5 banger when they all had 6 cylinder motors.

2) Packaging - as was stated here, the 5 cylinder is LOOOONG, and sits far in front of the front axle. The 1988 Trans Am car was nicknamed the Anteater, because of the way it looked when the front clip was removed.

3) Emissions - I've heard that the 5 cylinder would have a tough time meeting future emissions requirements (without major redesign)

It's probably a combination of all these factors.

BTW, the 5 cylinder concept originated with the philosophy that it "has the power and smoothness of a 6 cylinder and the light weight and efficiency of a 4 cylinder". Just as Audi abandoned it, Acura and Volvo embraced it. I'm sure both bought/torn appart many Audi's during their development process.

Regards,
Geza
99.5 Avant 2.8qMS
97 Boxster

Which would have required a lot of R&D to meet. They already had a replacement engine (12v V6) in place that had similar output to the normally aspirated I5. The S6 was the last vehicle to carry that engine in the US, and they got a few extra sales of them by keeping the 96's as a carry over from the 95 model year. They were sold as 95.5's so they didn't have to meet the OBD II standards.

...it relates directly to emmissions, I think this is questionable, as the 5 cylinder engines had very little. My 10V didn't even register at testing two years ago, and this year it was a neglible amount. But then, I think all this OBD crap is a big joke anyway.

Charles