I just saw the new model, and besides no V6, it looks too much like a BMW, especially around the doors. An Audi with a 4 Cylinder is just an expensive VW. I will never own a car with a turbo. If I want to see 2.0T's I can always go to Seattle, and giggle at the wacko liberals with the smirk on their faces. As if they are important because they believe just about anything that they are told. Please Audi, don't ruin my great opinion! The Avant is/was one of the most beautifaul cars ever! It doesn't need to be changed so often! I was jsut starting to get used to the 2005+ (the extra horses in the 3.2 was helping out).

People that believe everything Al Gore says shouldn't be driving Audi's anyway. That is why there are VW's.

I rather have the 2.0T vs the 3.2, it's lighter, and the new one has a lot of torque, and more importantly, it's good on gas. I never had any problems with a turbocharged engine.

I think you left your coherence in your other pants last night.

While I agree that the new 09' A4 Avant does look a little like a BMW 3 series, I have to disgree with you on just about everything else you said:

1) An Audi with a 4 cylinder is just an expensive VW. Audi build quality is better, Audi uses better materials, has more technology in the car, more luxury and quattro all wheel drive. There are some similarites with VW, but defintely at a different level

2) I will never own a car with a turbo. Have you ever driven the 2.0T. It's fantastic. Has tremendous power when needed and get get very good highway mpg. I think you'll find that many people regardless of $$$, buy the 2.0T over the 3.2.

It is always easy to tell who the sheeple are. I can buy a 2006 3.2 Avant for much less than a 2.0T. Enough so that it will more than pay for the difference in MPG. I don't have to worry about the longevity of a turbo, or lag, and the extra internal stress it puts on the engine. A 4 cylinder is a four cylinder. I have had too many of them already. A 6 without a turbo will last longer, and have fewer problems. We are not running out of oil for a few centuries, no matter what some might believe. Just look at what fuels major industries, and what is on their drawing boards for the future. Their plans for the next 50 years are still based upon oil for fuel. If we go to Nuclear Power Plants, we will have to pay for less oil. Drive your 4 cylinders if you want, and I will take my 6. I have already done my part on fuel efficient cars for the last 25 years. That is all I have ever had. I have dreamed of an A4 Avant with a V6 for six years to carry my two goldens, and now there is a 1 year old and a wife. I am not carrying them all with a 4T. I want get through the mountains without a team of Clydesdales.

If worrying about problems is high in the list of automotive do-not-wants then you might wanna look elsewhere. Problems of various sizes, shapes and forms come with the four rings. And of all the jack-assed things that have happened to my A4 none of them were turbo related :-)

But... buy what makes you happy, don't worry about what makes other people happy and support nuclear power as much as you can!

-Hokie, nuclear fuel designer by trade, Audi enthusiast by hobby.

This is the best one so far: "I have dreamed of an A4 Avant with a V6 for six years to carry my two goldens, and now there is a 1 year old and a wife. I am not carrying them all with a 4T. I want get through the mountains without a team of Clydesdales."


If you live in the mountains the 2.0T will blow away the slow naturally aspirated V6. That is just fact.

The 2.0T has 200 HP, 201 lbs. of Torque. the 3.2 has 255 HP, 243 lbs. of Torque (Audi site). So much for blowing away the V6 by the I-4. Hokie Man, you're OK in my book. My objection to Turbos go back to when they were first introduced to passenger cars. They were designed to get the most power out an engine that had size restrictions, i.e. for races. They didn't need them to last much longer than the race, and when the failed, it was messy. Has anyone here been around cars long enough to remember what happened the first Volvo's with turbochargers? If you didn't let the car idle for a few minutes after the turbo kicked in before shutting off the engine, the oil in the turbine would turn to coke from the heat of the 12,000 rpms that were still taking place, because the engine was not still pumping oil. The intercooler's solved that, but the issue of an overstressed engine has never been solved. That is where my objection is to turbos. You can save all kinds of money on gas with a turbo 4, but if the engine blows much sooner than a naturally aspirated engine, than all of the money saved is gone for the repairs. When I read reviews about the A4 from owners on many sites, the most reported problems come from owners of the 1.8, and 2.0T's The Automotive press calls the two engines rough, and noisy, and not suited for a car that is on the level of an Audi. But, as the point was made, buy what makes you happy.

But that's been decades ago. The 1.8T and the 2.0T have garnered lots of praise over the past fifteen years or so from various ends of the automotive press. Properly designing the engine block for the compression ratio it's meant to run at is the same regardless of the induction type. These aren't 45 psi Formula monsters either. And you might want to run a check on your numbers for the <b>2009</b> A4's. The 2009 2.0T is an all new engine, horsepower is up to 211 and torque is up in the 260-ish ft-lb territory. Which is more than the V6 3.2 that will be offered in 2009.

And his name is scottasbj.

Or, is scottasbj the same person as that pig parsifal_71?

The 2.0T has more power than you'll ever need and I can say that when I drive my Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) most of the time.

I absolutley love my 2.0T Quattro Manual Sport Avant.

I think you need to take your blinders off and give these 4 cylinder turbo cars another shot. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised.

"...We are not running out of oil for a few centuries, no matter what some might believe."

It's all about production flows, not whether or not we are running out of oil. That's one reason why I will go with either an Avant (which doesn't look like the Bimmer to me) or the 4 dr manual with the two liter engine.

As for petroleum production, in a few years we will be looking back to now as the 'good ole days'.

you should look into them.

I think labeling people is childish. People have opinions, and many people that do, actually know something. Calling people names only invites hostility, and ugly exchanges.

And coming onto a forum that is CLEARLY for Audi enthusiasts and making your very first posts bashing the brand is not a very intelligent thing to do. It'd be similar to going onto a BMW forum and making my first post about "Why are all BMW drivers such stereotypical asshats?" I probably would be very well received.

If you start out with some a little more positive in attitude, maybe we'll give your posts a little more credibility.

Credibility is not based upon saying just what someone wants to hear, it is about honesty. Just because I object to few things that Audi is doing doesnt' mean that I am bashing them. Don't be so insecure.

Ford and GM both will release a ton of 2.0T and V6 twin turbo's over the next several years.

Of course it remains to be seen how they drive in reality.

The Audi hp torque ratings are usually done at sea level with a specific humidity level. At 10,000 ft the numbers will be very different.
Have you even driven a trubo car at higher altitude? I get you the feeling you are one of those flatlanders who rides their brakes all the way down.

BTW, my 1.8T is very smooth though I admit the power band is condensed compared to a V6 that needs to be revved up to 6800 rpm to keep going up hill.

As for reliability, my 99.5 1.8T is now 9+ years old (I am the original owner) and I've had these big issues with the car:

1. replace both front headlight bulbs ($10)
2. replaced ICM (cost me $80)

Beyond that I just had to do regular maintenance: brakes/tires/timing belt/waterpump/valve cover gasket/etc.

That's while driving the car hard, going up mountain roads loaded with 4 people including luggage in 5th gear going 75mph while most people struggle at 50mph in their naturally aspirated cars.

Of course my car has been chipped since it had 15,000 miles so according to you my highly stressed little 1.8T has been abused beyond what Audi intended and should have blown up years ago.

Do you even realize that there are millions of turbo diesels world wide with high mileage?

Would you buy a B6 3.2 with 100,000 miles? I highly doubt it. Because most people will consider that the end of the engine's life.

My car will happily do 200,000 + and if it was a diesel it should keep going until the body falls apart.

Ford actually makes good small cars that they sell in Europe (Mondeo, European Focus), but not here.

Do you go to Obama's church?

you tell the hostess "this place sucks and the food is suppose to be awful." Do you expect you'll have a good experience?

You have brought NOTHING to the table. What is your experience with Audi? Have you owned one? For all we know is that you could be some 15 year old that doesn't even have a license yet.

As far as V6s go, the 2.8 was always a dog in terms of performance. For $250 you can get the 4-cyl turbo motor chipped and have more HP and TQ than the n/a V6. The 1.8t has been a rock solid bulletproof motor and I would not hesitate to own one again. You couldn't GIVE me a 2.8 V6.

The facts you state about the current A4 2.0 vs 3.2 are correct and incomplete.

The other fact is, some folks are buying the new 2.0 A4 for 2009 which has greater torque than the 3.2 and 5% more HP than the outgoing 2.0.

The fact that you did not include was the RPM at which the two engines achieve their torque.

The upcoming 2.0 will achieve 258 pound feet at a much lower RPM than the 3.2 will achieve the 243 pound feet it can produce.

The upcoming 3.2 ought to have 265HP vs the upcoming 2.0's 211. The HP difference may not have a lot of relevance for most folks:

3.2 will cost about $5,000 more
3.2 will achieve lower MPG's than the 2.0
3.2 will achieve its peak torque at a higher RPM, will achieve a lower amount of toque and will keep its peak torque for higher RPM's than the 2.0

For lots of people the 2.0 will be quicker, as fast (up to triple digit speeds plus), more frugal with gas, handle better due to the lighter weight of the 2.0 vs the 3.2 and, I must underscore, do all of these things for thousands less.

The 3.2 has almost no advantages in everyday driving except it uses more gas, costs more, will probably be a tiny bit smoother and be close enough for jazz in quickness to matter little if any to most folks, IF they know the all the facts and factor in the price.

The V6 mildly blown, like BMW did with the 335, 535, and now the 135 shot a 255HP 6 to 300 HP and 300 pound feet of torque (at very low RPM's) -- Audi soldiers on with a very fine, expensive and underpowered approach in the slightly revised 3.2.

I'd probably consider it if it cost the same or very little more than the upcoming 2.0TFSI at 211 HP and 258 pf at low rpms.

Your facts did not include when the power (torque for most Americans) came on full boil, nor did it recognize that the excitement in the new 2.0T is torque, damn near weapons grade torque available virtually instantly -- the 3.2, even with its slight upgrade, just can't make the same claim.

I had three 4.2 V8's in a row followed by a 2.7T -- the 2.7T showed the 4.2's its tail lights -- the best thing about the 4.2 was is very cool sound at full cry.

My current 3.2 (in an A6) sounds very sweet, make no mistake, but compared with my personal experience with Audi turbos, the 3.2 is just not up to the task (since we are ONLY offered two choices, the 2.0 and the 3.2 for 2009, there is, as far as I'm concerned, no value prop for the 3.2 unless or until someting is done to the 3.2 to get its torque way up at way lower RPM's.)

I have no clue if you are a troll, I don't much care one way or another. I would like whenever possible for as many facts as can be gleaned (pretty easily just by scrolling down on this very forum) to be included in any "argument" we may engage in with one another.

Why you are against turbos is beyond me (since you mention something that is not exactly a current event) -- but, then again, many things are beyond me. Perhaps you had a (more recent) bad experience with a turbo -- I would hope to pursuade you that those days are about 99.999% behind us.

<ul><li><a href="http://www.topgear.com/drives/G3/A4/">http://www.topgear.com/drives/G3/A4/</a</li></ul>