No, more than likely Audi was gambling. Sales were down in the early '90s and VW/Audi were very close to pulling out of the US market (if you don't believe me, check out the New Beatle roll-out speeches on www.vwvortex.com). Supporting the full line of Audi chassis/engines in the US would have been a very dangerous move. They chose to introduce the A4 with two basic engines because that minimized the risk. The fact that you can chip the 1.8T is irrelevant. Their decision to introduce the 1.8T at 150 or so HP was strictly to capture the low end market. The 2.8 was targeted at a higher end market. It doesn't have anything to do with how old you are, its how many different configurations a hurting company would have to stretch themselves to support and how much the projected customer would be willing to pay. <p>I'm an "older" buyer. I'm at least 10 years older than the average here on a4.org. I bought my 2.8 because I figured a 190hp, 6 cylinder, would be *much* more reliable than a 190hp, aftermarket-tweaked, turbo charged, 4 cylinder. My reasoning was based on experience. It had nothing to do with failing to appreciate the "potential". You rarely get something for nothing. There's always trade-offs. I appreciate your take on this, but you have to be careful when you make sweeping generalizations. <p>

Actually, in the US the 2.8 came out first initially, about 1 year ahead of the 1.8T. Audi was worried about starting a new sport, luxury car line with a 4 cylinder engine. Most Americans think bigger is better so they brought out the V-6 first and then the 1.8T came out later as a cheaper alternative. I don't think Audi would have had so much success with the A4 in the states if they brought out the 1.8T first. I agree that the 1.8T is an undertuned motor. Even in the TT it can make 180hp or 225hp. The V6 is smoother and quieter though. No matter how powerful the 1.8T will be, it wll never be as smooth and quiet as the V-6. More powerful, maybe but that is all. Even now you can make more than 260hp with the V-6. They are both excellent engines.<br>David Hess<br>98.5 2.8QSTip

<br>Last month, after wrecking my '91 200 20V, I went to the dealer with every intention of ordering a 1.8 Avant. After a brisk run in their demo, I came back and said "let me drive the 2.8". I ordered the 2.8. The 1.8 pulled strongly but was a step down in refinement from my 20V. I also sensed that I would be constantly over-working the 1.8 motor; that it always would be "sweating" when I drove it. I didn't get that feeling from the 2.8 and certainly never got it from my 20V. I, too am 10 years older than most here so smoothness and long term reliability are more important to me that tunability. I've driven Audi's exclusively for 15 years and know all their power plants are bullet-proof; It just felt like the 2.8 was wearing a second "vest".<p>See you at the track!<p>GAB<br>99.5 Avant 2.8QMS-leather sport seats (on order)

while the 12v is still smooth, remember that the 30v is only newly available. The 12v only had about 172 horses.<p><br>BTW how do u get 260 hp out of the 2.8?<p><br>1996 a4 2.8 qm (12v)<br>

Didn't the 30v have teething problems that delayed its into in the US until the mid-97 model year?<p>And you get 260hp out of the V6 be shoving air down its throat.

Gab:<p>Not trying to argue with you, but as an owner of an 83 Urq, 91 200 QT, and 98 1.8QT, I'd have to disagree with your assesment regarding the 1.8t as a "step down" from the 200. In terms of speed and power performance, all the new Audi's currently available in the U.S. are a big step down from the 91 200 (I'm assuming you had the 20V). I know from personal experience that both the 1.8 and certainly the 2.8 are simply SLOW compared to the high pressure turbo of the 200. The I-5 config with turbo is a superior power design to the V-6 and the low pressure I-4. How could you call the 200 smooth? When that turbo kicks in, your butt is in the back seat!<p>In terms of interior, the 1.8 is without the 200's leather, but I find the build quality much better. Did you notice how squishy that manual is on the 200, how the ash tray pulls stiffly out like a 70's American car, how that wood trim looks almost grossly faux, and the dashboard with it's digital boost gauge appears only slightly changed from the 83 UrQ? <p>As a 98 Audi owner, I'm certianly not putting the new cars down, but I believe the build quality on both are equally superior. Leather interior, extra trim, and an extra two cylinders do not raise the bar. I stress my chipped 1.8 engine, yes, but you can't stress that V6 enough to make it feel like the 200's incredible rush (barring the PES system) of speed.<p>I think that 1.8 and 2.8 have illustrated huge improvements in terms of finish for Audi. I wish the performance would improve as well. Perhaps the new S4 will finally match the 200 in terms of performance. <p>Just throwing some thoughts out there in terms of the growth of Audi in general.<p>-Todd<br> <p>

I'm just curious whether you are comparing stock to stock or stock to modified.<br>

Todd,<p>When I refered to smoothness, I was speaking from the vibration perspective, not power flow. The power flow of the 1.8T I tested was fine, but I felt a lot of vibrations through the steering wheel and the motor had that certain 4-cylinder sound. As a one time owner of every type of 5 cylinder motor Audi ever made, I found the 4-cylinder to be a disapointment. The 20V motor in the 200, though visciously potent, always remained pretty smooth (vibration free) at least up to 6000RPM; however, I feel the 10V motor was even smoother.<p>On one hand, I'm looking forward to the sport seats and headlights that actually work on the A4, but wish I had my 200 back. I can't tell you the number of times I dusted off 5.0 mustangs, Corvettes, et. al. I just wonder whether the new generation of Audi enthusiasts really know what a "real" 20V Audi motor is all about. GAB

As far as the US spec A4 goes, the 2.8 V-6, 12 or 30 valves came out before the 1.8T. Personally, I'm only 30 years old and love how smooth and quiet the 2.8 is. The 1.8T is great if you keep the boost going and if you plan on modifying your car. You can get 260hp from the 2.8 if you supercharge it like I know a few people on A4 has. If you have Quattro and the Tiptronic, the V-6 is the best option. For the stock 1.8T the added weight and power drain of both would be too much. The 12 valve 2.8 is a good motor but it lacked passing power, a major complaint in all of the tests done by car magazines. That is one of the major reasons they designed the 30 valve. Audi thought it was there best way of getting out additional hp and torque. I personally have no plans of modifying my car and I love it just the way it is.<br>The 1.8 motor has been around for a very long time and has proved itself to be a dependable motor, as has the 2.8 12 or 30 valve. <br>Dave Hess<br>98.5 2.8QSTip

<br>Mine had a stock motor (except for a K&N filter)

As GAB indicated, when the 200 lights up, it really goes, even in stock form. This engine is fundamentally the same that appeared in the old and great original S4's (I believe this only happened in the rare, 1991 model). With a different spring on the wastegate and an ECU and exhaust mod, I'm certain the car could reach 300hp without much effort. I got the car from Canada, and from certain driving experiences, the only non-stock element seems to be that it is without an electronic limiter (although I don't know what a U.S. 200 is limited to.) <p>As GAB stated, we truly do long for the old 5 Cyl days. I suppose that VW elected to use the I-4 and V6 stock engines in an effort to fit so many cars throughout the VW range. I wonder if Volvo will leave that legacy behind as well and go for a more traditional configuration.<p>GAB, the sports seats in the A4 are really good, and the headlights, although not wonderful, are better than the 200 (although I have Euro lights from the Canadian car). I hope you really enjoy the car and I'm sorry to hear about the loss of the 200. <p>Happy driving to all<p>-Todd