a4 quattro

thelongwait

hi guys,

Im looking at a few a4's, 1 of which is a quattro. apart from it being a quattro its by far the best1 i've looked at and would like to buy it.
my problem is alot of people i know have told me to stay away from quattros, that they give lots of trouble. i'm not 100% convinced that these people know anything about cars and none of them ever owned a quattro, and when i asked where they got their info they all said " somebody told me before"

Is this true, are a4 quattros known for giving trouble?
Thank you in advance for your help.

cantdecide

I had an A4 quattro and and A6 quattro. Both were 8+ years old and were fine except for some oozing from their rear diffs which I think is acceptable.

Don't expect subaru handling though. They're FWD 99% of the time.

Matt Simis

cantdecide wrote: »

Don't expect subaru handling though. They're FWD 99% of the time.

Thats not correct.
They are nose/chassis heavy (ish), but you seem to be mixing up Haldex and Torsen quattro. All A4 and A6 quattros are a permanent Torsen AWD torque split, defaults at either 50:50 or 40:60 depending on age with the ability to send upto 85% to the rear. TTs and other smaller quattro cars (A3, S3 etc) are Haldex which is AWD only when needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro_(four_wheel_drive_system)#quattro_generation_V

Ive never heard people having more or less issues on quattro vs FWD Audi's. Considering quattro is Audi's major selling point, that idea is quite dumb anyhow. FWD Audi's are expensive VWs.

Magown3

You only have to look at the price that they are aquiring on ebay etc to see that they are good cars. I've never heard of any issues specific to the quattros. I've was in the market for one recently. I was looking for a 02-03 one but the price of them was just too much for me to justify buying one. Most were lookin for 8.5k to 10k for an 8 year old car!!

Last week I became a quattro owner. Got it from the UK. It's 13 years old with 157k miles on it and I have to say, it feels really tight. It was well looked after tho and so far I'm very happy with the purchase.


P.S. I can't wait for it to rain!!

opinion guy

Matt Simis wrote: »

TTs and other smaller quattro cars (A3, S3 etc) are Haldex which is AWD only when needed.

Don't know about that. Been looking at quattro a3's and what the dealers have told me is that quattro A3's are permanent AWD with a 40f:60b split which changes to 50:50 if you have any traction issues.

Anan1

Remember that a quattro will be slower, heavier, & thirstier than the equivalent FWD car. It's worth it if you'll be driving on snow, or if it's a powerful variant. For the likes of a TDI, though, I wouldn't bother.

Magown3

opinion guy wrote: »

Don't know about that. Been looking at quattro a3's and what the dealers have told me is that quattro A3's are permanent AWD with a 40f:60b split which changes to 50:50 if you have any traction issues.

Yes but it also depends on what generation A3 you're talking about. You could be talking about new A3's and Matt could be talking about an older generation A3 and original TT.

mickdw

Buy the quattro. I dont buy the idea of it only being a benefit on high powered version or on snow etc. There is a handling & stablility benefit in many many situations with the quattro.

R.O.R

Anan1 wrote: »

Remember that a quattro will be slower, heavier, & thirstier than the equivalent FWD car. It's worth it if you'll be driving on snow, or if it's a powerful variant. For the likes of a TDI, though, I wouldn't bother.

Try a spirited take off in a FWD Audi Tdi on a damp road, and let the axle tramp tell you you should have gone for a quattro.

tossy

Matt Simis wrote: »

Thats not correct.
They are nose/chassis heavy (ish), but you seem to be mixing up Haldex and Torsen quattro. .

Even the myth that 4motion is FWD 99% of the time is nonsense,i had a 4motion car and the rear tyres wore alot quicker than the front ones

Matt Simis

tossy wrote: »

Even the myth that 4motion is FWD 99% of the time is nonsense,i had a 4motion car and the rear tyres wore alot quicker than the front ones

Well I wasnt propogating that idea either, but I guess in theory if you drove generally slow and in straight lines you would be using mostly FWD.
Which for a variety of reasons is a good thing. 4Motion / Haldex do appear to give the best of both worlds, 2 extra powered wheels there when you need it.

opinion guy wrote: »

Don't know about that. Been looking at quattro a3's and what the dealers have told me is that quattro A3's are permanent AWD with a 40f:60b split which changes to 50:50 if you have any traction issues.

Magown3 wrote: »

Yes but it also depends on what generation A3 you're talking about. You could be talking about new A3's and Matt could be talking about an older generation A3 and original TT.

Nah, it appears the sales guys is wrong and/or doesnt understand how it works. Or just you know, making that sale. Even the idea is goes to 50:50 under slip is incorrect:

During a standing start the rear wheels are put to use, without the need for any slip to occur. Then under straight-line cruising conditions, to conserve fuel and driveline wear, the torque split to the rear wheels is reduced to a level between 5 and 10 percent. Also up to 85 percent of torque can be transferred by the eLSD between to any single rear wheel if necessary

Audi.co.uk says quattro on the A3 is Haldex type, like all their transverse engined cars:
http://www.audi.co.uk/audi-innovation/our-technologies/quattro.html

To ensure the optimal distribution of engine power for each model, Audi uses specially configured all-wheel drive systems that vary in design.

The Haldex clutch is an electronically-controlled multi-plate clutch. It performs the function of the Torsen centre differential in cars with transverse engines, such as the Audi A3, A3 Sportback and Audi TT.

It ensures that engine power is permanently distributed between the front and rear wheels as and when required.

The Haldex clutch works by reacting to differences in the rotating speed between the front and rear wheels. This causes variations in the system’s hydraulic pressure, which in turn compress the clutch plates together to balance the distribution of power between the front and rear wheels. So if the front wheels begin to lose traction, the Haldex clutch channels power to the rear. And the greater the difference in rotational speed, the higher the pressure applied to the plates – which means that more engine power can be transmitted to the rear wheel.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A3

A3 Second generation (Typ 8P/8PA, 2003&#8211 wrote: »

In mid 2003, the line was updated with two sports-orientated models, a 2.0 Turbo-FSI version rated 200 PS (147 kW; 197 hp), and a 3.2 VR6 engine (for the first time) with 250 PS (184 kW; 247 hp). Haldex Traction-based quattro on-demand four wheel drive, and the S-Tronic semi-auto gearbox were introduced as options (quattro is standard on the VR6) on every model with engine over 140 PS (103 kW; 138 hp).

The reason for this has (historically anyhow) been that Torsen (mechanical) quattro does not fit on the smaller chassis cars and they typically do not put down the same level of power (as say S4's and above) so have different design requirements anyhow.


PS: Audi, yet again, need to train internally better. For a technology focused company the crap I hear out of their sales reps is a poor show.

Anan1

R.O.R wrote: »

Try a spirited take off in a FWD Audi Tdi on a damp road, and let the axle tramp tell you you should have gone for a quattro.

Is it worth it for that moment of take-off, though?

R.O.R

Depends if that moment of take off will get you safely out of the way of the truck coming straight at you, or whether you are still spinning your wheels when it barrels in to you!

Extreme example admittedly, but the difference in pace is marginal (0.1 or 0.2 seconds to 60) and the fuel economy if marginal (5mpg ish).

Difference in price is the big kicker when new, but if it's used and not much more (or the same price) than the FWD version - I know which I'd take.

Matt Simis

Anan1 wrote: »

Is it worth it for that moment of take-off, though?

I would say yes but clearly I love quatto.. :pac:
Its not just about taking off though, ever see the Youtube clip of the BMW 1 series racing a TT (mk1) on a slippy bend? One of the two ended up in the ditch...

Anan1

Matt Simis wrote: »

I would say yes but clearly I love quatto.. :pac:
Its not just about taking off though, ever see the Youtube clip of the BMW 1 series racing a TT (mk1) on a slippy bend? One of the two ended up in the ditch...

I love AWD too, but there has to be enough D to make it worthwhile. On an A4 3.0 i'd want it, on a 1.9 diesel i'd want to conserve every last bit of my available power for propulsion.

Tea 1000

Magown3 wrote: »

You only have to look at the price that they are aquiring on ebay etc to see that they are good cars.

That's a bullsh!t sentence to be fair. The price they're aquiring is due to people not having a clue and wanting a brand.
If that's the way things should be judged then Avatar is the best film ever made, with Titanic second. We all know that's not true!

peasant

Proper AWD is well worth having. Not only does it offer clear advantages in snow, rain and other tricky situations, it also works on perfectly dry roads.

Having driven 2WD VW T3 vans for 15 years, the difference in driving characteristics with the 4WD is quite amazing. Now this vehicle has no "power" to speak of nor does it do "speed" very well, but with the AWD (Syncro in my case) I can throw it through bends in confidence where I would have been very careful in the 2WD.

It makes a huge difference to stability and roadholding whether it's one or two axles that have to transfer power to the road. Split the power delivery forces in half and more grip becomes available for traction and lateral forces.

I'd worry more about the sludge issue than the quottro, the folks who told you quottro is problematic are total and utter f**ktards I reckon.

high horse

My brother has an A4 quattro and I've driven it many times. To those who say it has better handling and road holding than the FWD version, how bad is the FWD A4 at handling and road holding? I always thought the A4 was a terrible car on twisty roads but I've never driven the FWD so maybe its even worse?

Matt Simis

high horse wrote: »

My brother has an A4 quattro and I've driven it many times. To those who say it has better handling and road holding than the FWD version, how bad is the FWD A4 at handling and road holding? I always thought the A4 was a terrible car on twisty roads but I've never driven the FWD so maybe its even worse?

What year is it? Vanilla spec Audi's, even with quattro, are not really all that suited to twisty roads. The still-kinda-nose heavy S range are much better, but they too arent track cars, whats the comparison? To an Elise? No chance. To an equally powerful BMW, the Audi is going to be the faster point to point car.

PS: Im trying to get hold of another S Audi car to partner up with my BMW, have my cake and eat it.

high horse

Matt Simis wrote: »

What year is it? Vanilla spec Audi's, even with quattro, are not really all that suited to twisty roads. The still-kinda-nose heavy S range are much better, but they too arent track cars, whats the comparison? To an Elise? No chance. To an equally powerful BMW, the Audi is going to be the faster point to point car.

PS: Im trying to get hold of another S Audi car to partner up with my BMW, have my cake and eat it.

His car is a '02 1.9tdi SE quattro and I have a '03 320d so the comparison is between two very similar cars. There's no way his A4 would be faster point to point

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

To an equally powerful BMW, the Audi is going to be the faster point to point car.

With equal power and pilots of the same ability I would think the BMW would be faster point to point, with very good pilots the Bimmer would eat the quottro.

Tea 1000

The A4 isn't a good handling car. It does have grip, but grip does not equal good handling.
The S-Line just stiffens up the suspension to make it even more unruley over bumpy surfaces with no great benefit in the twisties.
On a wet day alright I'd expect a similarly powered Audi quattro car to be quicker point-to-point, but 4WD can't make up that much ground in the dry to counter-act an average chassis.

opinion guy

To be honest I think the a4's I've driven have handled very poorly - rather barge like. I've driven a3's quattros and they were simply awesome.

Edits: Incidentally new quattro models are far cheaper up north even at current exchange rates. PLus you get an extra years warranty up there

RandomUsername

I've been driving an 03 A4 Quattro 2.5Tdi Sport since january and i have to say that the handling is great and I had an evo 7 before that !

When i was considering buying it I like the OP posted a thread on a vag forum entitled '' is quattro overrated '' and got a mixed response , but the difference was most of the negative opinions had never owned one .

Admitedlly it does take a bit of the punch out of thenm especially in the 1.9tdi ones I'd advise a minimum of 1.8 turbo petrol or 2.5 tdi and you'll have plenty of power , Also imo sports suspension is a must

The only complaint i have with mine is the seats are a bit hard on long journeys

It's tyres that have the biggest effect on handling imo

Here's mine http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/1492548

Selling up due to wanting a classic before the smart asses jump in with the ' if it's so good why are you selling s**t '

Matt Simis

high horse wrote: »

His car is a '02 1.9tdi SE quattro and I have a '03 320d so the comparison is between two very similar cars. There's no way his A4 would be faster point to point

1.9TDi... dont think anyone is surprised thats your experience then!

RoverJames wrote: »

With equal power and pilots of the same ability I would think the BMW would be faster point to point, with very good pilots the Bimmer would eat the quottro.

Well.. you do remember Im talking about my own cars, ie equal pilots. Im not saying the BMW style is bad or not fun (far from it), but you can go bat s**t crazy by comparison in a good quattro. My 440bhp S4 would destroy any RWD I had after it, even without the major tuning. The Phaeton I had would be lethal IMO in RWD form. Even the Allroad compared to the 530i decimates crap roads.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The A4 isn't a good handling car. It does have grip, but grip does not equal good handling.
The S-Line just stiffens up the suspension to make it even more unruley over bumpy surfaces with no great benefit in the twisties.
On a wet day alright I'd expect a similarly powered Audi quattro car to be quicker point-to-point, but 4WD can't make up that much ground in the dry to counter-act an average chassis.

Just to clarify I consider SLine to be a fluff piece. Im talking about S (S4, S6 etc) and RS cars. In the wet no contest and on bad road (which is every single road where I live) again no contest. When people say "twisties" I think we visualize a twisty track, in reality and even in the dry (does that happen here?) the gravelly, oily potholed mess we drive on really favours AWD.

Ireland is the poster country for everyday quattro usage.

opinion guy

Matt Simis wrote: »

Just to clarify I consider SLine to be a fluff piece. Im talking about S (S4, S6 etc) and RS cars.

Agreed Sline is a puff piece. Alloys and a lowered suspension for the most part. No point in spending that money over and above the Sport version IMO. S models are another league but by jingo you'll pay for it

Shane732

I've just read two pages about Audi's...... Jesus it's a tough night tonight!!!

Taking the new A4 as an example and the 143 bhp in particular.... Is the handling of the standard verison really sh1t that you need quattro in a 143bph car?

As other people have said I get the idea of quattro in high end variants but don't see the point in a standard 2.0.

Right I'm off to test drive a 1.5 AWD Subaru - I hear the handling in them is savage!

mickdw

Shane732 wrote: »

As other people have said I get the idea of quattro in high end variants but don't see the point in a standard 2.0.

Quattro will always help. Standard 2.0 can be driven hard into & through a bend too & the more controllable grip, not just under acceleration but from engine braking and from balancing on the throttle will make a huge difference.

groupb

Shane732 wrote: »

I've just read two pages about Audi's...... Jesus it's a tough night tonight!!!

Taking the new A4 as an example and the 143 bhp in particular.... Is the handling of the standard verison really sh1t that you need quattro in a 143bph car?

As other people have said I get the idea of quattro in high end variants but don't see the point in a standard 2.0.

Right I'm off to test drive a 1.5 AWD Subaru - I hear the handling in them is savage!

The best way to judge if they handle well is to drive one back to back with a car renowned for great handling like a 3 series or any mondeo. I don't really see how a quattro would handle any better than a standard car but it would have better wet weather grip. Any A4 I've driven has been very poor dynamically compared to the bmw or ford.

opinion guy

Ok I don't think and a4 is supposed to handle particularly great thou. I mean its not going for a performance market. Its an exec cruiser, much like a6 and a8. Its also a big heavy car, with a soft suspension and a button instead of a handbrake. I would expect it to be smooth ont he motorway but i would not expect it to be great on country roads. The ones I drove felt like a large variety of freight containing boat.

Now I would expect an a5 to have better handling, even thou its also an execmobile its marketed more to the sporty types (I'm not sayin it does have better handling - I've never driven one but I am saying if I were paying that money for a 'sporty' car as a customer I'd expect awesome handling. I actually doubt I would get it). TT of course you would demand great handling. You would also expect that from any of the RS models.
A3 - I've driven several diesels. The 1.6 tdi is underpowered imho.

2litre 170bhp quattro a3 is an awesome yoke - great handling - very well balanced. Surpisingly so almost. But then again AFAIK it has the same chassis and engine as the TT diesel quattro does.

Shane732

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok I don't think and a4 is supposed to handle particularly great thou. I mean its not going for a performance market. Its an exec cruiser, much like a6 and a8. Its also a big heavy car, with a soft suspension and a button instead of a handbrake. I would expect it to be smooth ont he motorway but i would not expect it to be great on country roads. The ones I drove felt like a large variety of freight containing boat.

Now I would expect an a5 to have better handling, even thou its also an execmobile its marketed more to the sporty types (I'm not sayin it does have better handling - I've never driven one but I am saying if I were paying that money for a 'sporty' car as a customer I'd expect awesome handling. I actually doubt I would get it). TT of course you would demand great handling. You would also expect that from any of the RS models.
A3 - I've driven several diesels. The 1.6 tdi is underpowered imho.

2litre 170bhp quattro a3 is an awesome yoke - great handling - very well balanced. Surpisingly so almost. But then again AFAIK it has the same chassis and engine as the TT diesel quattro does.

For €40K new I'd expect it to handle pretty well!!!

opinion guy

Shane732 wrote: »

For €40K new I'd expect it to handle pretty well!!!

Which model are we talking about now ?

Tea 1000

Matt Simis wrote: »

Just to clarify I consider SLine to be a fluff piece. Im talking about S (S4, S6 etc) and RS cars.

Sorry, that makes a bit more sense alright.

Matt Simis wrote: »

In the wet no contest and on bad road (which is every single road where I live) again no contest. When people say "twisties" I think we visualize a twisty track, in reality and even in the dry (does that happen here?) the gravelly, oily potholed mess we drive on really favours AWD.

Actually, when I say "twisties", one road that springs to my mind is the Sligo to Dromahair road! Even surface, nice bends, nice road to see what's what dynamically. And the problem with Audi's isn't the grip levels, it's the feedback and feel of them on such a road that I have the problem with.

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok I don't think and a4 is supposed to handle particularly great thou. I mean its not going for a performance market. Its an exec cruiser, much like a6 and a8. Its also a big heavy car, with a soft suspension and a button instead of a handbrake. I would expect it to be smooth ont he motorway but i would not expect it to be great on country roads. The ones I drove felt like a large variety of freight containing boat.

The problem I have with them is you're in an A4, you drive at 15mph over a rough road in town and you're rattled because the suspension feels like it's just too firm. Then out on the main road, it's almost overly soft through decent bends. There is zero feedback from the steering, and there is a general lack of feel as to where the car is at and what exactly is going on with it.
You do get that with a Mondeo or Mazda 6, and even the new Insignia, and all of those cars actually ride better over the rough town roads at 15mph also, so they do both things better than the much more expensive Audi. That's my beef with Audi's. Apparently, a few testers have noted that the RS4 (latest) and R8 both cope better with rough surfaces than standard Audi's and are leagues ahead on proper roads. So it shows they can do it, they just can't do it at the budget level that they need to.
I think that's why the E39 5-series is held in such high esteem. Good comfort, yet also good handling and feel on a decent twisty road. Later BMW's have the handling alright, but lack the finesse thanks to runflats.

It's not that Audi's are particularly bad, it's just they should be a lot better, and are beaten by the Mondeo's, Insignia's and Mazda 6's, which are more spacious and cheaper.

mickdw

opinion guy wrote: »

Now I would expect an a5 to have better handling, even thou its also an execmobile its marketed more to the sporty types (I'm not sayin it does have better handling - I've never driven one but I am saying if I were paying that money for a 'sporty' car as a customer I'd expect awesome handling. .

You wouldnt expect outrageous wheel hop at even slight acceleration & extreme steering pull on all but motorway surfaces so in an A5 - which is what you get in front drive ones.
A5 should have everything going for it, good width, shortish overhangs, low lying and certainly it feels a million times better than a passat for example but the behaviour and steering pull is just a complete joke.
Ive spent a fortune on tyre combinations to make it acceptable. It cant live with hard sidewall tyres on the front yet it cant live with soft sidewalls on the back as it will just endlessly step out at the rear with them.
Ive currently got sessantas on the rear (excellent) & the only things that Ive found to work so far on the front are NANKANGS believe it or not. This setup, while taking a certain amount of turn in sharpness out of it, makes it useable as an everyday car.
Needless to say, I will be moving along from Audi for my next car partly because of this fiasco of a car & moreso due to audi Ireland & dealer service & attitude.

Matt Simis

In fairness to you Tea1000, I havent driven the B6 or new A4 or S4 so maybe they are that bad, quattro or not. The B6 did have a reputation of being a floaty mess in Audi enthusiast circles.
What I do know is the B8 S4 was heralded as a return to form for the chassis, in S form anyhow.

high horse

Matt Simis wrote: »

1.9TDi... dont think anyone is surprised thats your experience then!

I don't see how a more powerful engine would improve the wooley steering or crap handling

Ban Ki Moon

I have owned and driven audi for years!

I have always loved them and I still do.

Its those snobby dry humored daddys boys that work in VW/Mercedes/AUDI garages that turn me off! Everything is a drama with these boys...unless its a VW.Boss wearing bunch of f..s

Matt Simis

high horse wrote: »

I don't see how a more powerful engine would improve the wooley steering or crap handling

The 1.9TDI is:
a) In and of itself, slow and doesnt particularly need better grip
b) Heavy and affects overall suspension, braking and road holding negatively without the payback of power
c) Makes the car [more] nose heavy and upsets balance
d) Combined with quattro you now have a very heavy and slow car

Therefore a 1.9TDi is probably the worst possible example of a quattro Audi.
By the way, when I say heavy, I mean really heavy, even for a Diesel engine. According to this its about 200kg. A 3.0litre 235bhp BMW Diesel (ala 330d) weighs 168kg. The 320d engine weighs under 120kg and as its a BMW has a good front:rear weight distribution, which is why the earlier poster found the A4 TDI felt rubbish compared to the 320d.
Even big petrol engines are much lighter than that 1.9TDI.. my 12 cylinder near 400bhp petrol engine, from 20 years ago, weighs less than 166kg and has 52:48 weight balance! I thought it was humerous on VAG-Drivers when someone commented it prolly "doesnt handle well" with that heavy engine up front... Not every car is made like a VW.. :P


So yeah, having a rubbish engine makes a big difference. "Wooly" steering is a compliant often leveled at VAG cars that I just dont get. The oft complimented BMW 535d has lighter and softer steering than any of the VAG cars I had. "Light" steering can be made heavier with wider tyres and wider wheels/spacing which I generally would fit as a matter of course, so maybe I never seen it.