return of the inline 5....

[Roger M. Woodbury]

Correct in that I generalize my conclusion based on my one experience with
my own Type 4A.  But I bought that particular car after a LOT of research
both on and off the Internet, including interviewing a LOT of Audi service
personnel in several different locations.

Now, neither my last Type 44 nor the Type 4A cars have shown a tendancy
toward "niggling" troubles.  But in comparing the histories of both cars,
both of which had perfect service histories, the Type 44 was at this point
in its life, a better vehicle, albeit the difference was relatively small.

The Type 44 had no significant work orders generated in the first fifty
thousand miles of service.  My Type 4A had only one, actually, and that was
at just over 41,000 miles with the failure of a hydraulic line that caused
the Pentosin resevoir to drain prematurely.  The leak was in a line that ran
all the way back, up and over the engine and required four hours of work to
replace.  The part wasn't expensive, but the labor was enough to drive the
cost above $400.

The steering rack in the Type 44 was never replaced, although the boot was
torn for a long time.  It lost around 1/2 pint of Pentosin every five or six
thousand miles...never more.  Can't explain it, but there it is.  Both rear
brakes were replaced, which is not  a big deal, considering the point in
time that they had to be replaced, but for the best part of thirty thousand
miles prior to that, the car had effectively no emergency brake....never
used it, but if I did use it, the car dragged on rear wheel for about twenty
miles.  That certainly can't be called great design.  It wasn't.  It was a
poor design made in the interest of saving some manufacturing money.

The Type 4A has a fancy Bose stereo.  Bose must be the most overrated audio
manufacturer on the face of the planet.  Both of my Audis have Bose systems,
and both of those systems have failed.  The head unit in my Type 4A had its
volume control/on/off knob fail internally while I was traveling with the
car.  I had a new Nakamichi head unit installed in Florida, and two front
speakers installed as well...one of those had failed, as well.  (In my '93
V8, the rear speakers and one front speaker of the Bose system have failed
also).  While the Bose system failure strictly speaking isn't Audi's fault,
it merely serves to illustrate that Audi is not immune to the current
automotive trend to build flash and splash into cars, but real, durable
quality is slipping further and further behind in the manufacturers' short
list of priorities.  (and before someone gets jumping up and down about the
Audi/Bose recall, that recall does not apply to V8s after the 1992 model
year, and will only be handled on a "case by case" basis, so says Audi).

In my previous Audis, both Type 44s, I NEVER had one iota of electrical
difficulties before around 100,000 miles.  The electronic board that
controlled the fan speed on my '89 failed around 105,000 miles, and the
heater/ac fan failed at around 120,000, but that was around ten years of
age.

In truth, I have to say that it now appears that the Type 4A and Type 44
experiences that I have had will prove to be about parallel over time.  But
the cost of getting the Type 4A repaired will be around 25% higher than the
Type 44, since I have no alternative than to go to an authorized dealer for
repairs.

Now with the newer Audis the technology is much more complex than is the
earlier cars.  IF the authorized dealers can afford to continually maintain
their shop personnel service training, AND continue to buy newer and newer
and more complex testing and diagnosing equipment, then the increased cost
in labor and material may be bearable.  Frankly, I doubt that this will
happen, as more and more of the cars are leased, and maintained only for the
leasing period with maintenance leases sold with the car.  After the lease,
when these cars become relatively affordable, I think that they will become
absolute bombs in the driveway.

A good case in point is that rediculous marketing ploy known as the All
Road.  My friendly service advisor told me that the normal service interval
is $10,000, and the normal service charge is between $800 and $1,000.  Every
other service requires replacement of the tires, as this vehicle EATS tires.
Makes this automobile VERY expensive, it would seem.  And that assumes that
that natty electro/hydraulic lifting and lowering gizzy remains trouble free
after, say 50,000 miles.  I wonder what the cost of a controller would be
for THAT sucker?

Nope.  I have had exceptionally good service from three of five Audi's that
I have owned.  The first 5000S wagon was merely ok, but its duty was mostly
in town, and it didn't like that....ate rotors and window regulators
furiously in the first twenty thousand miles, and was traded at thirty.  The
Audi Coupe was a wonderful machine, but the manufacture and materials used
in the structure were substandard, with corrosion beginning on the body
seams at the fenders and rocker panels after the first winter....traded at
16,000 miles and eleven months of service.

My '87 had 125,000 when I bought it, and 225,000 when I gave it away.  Good
car with niggling problems but considering the $7000 initial cost and the
service the car gave me, it was cheap.  The 200 Quattro had 61,000
initially, and 130,000 when sold.  The best vehicle of all my fifty odd that
I have owned...overall maintenance cost was just over eight cents a mile,
including a transmission overhaul after the clutch failed at 120,000 miles.

The Type 4A will probably be about as good as the 200 Quattro.  But it cost
twice as much, and is going to cost much more to maintain.  And although it
is a more refined and technically more advanced vehicle, my patience for
maintenance costs due to subcontractor part cheapness or trendy style and
whims gets thinner and thinner as I get older.

Make no mistake: I love my Audis and have been really pleased with the
overall experience of owning them and driving them a long way.  But the
string is out for me, and I doubt that I will own another one, and the ones
that I have now, may not grace my garage for an awful lot longer.

Roger


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ti Kan" <ti at amb.org>
To: "Roger M. Woodbury" <rmwoodbury at downeast.net>
Cc: <quattro at audifans.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: return of the inline 5....


> Roger M. Woodbury writes:
> > [ ... comparison of old type 44 vs. '94 100CS ]
> > So my gripes with the "new(er)" Audi , is that while the vehicle itself
it a
> > much better platform, the overall quality of the car is simply not on a
> > level with the 200 that I had previously.  I bought that car with 61,000
> > miles on it, and sold it with around 135,000 miles.  I am not sure that
the
> > '94 will be around that long.
>
> Roger, you have one example of a "newer" (albeit it is almost getting to
> be a decade old itself) Audi and somehow you reach a generalized
conclusion.
> Curious, too, because the type 4A 100 series (your car) is one of the most
> trouble-free Audi models in recent history.
>
> My impressions have been completely the opposite.  I've owned several
> Audis all the way from the 80s to the present, and I have to say that
> the reliability and quality of Audis have made quantum improvements
> over the years.  My most troublesome Audi is the '84 type 44 turbo.
> The '80 4000 had its share of fuse box and ground related electrical
> gremlins, but I think I have it all sorted out by now.  Contrast them
> with the '96 A4q 2.8 I had and the new S4 biturbo (which is now over
> two years old), the newer cars are virtually faultless.  The S4 had
> a windshield washer pump leak that was replaced, and an erratic fuel
> gauge that was fixed by simply doing an adaptation with the VAG scan tool.
> My newest -- an '03 A4 1.8T CVT is too new to have any history, but
> just judging from the subjective build quality aspects of the new model
> I have no doubt it would be even better than the 1st-gen A4/S4 cars.
>
> Now I love *all* my Audis.  Despite the quirks of the earlier models
> they still provide a high degree of pleasure.  But I can't honestly
> say that the 'ol type 44 is an overall "better car" than the new ones
> when it comes to quality, reliability, safety, refinement, etc.
>
> I think it's fair to say that my experience is not unique.  I've been
> on this list since its inception and I know what are the common ailments
> of each model.  The type 44, as durable as the car may be, has got to
> be *the* model with the most niggling issues, especially the hydraulic
pump,
> steering rack and climate control.  Each model has its weaknesses and
> strengths, but in general there had been far, far fewer complaints about
> the early 1990s and later cars.
>
> > There seems to be an epidemic of cheapness creeping into all the
formerly,
> > "quality" cars.
>
> That may be true for other marques, but certainly not Audi.  "Cheapness"
> would be the last thing that would cross your mind when you get behind
> the wheel of a new Audi model!
>
> -Ti
> 2003 A4 1.8T multitronic
> 2001 S4 biturbo 6-sp
> 1996 A4 2.8 quattro (sold)
> 1984 5000S turbo
> 1980 4000 2.0 5-sp
> --
>     ///  Ti Kan                Vorsprung durch Technik
>    ///   AMB Laboratories, Sunnyvale, CA. USA
>   ///    ti at amb.org
>  //////  http://www.amb.org/ti/
> ///
>
>