92-93-94 Quattro V-6

[Dave K.]

$500 for DIY timing belt change?  I did it on my 20v for about $100
including all the belts, t-stat, t-belt, idler and water pump.

I knew Blau's prices were high but geez!

Dave K.
'90 CQ with fresh tb (thanks "TPC" Rod!)


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Torrey" <RNE905 at maine.edu>
To: "V6 List" <V6-12V at Audifans.Com>; "Roger M. Woodbury"
<rmwoodbury at downeast.net>; <quattro at Audifans.Com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: 92-93-94 Quattro V-6


> Roger -
>
> I pretty much agree with your analysis of the 100 CSQ Wagon.  As you know,
> I have a '93.  I bought the car with 44K miles.  I now have 150K miles.  I
> did the timing belt job myself with tools from Blau.  Included timing
belt,
> water pump, thermostat, serpentine belt, idler rollers etc.  I found this
> job to be very straight forward and easy to get at.  Lots of room up
front.
> Radiator remains in place unlike earlier models.  Cost was around $500.00.
>
> I, too, had the hydraulic pressure hose fail.  The one to the rack.  This
> can also be replaced without removing brake booster but it is a real pain.
>
> Driver's side window regulator failed.  This job was a pain as well.
> Especially reconnecting the lift arm clip at the bottom of the window
glass.
>
> Heater blower started squawking and I replaced that last fall.  I found
out
> after the fact that I didn't have to remove the entire console.   Oh, well
I
> now know how to remove the Climate Control unit.  My heating controls have
> been flawless (knock on wood).
>
> I have one electrical problem.  When I turn on the rear window defogger
the
> rear fog light comes on.  Haven't had a chance to look at this yet.
>
> Seeps oil around the head gaskets and maybe valley pan but only consumes 1
> qt. in 3K miles.
>
> That's it.  I would say this car has performed very well for 10 years and
> the body is tight with no rust.
>
> You are right on when it comes to shifting early.  However, if you want to
> accelerate rapidly,  you can always put your foot in it and avoid those
> early shifts.  While the car runs fine on mid-grade fuel I have found that
> the mileage is a little better and the shift points come later when using
> premium.  I think that is because the timing is advanced with the higher
> octane fuel.
>
> This is my first Audi so I have no frame of reference, but I have been
very
> satisfied with this car.  I hope to get another 150k miles of enjoyable
> driving.
>
> David Torrey
>
>
>
> > Hi Steve:
> >
> > I too made the same kind of jump that you are contemplating.  I sold my
89
> > 200 Quattro Avant and bought a "new" 94 100CS Quattro Avant, that had
> 39,000
> > miles in its eight years of service.  Here are my impressions:
> >
> > First of all, the newer cars will most certainly have an automatic
> > transmission.  The automatic transmission is adaptive and I find it less
> > than satisfying, especially when I compare it with the automatic in my
'93
> > V8, which has a lockup torque converter.  The Automatic in the CS is
> > programmed for economy, and therefore dumps into the highest gear
possible
> > as soon as possible, and with only 170 horsepower or so in this heavy
car,
> > the transmission shifts quite a lot, or so it seems to me.
> >
> > Secondly, the V6 is quite underpowered for traffic conditions commonly
> found
> > in US urban driving.  For travel over the road, however, the car is has
> > impeccable road manners, and adequate power with excellent fuel ecnomy
and
> > comfort.  My wife and I drove to Florida a few months after I bought the
> > car, and got to drive in and around Boca Raton around Thanksgiving, and
> > found that I was using heavy throttle a lot in the traffic of south
> Florida.
> > This is not a problem at all here in rural Maine, where the car seems
> > perfectly suited, and for our purposes, is just perfect.
> >
> > The interior of the newer body is much superior to the older style Type
> 44s.
> > More foot and hip room, and the heater/ac controls are much better and
the
> > system WORKS a lot better.  I think the 92-93-94 100CS is a significant
> > improvment ergonomically, over the older model.
> >
> > Our 100CS gets marginally better fuel economy than did my 200 Quattro
> Avant
> > (turbo).  I NEVER got better than 23 miles per gallon with that car no
> > matter what I did, whereas the 100CS will get 25-26 easily on a trip.
> >
> > The V6 engine is a LOT more expensive to service than was the inline 5
of
> my
> > 200.  I just did the timing belt and waterpump, with all rollers and
> > tensioners and assorted stuff that needs to be done at 60,000 miles, and
> the
> > bill was nearly $900 (authorized dealer).  Previous to that, the only
item
> > that I had to have repaired was a leaking hydraulic line, which in
itself
> > wasn't expensive, but the necessary removal of the garbage on the top of
> the
> > engine as well as the brake booster and assemby drove the labor cost up
> > pretty good, and this was at the independent garage....that was $400 or
> so.
> > Otherwise, in 22,000 miles the car has been perfect.  Recently I have
> > developed a fault in the HVAC controller, and the car will have to
return
> to
> > the dealer for that problem a bit later on...perhaps late February.
> >
> > The reason that I bought this car was that my new wife cannot drive a
> > standard transmission car.  The 100CS is superior, but were it not for
the
> > need of an automatic transmission, I would probably still have the 200
> > Quattro.  It took six months for me to locate this particular car.  It
was
> > at a BMW dealer in Kansas City, who had taken it in on trade.  The car
was
> > one owner, and all services had been performed at the authorized Audi
> > dealer, so the service history was complete from new.
> >
> > As everyone else will tell you, find the BEST car with the BEST service
> > history that you can, and paying a qualified service technician for a
> > pre-purchase inspection is a terrific idea also.  Some of the early
'92's
> > had some "issues" with transmissions and electrical systems, but the
> later,
> > 1993-1994 cars were pretty reliable, which is why I wanted a '94.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Roger
>
>
>