car shopping

[Kent McLean]

(My ISP was having some trouble with my mail, and coughed up
over 600 messages this morning, some already read from a few
day ago. Forgive me for lumping all the comments into one
message.)

frank j. bauer wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2481710597&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT 

I wish.

Dave Head wrote:
> I sold one of my V8s (the 92) last month and bought a new Jetta TDI
> wagon. $24K optioned out and 42+ mpg. Lotsa power, no smoke. We love
> it!

You have a different idea of bottom feeding. I'm in the
Marianas Trench.

Tom Love wrote:
> Maybe a nice condition Quantum Syncro Wagon would work.

Possibly, if I could find one locally.

Adam A. Luy wrote:
> Go for the Avant! They have gobs of space inside.

Tempting, but my gut says I need something newer. But
I like the shape of the Type 44 Avants.

George Tur, a 91 V8 owner, wrote:
>>1987 Audi 5K Avant. Quattro, 5-speed, MC-1. 128K miles.
>My personal preference would be this car, since it's so cheap

Another vote for the 5K.

Brady Moffatt wrote:
> I vote for number 2 - if it checks out to be in good shape.
> The comes number 1. Don't even think about number 3!

One vote for the 5K.

Tom Winter wrote:
> I have a 5000 wagon. It's a true joy to drive (it's been
> chipped, so It's damn fast), It rules in the snow (I live
> in Colorado). And I like the option of being able to lock
> both the differentials. And it hauls a ton of stuff.

Another vote for the 5K.

P.Dooley wrote:
> It is between the wagons.  The question is, where will
> you be driving? The auto would be nice if you will be in
> rush hour, stop and go traffic. The Q would be good for
> northern snowy climates. The auto would most likely fail
> before the manual, but the Quattro does add complication
> and expense.

Flip a coin.

David Ritter wrote:
> I'm thinking that you should really keep looking for the
> passat wagon. ... The slushboxes in the older Audis are
> not to be trusted.

I've been told the slushboxes are only a problem on the
quattros, that the FWD automatics are not (are less?) a
problem.  Anyone?

Taka wrote:
> If you're going to do a lot of miles, I would definitely
> NOT go for any of the options you mentioned so far.
> ... otherwise, I'd look at the Saab 9000/9-5, Volvo wagons
> (real hard to find a manual 850 turbo, though).

I thought about the Volvo 700 series, being big and boxy.
But I'm afraid of RWD in the snow.

Ed Kellock wrote:
> The 5k would likely be the most costly in the long term
> in regard to maintenance with the sole exception being
> the failure of the automatic in the '94.

My concern with the '94 is the automatic. That's my only
concern.

Tom Winter added:
> Why not get a rack with a space case/rocket box for the
> 200 and be done with it. You get to continue to use the
> car you know and love, spend only $400 max (you said you
> were working on commission) and drive off into the sunset.
> What the hell are you going to be carrying anyhow?????

There's an option I hadn't considered.  Mmmm. Let me
think about that one.  Carrying -- samples of motorcycle
helmets, boots, and leathers.

Jerry Beer wrote:
> I vote for the older Avant.

50% of the precincts have reported, and the 5K leads
by a wide margin.

Steve Buchholz wrote:
 > Based on the other factors, I did recommend the 100
 > Avant, but if the choice was between a 100 and a 100Q
 > of similar vintage I would recommend the latter ...

Older quattro avant, or newer FWD V6? Audi presents
a dilemma.

Dan DiBiase wrote:
 > based on the other comments made, I would go with #2

Kevin Boykin wrote:
 > Go with what you really want, not with what is practically
 > better.  ... Better yet, keep driving the 200 'till you get
 > a pipeline of steady commissions...then get what you want
 > and then some.

This option did cross my mind. But my 200, as usual, has
some issues. And I'm dreaming that those other choices
are going to be perfect.

Ben Swann wrote:
 > I think you should get the '87 and sort it out.  Once sorted,
 > you'll have lots of reliability ahead.

The votes keep piling up for the 5K.

Roger Woodbury wrote:
 > I would look carefully for a 1989-90 200 Quattro Avant
 > that has a good service history that is verifiable, and
 > is in good condition, with around 100,000 miles.

Are the '89+ 200s that much better than the earlier 5Ks?
How so?

Kneale Brownson wrote:
 > keep your present car and pull a small trailer.

I'm not a big trailer fan.  Too much trouble backing
up and finding parking.

Mike Arman wrote:
 > what you really want to think about is leasing something
 > rather than beating your OWN car to death to do this.

But the mileage (50K+ miles/year) would make a lease
unfeasible.

Greg Johnson wrote:
 > My answer is 100/200 TQ Avant, but preferably a '91
 > 200-20v Avant.

That would be an option. Just not right now.

Eric Kissel wrote:
 > I have a 1989 200q Avant that I would let you have for cheap.

Another viable option. I'll take this one off list.


Well, it seems the quattro list is leaning towards
the I-5 turbo quattro car, with suggestions that it
would be better if it were a 200, or an S car. :-)

Thank you all for you input.  If you've read this far,
the outstanding questions are:

1) Are the FWD automatics as bad as the quattro automatics?

2) Are the 5K MC-1 cars that much worse than the 200 MC-2 cars?

Thank you one and all,
Kent
'89 200 TQ, "Bad Puppy"