car shopping

[tom winter]

So it's decided, then. The Ford pickup truck wins! ;-)

Tom


on 6/17/04 6:31 AM, Kent McLean at kentmclean at mindspring.com wrote:

> (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"
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
>