B5 A4 2.8 vs. A4 1.8T chipped

[Doug Hill]

Jason,
Sorry I am a little late on this thread, I have a '97 2.8, and it is plenty 
peppy. I have upgraded the housing for the MAF sensor 
www.champagnemotors.com which was a noticeable difference throughout the 
RPM's and installed a K&N Filter. I still get around 22 mpg, mostly city 
driving. I toiled over the same decision before I bought mine.
Good Luck
Doug Hill
'97 A4 2.8q
"87 4kcsq gone but not forgotten


>From: "Jason Kohls" <jasonkohls at gmail.com>
>To: quattro <quattro at audifans.com>
>Subject: B5 A4 2.8 vs. A4 1.8T chipped
>Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:32:47 -0400
>
>Been poking around the forums and have seen quite an impressive gain
>in hp and torque from the various chip manufacturers for the 1.8T:
>they seem to bring the numbers in close to the 2.8 for hp and exceed
>the torque by a fair margin.  There's also the weight penalty of a 100
>pounds or so.
>Reliability on the other hand -- with all things maintenance being
>equal -- would favor the non-chipped, NA engine, correct? However, the
>1.8T, from what I've read, is destined to be a "classic" and I think
>it made Edmunds Top-10 engines list, so perhaps this is not the case?
>
>My question is: what would you rather have, power/reliability/gas
>mileage -- a B5 A4 2.8 or a chipped B5 A4 1.8T?
>
>I'm looking at getting a "new" daily and have seen quite a few
>high-mileage for B5 A4s for dirt cheap.  My priority is reliability
>but obviously I'd like some around town pep and some highway passing
>and would like to know what the listers think.
>_______________________________________________
>quattro mailing list
>quattro at audifans.com
>http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
>---
>Watch this space for ads :)

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507