[V8] Well, it's spring....

[Dave Saad]

On the oil consumption issue, I think a lot of 3.6L motors had the  
same problem.  Mine sure did.  It seems that the problem is the  
design of the oil ring - it is just bad.  I put new rings in mine and  
oil consumption has gone down to a normal level.  My plugs now are a  
nice brown too instead of crusted black.  I am not sure why some  
motors seem OK while others are oil burners from the same model  
years.  maybe the factory used two different styles of ring during  
production?
On the other issues, the AC is probably the biggest to me.  Having  
the R134a would be nice just for the ease of servicing. The newer  
control head would also be nice I suppose, but the old style works  
well enough.

Dave


On Apr 19, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Bastian Homburg wrote:
> Well, the difference is mostly in three areas: engine, A/C system  
> and seats.
> The 4.2 engine delivers significantly more performance especially down
> low in the rev range where you North Americans want/need it the most,
> especially with the auto box. If you say that you didn`t feel a
> difference, tthe one you owned wasn't running properly. The difference
> in midrange torque is more than just noticeable.
> Albeit this comes at a price - in my experience, fuel economy is about
> 1.5 mpg less, all other things being equal. AND a lot of the 4.2s  
> suffer
> from elevated oil consumption levels - that's a really annoying
> construction fault which cannot be remedied except by changing the
> block. Mine's using 2 qts per 1,000 miles, and that's perfectly  
> "normal".
>
> The newer A/C IMHO is vastly superior to the old one. My '94 even came
> with factory R134a refrigerant and apart from needing a recharge two
> years ago never ever acted up on me.
> Same goes for the seats - I have the optional sports seats with the
> adustable leg extension that fit me like the proverbial glove. Even if
> it is fast approaching the 300K mark, eight-hour drives in this car  
> are
> something I look forward to. Better adjustability and more  
> ergonomically
> placed seat controls, too.
>
> Additionally, '92 and newer will get you more standard equipment
> (passenger airbag, infrared remote locks, better radios) and more
> options (power rear sunshade...).
> However, there's people who say Audi went cheaper on the post-facelift
> cars. And indeed, some of the interior materials like the carpet and
> headliner look and feel superior in the pre-facelift versions. I
> remember being *really* impressed with the interior when I had the  
> first
> chance to drive a V8 back in December 1988...
>
>
>
>
> Roger Woodbury wrote:
>> So, help me out here.  Recite for me please all of the reasons why  
>> the late
>> model cars are superior to the early (3.6) cars.  I have had both,  
>> but can't
>> for the life of me remember any REAL difference, aside from the  
>> cosmetic.
>>
>> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audifans V8 mailing list
> Send posts to: mailto:V8 at audifans.com
> Manage your list connection: http://www.audifans.com/mailman/ 
> listinfo/v8
>
> You can help keep the audifans site running by shopping at http:// 
> audifans.com/shop/
>