Re: The Reliability of the 90

[harrison <hsapir@multiverse.com>]

Okay Paul, sounds like you got the short end of the stick on your trans. But
the brakes you bought were a "race" system as you said. If this car gave you
more trouble than a 5000, then you must have pissed off the Audi gods somewhere
down the line. The 5000s that I have had were the absolute worst maintenence
nightmares I have ever encountered. The 88 90q is an angel in comparison.

harrison

Paul_Royal@idx.com wrote:

> >>>Paul Royal wrote..."it's the most unreliable car I've ever owned"
> >>>Are you kidding?
> >>>Looking at the list of maintenance items posted at audicar.com, I don't
> see
> >>>a description of an unreliable car.  It does describe a car that gets
> >>>driven alot.   Too bad about the trans failure, but other failures don't
> >>>seem too unreasonable in the course of putting 170 k miles on a car.
> >>>Aren't  belt replacement, brakes, and a lot of the other listed things
> in
> >>>the category of routine maintenance items, along with tires, etc?
> >>>Dave C.
>
> No, I'm not kidding.
> Last car incurred half the trouble and maintenance costs over 243K miles.
> An Audi 5Ks with an automatic!!!! no less.....
>
> Car before that...a Volkwagon Rabbit.
> First repair over $100 occurred at 160,000 miles.
>
> Add the numbers...I haven't included tires...the only routine items I
> incuded
> were timing belt and belts in my figures...a transmission failure that
> would
> cost over $5,000 w/o the aid of junkyard is inexcusable.
>
> I told you I expected a lot.  Maybe my expectations are unreasonable, but
> from my own experience and the opinions of most others I've talked to...
> well...they're glad it ain't theirs.
>
> Rings of Torture