Friday 23rd October 2015

Shed Of The Week: Audi Coupe

Remember when Audis weren't all diesel A3s? Shed does!

---

To Shed, the concept of a coupe has always seemed slightly peculiar. Even when his own Shedlets were swarming about the yard, driving cars into the inspection pit, lighting up his beard with the thermic lance and generally being an all-round nuisance, Shed never felt the slightest interest in the slopey motors that marketing twerps assured him were perfect for young families like his. As far as Shed was concerned, all coupes did was rob him of valuable parts-toting space.

Er, this picture shows it's purple?

Now, of course, he has a mother-in-law and understands more clearly the interesting potential for rear-seat suffering that coupes hold for the aged, infirm and hateful. With that in mind he has been refocusing on this niche market. He still wouldn't have a modern coop, but something like this 20-year-old Audi could easily find its way onto the Shed Towers driveway.

If there's such a thing as a de-risked used car, this one might be it. It's just had all the important mechanical work done and the MoT is as long as it gets. All you'd have to do as the new owner would be to start bigging up the hidden merits of this underrated classic on social media. With any luck, your campaign will readjust the Coupe's gently positive appreciation curve to something more accurately reflecting the angle of the back window.

For info, the editor of one of the classic car mags has just bought a Coupe for his personal stable. Not sure why he keeps old cars in a stable, but no doubt he has his reasons.

Large engine and a big appetite for fuel too

The earlier Giugiaro-styled B2 of the early 1980s is the Coupe to have of course, with all its proper lower-case quattro connections, but you're not likely to find one of them in this column any time soon.

Our Shed was born near the end of the B3 run. Its 2.6-litre V6 looks suitably bombastic under the bonnet, but if you expect 2015-style 2.6-litre V6 performance you might be disappointed. The 2.6 E's 150hp bested the preceding (and charismatic) 2.3 E non-turbo five's output by 14hp, but although the heavier six had a higher top speed (133mph manual, 130mph auto against the 2.3's equivalent figures of 128 and 124), it took a smidgen longer than the five to get to 62mph from rest (9.3 seconds against 9.2).

Expect this engine to deliver 1990s-style 2.6-litre V6 fuel consumption and you won't be disappointed, bearing in mind that it's nowhere near as rev-hungry as the five and it's running through a slushbox auto. That and front-wheel drive won't make for the most inspiring driving experience. The ride is comfy but understeer will be your friend. Still, when you view those classic Audi dials through that rather lovely steering wheel, you'll feel yourself being swaddled by a nice warm blanket of old-school quality and style.

Rare, stylish, well maintained - good Shed!

And, age-related issues apart, if this is a good example of the breed you shouldn't encounter too many problems in day to day running. These Audis were built to last as well as to impress. Their relatively high weight places extra strain on suspension parts, but a chassis refresh with new dampers and polybushes will have it feeling like new.

There is mention of new mounts in the ad, which we guess means engine mounts. Other stuff not mentioned but worth looking out for: rear calipers, CV gaiters, leaky boots, clutch slave cylinders and steering racks, windscreen delamination, window relays and pulleys, seat adjustment cable and droopy headlining. If the heater matrix fails that's a dashboard out job.

This Coupe is quite literally a solid car, with none of the endemic rust that would go on to blight Mercs of a later age. For many, that solidity - along with a potential to appreciate - will be enough. Plus, how many purple cars do you get nowadays?

Here's the ad.

Puple 1995 Audi Coupe 2.6 v6 Automatic 161,600 miles
reluctant sale as i can no longer run two cars.
MOT until 22nd october 2016 ( i have copies of MOT certificates back to 2002)
in good condition no major dents or scratches, small marks in line with the age of the car
car has been regularly serviced, i have receipts although the book has not always been stamped.
6 previous owners
work that has been done on the car since i have owned it, all with reciepts
Cambelt change - August 2015
Full service  - August 2015
wheel bearing kit - feb 2015
new fuel pump Jan 2015
rear break discs and pads -  May 2014
new starter motor - August 2014
service - September 2014
service - October 2013
new mounts - november 2013
full service - August 2011
new alternator - September 2011
gearbox service and new vacum hoses - September 2011

[GTEYE]

I think I'd rather have the diesel A3 actually.

Other than looking ok, these are pretty sluggish, thirsty old beasts. Look alright though.

Had to smile at "no major scratches or dents".......presumably lots of small ones then!

Edited by GTEYE on Friday 23 October 09:16

[PositronicRay]

Remember procon-ten? At least these drive better than the 80 it was based on.

Edited by PositronicRay on Friday 23 October 09:18

[SHutchinson]

I've always liked these. Always. I reckon they're nicer than a Corrado, people just haven't realised yet.

[PositronicRay]

The difference is the Corrado actually drives quite well.

[Gio G]

I had a 16v version in red, I loved it, especially the styling. Only owned it for 6 months, was my first Audi.. Always lusted over the S2..

G

[vtecyo]

Am I reading that right? 150bhp from a 2.6 V6?

[Quhet]

I've always admired these and considered one for my first car. A bit too long in the tooth for me, but it looks a good example

[gforceg]

I briefly considered an S2 back in about '97 but got cold feet. I like the shape even now but I still think the Corrado looks beeter.

[beko1987]

Looks like the MacPhearson struts will need replacing soon


MOT history of this vehicle
Test date29 September 2015 Test ResultFail Odometer reading161,609 miles MOT test number5269 8680 9216 Reason(s) for failure
offside rear Fuel system component insecure fuel filter mount (7.2.1)
Advisory notice item(s)
offside front unable to fold
front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
front oil leak
nearside front upper Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
offside front upper Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
offside front exhaust joint deteriated


Test date29 September 2015 Expiry date22 October 2016 Test ResultPass Odometer reading161,609 miles MOT test number5592 3096 2614 Advisory notice item(s)
offside front unable to fold
front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
front oil leak
nearside front upper Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
offside front upper Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
offside front exhaust joint deteriated


Test date14 October 2014 Test ResultFail Odometer reading159,493 miles MOT test number1470 2718 4253 Reason(s) for failure
Offside Rear Rear position lamp(s) adversely affected by the operation of another lamp (1.1.A.3f)
Advisory notice item(s)
Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
Nearside Front Power steering pipe(s) or hose(s) has slight seepage from a joint (2.3.3b)
Nearside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Nearside Front Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
Offside Front Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
Nearside Rear Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
Offside Rear Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
unable to fold osf seat forward
Oil leak
slight corrosion fuel pipes
cable tie repair fuel pump
slight corrosion rear coils
battery slightly insecure


Test date14 October 2014 Expiry date22 October 2015 Test ResultPass Odometer reading159,493 miles MOT test number1650 5758 4267 Advisory notice item(s)
Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
Nearside Front Power steering pipe(s) or hose(s) has slight seepage from a joint (2.3.3b)
Nearside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Nearside Front Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
Offside Front Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
Nearside Rear Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
Offside Rear Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
unable to fold osf seat forward
Oil leak
slight corrosion fuel pipes
cable tie repair fuel pump
slight corrosion rear coils
battery slightly insecure


Test date23 October 2013 Expiry date22 October 2014 Test ResultPass Odometer reading157,188 miles MOT test number5757 9649 3292 Advisory notice item(s)
Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
Nearside Front Macpherson strut has slight movement at the upper attachment (2.5.A.1c)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Oil leak
fuel pipes corroded
fuel pump slightly insecure
battery slightly insecure
centre exhaust mount brocken but exhaust secure
front steering pipe brkt insecure

[hman]

I had a cabriolet one of these - it was very front heavy but was amazingly solid and never let me down - ever.

The coupes dont suffer from chassis flex like the cabriolets- I expect most cabriolets are borderline unusable now as the flex was bad when they were 10 years old let alone 20.

I rescued a 2.2E quattro coupe typ89, it was £500 on ebay - MOT fail- spent £3k getting it track day ready, drove it to the 'ring did 8 laps, then sold it to my co-driver for and didnt lose a penny - REEESULT.

[williamp]

check out those quality plastics.

Oh, and these days we can also check the mot failures and advisories. Perhaps not fair, but useful nonetheless...

[RG02GEE]

My dad had the 2.3 coupe and it really was a tank, door were so thick but it was so sluggish. Bulletproof (apart from the gearbox!).

[Limpet]

There is something inexplicably lovely about this.

[PositronicRay]

vtecyo said:

Am I reading that right? 150bhp from a 2.6 V6?

Yup, a heavy old lump as well. Smooth and docile, the engine is the best thing about it though.........................................

[hornetrider]

vtecyo said:

Am I reading that right? 150bhp from a 2.6 V6?

Yep - positively glacial! Even the 2.8 VR6 in the Golf only had 176bhp. It was a lot back then though.

[Limpet]

Remember cars weren't as obese back then though.

A Golf VR6 weighed about 1150kg (and was considered lardy in its day). A mk7 GTI, with a significantly smaller and lighter engine is 200kg heavier overall. Like driving a VR6 around with two fat blokes in it.

[Yertis]

I've had a couple of these, a 2.3 5-cyl and now a 2.0 4-cyl, which is actually my daughter's car. They are incredibly well built, tough as nails, and easy to fix. The only things that give me worries with these are replacing the cabin heater matrix which does fail, and needs the entire interior stripping out to replace, and the headlining, which decomposes to land on your head, and needs the entire interior stripping out to replace.
The electric windows can be temperamental as well.

They don't drive nicely in all honesty but the smaller engined cars handle a little better than the 5 cylinder cars which are very nose heavy.

The early type-85s are much nicer to drive but the interiors are a clear generation or two earlier.

[hman]

it can write a car off when the heater matrix goes if you were to take it to a garage!

when it went on the coupe we just blocked it off and had cold winters LOL

[saaby93]

Yertis said:

The early type-85s are much nicer to drive but the interiors are a clear generation or two earlier.

I thought this was going to be about the earlier ones

[sinbaddio]

A pal had one back in the day. A great looker, super build quality and a winner with the ladies. I'm sure his was a 2.2? We used to swap sometimes, I ran an AX GT, and as a drivers car the AX was leagues ahead, probably quicker too. Top shed though imo.