Are Audi Coupes any good?
Discussion
Yes in a word!!
If you've driven a mid 80s to 90s Porsche it's much the same design ethos and build story. I like old Porsches so I like old Audis, I tend to run both one as daily driver the other as toy.
There are 3 basic models to that family. 80/90 Saloon cars or Estates. Coupe. Cabrio.
You would think the coupe is the driver focussed one but actually that's the 90. The 80 B4 model especially in estate form is a fantastic load lugger and in diesel format is quick enough but will turn in 60mpg at the expense of a bit of a delicate engine if not cared for.
A 90 (b3 model) 2.3 20v particularly in FWD form with the factory sports suspension is by far the most driver orientated car, lighter than the coupe and much stiffer it is a very very nice package, I've had mine for 2 years now and loved it, to the point that I don't really want to sell it.
The coupe is a good looking car, but it is heavy and a bit wooly as standard. Lowered suspension and 16" wheels sort that. The heaviness just contributes to the solid feel. Pick of the bunch are 2.3 20v 5cyl or 2.8 v6.
The 5 cyl engines sound glorious and have loads of torque, best of all they are seriously tough, the only issues they suffer are on the 20v models with people not taking care of them they can have some idle and running issues, it's never an internal issue and is easily and cheaply sorted. The 10v models trudge on for ever, as in over 300k without any work.
4 cyl engines are ok but you lose 90% of what makes the car special.
6 cyl engines are much the same story although they sound nice and are smooth and relaxed. Avoid the 2.6 though, it's the low power version (as the 10v 5cyl was to the 20v) so your getting a thirsty expensive to work on engine with no benefits.
Pick of the bunch is a 10 or 20v coupe or coupe quattro in my opinion.
They also do an S2 which is the turbo quattro version and is available in estate form too.
I'd go to look at a few coupes then drive a 90 (preferably a 20v) and see which you prefer, one looks like a sports car but delivers a cruiser experience, the other looks like an old saloon but drives like a sports car.
If you've driven a mid 80s to 90s Porsche it's much the same design ethos and build story. I like old Porsches so I like old Audis, I tend to run both one as daily driver the other as toy.
There are 3 basic models to that family. 80/90 Saloon cars or Estates. Coupe. Cabrio.
You would think the coupe is the driver focussed one but actually that's the 90. The 80 B4 model especially in estate form is a fantastic load lugger and in diesel format is quick enough but will turn in 60mpg at the expense of a bit of a delicate engine if not cared for.
A 90 (b3 model) 2.3 20v particularly in FWD form with the factory sports suspension is by far the most driver orientated car, lighter than the coupe and much stiffer it is a very very nice package, I've had mine for 2 years now and loved it, to the point that I don't really want to sell it.
The coupe is a good looking car, but it is heavy and a bit wooly as standard. Lowered suspension and 16" wheels sort that. The heaviness just contributes to the solid feel. Pick of the bunch are 2.3 20v 5cyl or 2.8 v6.
The 5 cyl engines sound glorious and have loads of torque, best of all they are seriously tough, the only issues they suffer are on the 20v models with people not taking care of them they can have some idle and running issues, it's never an internal issue and is easily and cheaply sorted. The 10v models trudge on for ever, as in over 300k without any work.
4 cyl engines are ok but you lose 90% of what makes the car special.
6 cyl engines are much the same story although they sound nice and are smooth and relaxed. Avoid the 2.6 though, it's the low power version (as the 10v 5cyl was to the 20v) so your getting a thirsty expensive to work on engine with no benefits.
Pick of the bunch is a 10 or 20v coupe or coupe quattro in my opinion.
They also do an S2 which is the turbo quattro version and is available in estate form too.
I'd go to look at a few coupes then drive a 90 (preferably a 20v) and see which you prefer, one looks like a sports car but delivers a cruiser experience, the other looks like an old saloon but drives like a sports car.
Oh and it's not in any shape size or form an A4. It was released in 1988 circa 7 years before the A4 was born. No components are shared it's a totally unrelated car. It's infact built on the B3 platform and stayed that way even when the sister car the 80 moved on to the B4 platform with some minor cosmetic changes and substantial under the skin changes. The A4 was B5 platform onwards.
marcosgt said:
It's an A4 in drag.
If you like A4s and want something a bit less common and (perhaps) more stylish, then there's not much to dislike.
More transport than driving delight though, in FWD form at least (not tried a 4WD one).
If you're a VAG hater, it's worse than walking!
M.
No it's not. In essence it's an Audi 80. If you like A4s and want something a bit less common and (perhaps) more stylish, then there's not much to dislike.
More transport than driving delight though, in FWD form at least (not tried a 4WD one).
If you're a VAG hater, it's worse than walking!
M.
marcosgt said:
It's an A4 in drag.
If you like A4s and want something a bit less common and (perhaps) more stylish, then there's not much to dislike.
More transport than driving delight though, in FWD form at least (not tried a 4WD one).
If you're a VAG hater, it's worse than walking!
M.
WHAT?If you like A4s and want something a bit less common and (perhaps) more stylish, then there's not much to dislike.
More transport than driving delight though, in FWD form at least (not tried a 4WD one).
If you're a VAG hater, it's worse than walking!
M.
A Audi coupe is not the same as a A4. The Audi coupes were based on a new B4 chassis which came out before the Audi 80 saloon which predated the A4 which runs a B5 chassis. The Audi coupe chassis is closer to a B3 chassis but is shortened.
Anyhow, more importantly they are very good cars. the 2.3 5 cylinder in 170hp form is a enjoyable car to drive with a sweet sounding engine. The quattro versions add a good 100kgs or so to the weight so the extra grip they provide is dulled by the extra weight so off the mark they are not that much quicker than a FWD version.
The 2.8 v6 is the best of the 6 piston lumps as it offers 24hp more although it feels like even more due to the better intake yet it does the same MPG as the 2.6 at around 27mpg.
Id consider the 2.3 170 FWD or quattro or 2.8 Quattro and not even look at the rest.
Dave
SD1992 said:
I have recently seen a few of these going about:
Are they any good?
They seem to represent fairly decent value for money, especially the 2.6.
Has anyone on here got one? Or ever driven one? I would be very interested to hear what people think of them
Yes and no.Are they any good?
They seem to represent fairly decent value for money, especially the 2.6.
Has anyone on here got one? Or ever driven one? I would be very interested to hear what people think of them
They look good and will likely get you from A to B just fine.
But they are neither fast nor fun.
300bhp/ton said:
Yes and no.
They look good and will likely get you from A to B just fine.
But they are neither fast nor fun.
which version did you sample? I tried a 2.8 FWD variant and it didn't strike me as slow at sub 8sec to 60 combined with long gearing 30-60 in second and 50-90 in 3rd seemed pretty spot on for overtaking. They look good and will likely get you from A to B just fine.
But they are neither fast nor fun.
Ive also sampled a 2.0 16v quattro saloon variant and that felt a lot less lively as the 4x4 seemed too much for the 130 Odd horsepower.
aka_kerrly said:
which version did you sample? I tried a 2.8 FWD variant and it didn't strike me as slow at sub 8sec to 60 combined with long gearing 30-60 in second and 50-90 in 3rd seemed pretty spot on for overtaking.
Ive also sampled a 2.0 16v quattro saloon variant and that felt a lot less lively as the 4x4 seemed too much for the 130 Odd horsepower.
Twas a long time ago. Maybe they are faster than I recall.Ive also sampled a 2.0 16v quattro saloon variant and that felt a lot less lively as the 4x4 seemed too much for the 130 Odd horsepower.
Although Carfolio lists the 150hp 2.6 at 0-62mph in 9.3 sec http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...
And as you state above the 2.8 172hp model 0-62mph in 8.0 sec http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...
Didn't realise the 2.8 was that much quicker tbh.
aka_kerrly said:
The 2.8 version really is worth having compared to the 2.6. Why Audi even sold an engine that has less power an does similar MPG i dont know. The main difference is the 2.8 has variable rate intake manifold which gives it a much better torque spread
Makes sense. Goes to show it's not all about the PEAK figures but how much HP it makes across the powerband.Worth noting as well from someone who drives one hard day in day out handling is not an issue. They do not understeer when set up properly. The engine is heavy and a long way forward but the car is well engineered to get round the fact (was hardly a new Audi trait) in the same way as Porsche do with 911s.
In actual fact the Audi is in fact my second favourite car after my 911 for fun driving. That said the coupe is softer than the 90.
In actual fact the Audi is in fact my second favourite car after my 911 for fun driving. That said the coupe is softer than the 90.
wildoliver said:
Worth noting as well from someone who drives one hard day in day out handling is not an issue. They do not understeer when set up properly. The engine is heavy and a long way forward but the car is well engineered to get round the fact (was hardly a new Audi trait) in the same way as Porsche do with 911s.
In actual fact the Audi is in fact my second favourite car after my 911 for fun driving. That said the coupe is softer than the 90.
Not doubting you can make them more sporty and entertaining. But claiming they do not understeer is like saying water isn't wet.In actual fact the Audi is in fact my second favourite car after my 911 for fun driving. That said the coupe is softer than the 90.
sday12 said:
wildoliver said:
If you've driven a mid 80s to 90s Porsche it's much the same design ethos and build story.
Really, were they hand built then?
e.g.
small scale production vs mass production
performance & style vs practicality and running costs
rear engine rwd vs front engine fwd
low slung sports car vs tall saloon car origins and basis
driver focus vs cruiser
In fact as you can see they are almost identical.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff