Saab 9-3 aero V Audi A4 3.0
Discussion
It’s time to say goodbye to my Saab aero, it’s been fun but I fancy a change. I’ve been offered a good deal on an Audi A4 3.0 manual (6 speed like the Saab) does anyone have any experience of them? Commute to work is 20 Miles each way down the M20 so fuel consumption isn’t a massive factor, Saab does 33mpg so something similar would be nice!
I take it they will be designed for the motorway hack? Anything to look out for?
I take it they will be designed for the motorway hack? Anything to look out for?
Nanook said:
I had a 2003 A4 Quattro Sport for a while, the 3.0 30V petrol V6.
I liked it, comfortable, well equipped, didn't really ever let me down.
Veeeery thirsty though. Nowhere near 33mpg average. More like 22.
I had the same car (but a 2001) and me and the O/H shared it for our daily commute (both on 'B' roads NSL).I liked it, comfortable, well equipped, didn't really ever let me down.
Veeeery thirsty though. Nowhere near 33mpg average. More like 22.
We never got worse than 30 MPG.
Can't think how hard you must have been driving it to only achieve 22 MPG.
Currently have a 2000 BMW 523i (2.5 6cyl) and on the same commute my O/H manages to average 28 to 30 mpg.
And neither of us drive like saints either...
Nanook said:
Not that hard at all. It's a heavy car with 4WD and a 3.0 petrol engine, you don't need to try very hard to get low 20s.
I get 23mpg from my current car, and it doesn't get driven particularly hard most of the time either.
Your BMW is a lighter car with a simpler drivetrain and a smaller engine, 28-30 seems about right.
I was amazed to see that the Audi is 40kg heavier than the BMW - however I suspect the aerodynamics would be better on the Audi for what that's worth.I get 23mpg from my current car, and it doesn't get driven particularly hard most of the time either.
Your BMW is a lighter car with a simpler drivetrain and a smaller engine, 28-30 seems about right.
Either way - I've run both cars (still running the BMW) for over 2 years and the Audi always returned around 30MPG.
The Audi has so much torque, it doesn't need to be revved - I can remember trundling around at ~30MPH in 6th gear and it would still pull happily.
In fact it was quite unrewarding to rev it hard (even though it would red line easily), compared to the B5 A4 Quattro 2.8 V6 I had for a while.
The 2.8 wasn't particularly heavy on fuel either.
At that age be open to both and buy the best of either you can find.
I'm guessing you are looking at the B6 A4?
If so I had one, TBH I cant think of any redeeming feature tbh, it wasnt bad , it just wasn't great.
I don't think I bought the best example, it had 120k miles and i'm sure that it was clocked, or just couldn't really handle the abuse of daily life
In my ownership the aux belt snapped, engine cut out lots (could never be fixed) and the injector wiring loom died. I also had to replace the gear linkages and the clutch was on its last life. I was doing 22k miles a year in it and it was the diesel model, although if I stuck to a simpler petrol I would have had less bills. The interior felt really tired and it used to eat batteries, I think the climate solenoids carried on working when the car was off. Also it flooded in the passenger footwell when I washed it occasionally , even though the plenum drain holes where empty and the channels had already been cut.
It was also quite small inside, the saloon to me felt smaller than a Mk4 golf.I imagine the estate is bigger but it wasn't a big car, which is ironic considering how boring it was. Thats kind of my point, for something so dull it wasn't very practical!
Ironically ive been using a mk2 Leon recently, a 1.6 petrol. On paper it should be similar if worse than the Audi, but Ive really liked it and had 0 issues, OK it has half the mileage, but is worth less than when I had the Audi. It just works!
I have also owned several older Audi 80s and other Seats, they were good no nonsense cars, I just cant recommend the A4 I had!
I'm guessing you are looking at the B6 A4?
If so I had one, TBH I cant think of any redeeming feature tbh, it wasnt bad , it just wasn't great.
I don't think I bought the best example, it had 120k miles and i'm sure that it was clocked, or just couldn't really handle the abuse of daily life
In my ownership the aux belt snapped, engine cut out lots (could never be fixed) and the injector wiring loom died. I also had to replace the gear linkages and the clutch was on its last life. I was doing 22k miles a year in it and it was the diesel model, although if I stuck to a simpler petrol I would have had less bills. The interior felt really tired and it used to eat batteries, I think the climate solenoids carried on working when the car was off. Also it flooded in the passenger footwell when I washed it occasionally , even though the plenum drain holes where empty and the channels had already been cut.
It was also quite small inside, the saloon to me felt smaller than a Mk4 golf.I imagine the estate is bigger but it wasn't a big car, which is ironic considering how boring it was. Thats kind of my point, for something so dull it wasn't very practical!
Ironically ive been using a mk2 Leon recently, a 1.6 petrol. On paper it should be similar if worse than the Audi, but Ive really liked it and had 0 issues, OK it has half the mileage, but is worth less than when I had the Audi. It just works!
I have also owned several older Audi 80s and other Seats, they were good no nonsense cars, I just cant recommend the A4 I had!
TwistingMyMelon said:
Stuff
The 3.0 is the B6 (and later models IIRC) B5's were 2.4 / 2.8 V6My aux belt snapped as well!! It was a bugger driving home with no power steering...
Agree on the interior space - it was small inside considering the size of the car.
Also - it was nowhere near as refined as an E46 BMW 3 Series for example (probably it's direct competitor in that segment).
Mine also suffered from poor synchromesh from 1st to 2nd when cold (and didn't improve an awful lot when warm).
I would agree that it was an unremarkable car, but decent enough.
Mine had around 96k miles on it when I sold it.
I had some rust repaired on the passenger door sill (was a water trap) and also some bubbling on the roof of all places. No previous repairs were found.
Front suspension parts are hideously expensive too BTW.
TonyRPH said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
Stuff
The 3.0 is the B6 (and later models IIRC) B5's were 2.4 / 2.8 V6My aux belt snapped as well!! It was a bugger driving home with no power steering...
Agree on the interior space - it was small inside considering the size of the car.
Also - it was nowhere near as refined as an E46 BMW 3 Series for example (probably it's direct competitor in that segment).
Mine also suffered from poor synchromesh from 1st to 2nd when cold (and didn't improve an awful lot when warm).
I would agree that it was an unremarkable car, but decent enough.
Mine had around 96k miles on it when I sold it.
I had some rust repaired on the passenger door sill (was a water trap) and also some bubbling on the roof of all places. No previous repairs were found.
Front suspension parts are hideously expensive too BTW.
Yep the gearbox on mine was notchy , I thought doing the linkages would help....it didnt
I agree on the BMW front, I remember going in a friends E46 320 and being amazing at how solid it felt and quick it felt!! When it isn't even a quick car tbh
Thankfully never bought suspension parts and it did drive with no rattles or issues there
I agree on the solid enough, I'm pretty sure mine was clocked as it was showing too many signs of a 200k car, not a 120k mile car.
The saloons were cheap though SH, I guess they didnt have much market . The estates fetched a decent price .
I swapped it for a Mazda6, another cheap dull unremarkable car, but it gave no issues and had a nice gearbox with a revvy petrol engine.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff