Car and Driver A4 Reviews

[Kevin C]

After reading a post about swapping a B6 3.0 into a B7 I was curious to compare road tests of the A4 over the years. All three versions had the sport suspension option and a manual transmission.

Some fun reads...


2004 3.0
220-hp V-6, 6-speed manual, 3700 lb
Base/as-tested price: $33,630/$38,130
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.5 sec
100 mph: 20.2 sec
1/4 mile: 15.8 @ 89 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 183 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

2004 Audi A4 1.8T
C/D TEST RESULTS
170-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3420 lb (2004 five speed? article does not say AWD but I have never seen a sport model with FWD- the listed MPG seem to indicate that its a FWD)
Base/as-tested price: $26,270/$31,220
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.1 sec
100 mph: 23.7 sec
1/4 mile: 16.2 @ 87 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 180 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 25 mpg

2005.5 Audi A4 2.0T
Base/as-tested price: $26,270/$31,220
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.2 sec
1/4 mile: 15.5 @ 92 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 180 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g






2004 A4 3.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...parison-tests/

2004 A4 1.8T

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...mparison-test/

2005.5 A4

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...tro-road-test/

[Kevin C]

One More

2001 A4 2.8 Quattro
190-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3382 lb
Base/as-tested price: $31,540/$36,110
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.4 sec
100 mph: 20.8 mph
1/4 mile: 15.8 @ 89 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 181 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 23 mpg

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...parison-tests/

[Turbo510]

16 MPG? I guess a day at the track will do that. I routinely get 27~29 on my mostly freeway commute of 45 miles.

Notice how the A4 is the least aged-looking of the bunch (in my opinion).

[EuroxS4]

I don't think this is something worth doing. Then again I'm not a big fan of those engines to begin with as the early ones were nothing but problems, with timing components failing to improper hardening on the cams among other issues and the fact that a turbo charged engine can be modified much cheaper to make the same amount of power if not more. From a performance prospective $$/performance cost and gain 4 banger turbo for the win. The only other swap I would say could be fun is a VRT or 5 banger 07k turbo. Anything with a inline engine. Especially if the car is being built for fun this is just my opinion. Now a supercharged v6 from a s4 or a turbocharged v6 is a different story. Just not a big fan of AVK.

[Kevin C]

I don't think this is something worth doing. Then again I'm not a big fan of those engines to begin with as the early ones were nothing but problems, with timing components failing to improper hardening on the cams among other issues and the fact that a turbo charged engine can be modified much cheaper to make the same amount of power if not more. From a performance prospective $$/performance cost and gain 4 banger turbo for the win. The only other swap I would say could be fun is a VRT or 5 banger 07k turbo. Anything with a inline engine. Especially if the car is being built for fun this is just my opinion. Now a supercharged v6 from a s4 or a turbocharged v6 is a different story. Just not a big fan of AVK.

I agree. Link to the thread on the swap (I was more interested in discussing the old reviews. Some of the info seems a bit off and they have a couple mistakes in the articles. I knew the 16 MPG would ruffle a few feathers) https://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...1#post14680541

[Turbo510]

From a performance prospective $$/performance cost and gain 4 banger turbo for the win....Just not a big fan of AVK.

I don't doubt you on this, but there's something to be said for the V6. I've also got a 2019 2.0 A5 Sportback, turbocharged of course. It makes some 30 HP more than my '05 3.0, gets around 10 MPG more for the same weight car, and idles smoother. But the sound and feeling of the six as it accelerates is quite sublime in my opinion.

[EuroxS4]

Honestly the AVK has good torque thats about it, I dont think they sound all that good, possibly with a performance exhaust sure. I'm just not a big fan of NA engines. I prefer forced induction as the gains are way more significant. From a packaging standpoint v6 or v8 in a a4 is horrendous to work on. Again not my cup of tea. To each their own,some like the v6 others not so much.

[Gin+]

This comparison reminds me that I'm a low key 2.0t fan.

[Kevin C]

This comparison reminds me that I'm a low key 2.0t fan.

While the 2.0T has its problems it had a number of improvements that worked. More displacement, higher CR, better designed turbo, dual intercoolers and a balancing system to quite it down (not everyone thought that was an improvement). When I built my 1.8T adapting everything but the GDI and the higher compression ratio got me a 1.8T that is a lot more refined. Thenit was just a matter of turning the boost up. The stroked1.8T with the balance shafts and the split manifold turbo is really nice and in my opinion what the factory should have done.

[Turbo510]

I'm just not a big fan of NA engines. I prefer forced induction as the gains are way more significant.

I'm a fan of forced induction too; my screen name refers to the Datsun 510s that I used to get my kicks with; 2000 lb go-carts with water-injection and forged pistons. And for a while I worked with an aircraft engine rebuilder, on V-1710 and V-1650 cubic inch supercharged V-12's for WW2 fighters. It's hard to be impressed with car engines after being around those things.

[EuroxS4]

I'm a fan of forced induction too; my screen name refers to the Datsun 510s that I used to get my kicks with; 2000 lb go-carts with water-injection and forged pistons. And for a while I worked with an aircraft engine rebuilder, on V-1710 and V-1650 cubic inch supercharged V-12's for WW2 fighters. It's hard to be impressed with car engines after being around those things.

Without a doubt yes I would have to agree. Personally I prefer older vehicle to the new tech stuffed heavy pigs. I once had a 1990 vw corrado with a 1.8t swap and synchro conversion. I miss that car. It was alot of fun and awd not to mention it was a slick top car.

[Spike00513]

Honestly the AVK has good torque thats about it, I dont think they sound all that good, possibly with a performance exhaust sure. I'm just not a big fan of NA engines. I prefer forced induction as the gains are way more significant. From a packaging standpoint v6 or v8 in a a4 is horrendous to work on. Again not my cup of tea. To each their own,some like the v6 others not so much.

the slow and fuel-hungry AVK is for cavemen who thought "turbos are unreliable" so they bought something NA that needs work, is heavy, complicated, hard to work on, with no potential for tuning to keep up with modern standards

later models had turbo wastegate actuator arms wear out over time
the B6 1.8T did not

[Turbo510]

the slow and fuel-hungry AVK is for cavemen who thought "turbos are unreliable" so they bought something NA that needs work, is heavy, complicated, hard to work on, with no potential for tuning to keep up with modern standards

You've had a different experience with the V6 than I have: mine is not particularly slow, fuel hungry, or needs much work. At freeway cruise, I consistently average over 30 MPG, although city streets to and from the freeway lower my commute average to about 28. Regarding weight, it would be interesting to know the difference between the N.A. Aluminum block V6 vs. the Iron block four with turbo and induction system. According to specs I saw for 2004 Quattro 6-speed sedans, the V6 version is 177 lb. heavier, 3,583 lb. vs. 3,406 lb, but that includes other differences besides the engine. And to being complicated; the timing belt system is definitely busier, and that requires special tools to do it correctly. But aside from front O2 sensors being really tough to access, the thing hasn't been hard to work on, because it hasn't needed much work.

[EuroxS4]

You've had a different experience with the V6 than I have: mine is not particularly slow, fuel hungry, or needs much work. At freeway cruise, I consistently average over 30 MPG, although city streets to and from the freeway lower my commute average to about 28. Regarding weight, it would be interesting to know the difference between the N.A. Aluminum block V6 vs. the Iron block four with turbo and induction system. According to specs I saw for 2004 Quattro 6-speed sedans, the V6 version is 177 lb. heavier, 3,583 lb. vs. 3,406 lb, but that includes other differences besides the engine. And to being complicated; the timing belt system is definitely busier, and that requires special tools to do it correctly. But aside from front O2 sensors being really tough to access, the thing hasn't been hard to work on, because it hasn't needed much work.

Not knocking it but knock on wood when you say things like "it hasnt needed much work". These things listen and sometimes manage to let you down at the worst possible moment.

[Turbo510]

Not knocking it but knock on wood when you say things like "it hasnt needed much work". These things listen and sometimes manage to let you down at the worst possible moment.

The car has indeed let me down, but not due to the engine itself: a worn-out fuel pump, and a faulty ECU relay were the reasons. But the thing is, at it's age and mileage, the car is probably not worth fixing if anything serious happens, as far as I'm concerned. All the depreciation happened long ago. I use it 90 miles per day so my A5 can exist as a low-mileage, weekend-only cruiser.

[EuroxS4]

The car has indeed let me down, but not due to the engine itself: a worn-out fuel pump, and a faulty ECU relay were the reasons. But the thing is, at it's age and mileage, the car is probably not worth fixing if anything serious happens, as far as I'm concerned. All the depreciation happened long ago. I use it 90 miles per day so my A5 can exist as a low-mileage, weekend-only cruiser.

This is why I have 2 parts cars with the same drivetrains.