A4 Avant 2.4 tdi
Discussion
Looking to buy a 2.4 avant to replace the M3, probably a 2003 or 2004. The number of miles I usually drive has increased 10 fold and I now have a dog to look after so something slightly more sensible is necessary! I had a 2.0tdi (sure it was the 150) for a week while the girlfriends a3 was in the stealers and liked it, there was definately a feel of quality to the thing and the torque was fairly impressive.
First of what is the fuel consumption like? I can get around 28 combined with the M3 rising to 32 on a run if being far to sensible. Roughly what is the range on a full tank, assuming this is around 60 quids worth of diesel.
Also, how does chipping effect the fuel consumption and reliability?
Cheers
Rory
First of what is the fuel consumption like? I can get around 28 combined with the M3 rising to 32 on a run if being far to sensible. Roughly what is the range on a full tank, assuming this is around 60 quids worth of diesel.
Also, how does chipping effect the fuel consumption and reliability?
Cheers
Rory
Diesel options of that vintage (B6 shape A4) will be the 1.9 (130BHP) or 2.5 (180BHP) engines - neither are as nice as the new 2.0 tdi unfortunately. They're a little bit tractory at low speed but nicely muscular on the motorway. Expect mid 40s from the 1.9 and high 30s from the 2.5
1.9 is easily and reliably chipped, 2.5 is best left alone.
1.9 is easily and reliably chipped, 2.5 is best left alone.
agree with all of the above. All except the last statement. the 2.5 of its era a fine engine. Give them both a go and see what you think, the 2.5 quattros are 180 the FWD are 163, i believe there was also an earlier run of 150& 155bhp cars but these may predate your specified dates. The 2.5's are thinner on the ground that the 1.9's. Assuming a typo but there is a 2.4 petrol V6 of that era as well.
The newer 2.0 tdi are a marked improvement, if you can stretch that far i would opt for one of those. The 3.0 tdi in 233 guise is a cracker.
Having had B3's and B4's (late 80's-mind 90's) the build quality then was better than it is now. I cant help but be a little disappointed by the less robust interior of the B6. although i also have a C5 (a6) and its far more solid in feel. Albeit small niggles.
Seen and been in a fair few 130 and 180 TDi's that have been remapped/chipped. Both run fine. Have seen issues with both in fairness. mainly the usually blowing hoses, cracks or splits. the 1.9 will see better gains than the 2.5. the 1.9 is quite on/off delivery, nowhere near as smooth as the 2.0tdi. The 2.5tdi does suffer from sub 1500 rpm but again remapped it evens out the delivery. Both are also prone to coke build up over the turbo, and the MAF's are also notorious for failing. Smoother drive. The 1.9 will always be more frugal, also note the quattros will rob you about 5 mpg typically between both models. The 1.9tdi unit is a really common powerplant for a lot of the VAG cars around that era and there is a daft amount of tuning options.
Same goes for any remapped/ chipped TDi, drive it hard and it will consume more, but constant velocity commuting you will generally see a few more MPG. typically you get worse mpg a few days/weeks after the remap, from heavy right foot syndrome. Then settles out a few more better off. You aren't going to be that much better off in the 2.5tdi Q over the M3 if you are getting over 30 on the motorway. The 1.9 will give you a better return.
DrG, i have seen you slate the 2.5 a few times, can you give me some reasoning behind your statements?
The newer 2.0 tdi are a marked improvement, if you can stretch that far i would opt for one of those. The 3.0 tdi in 233 guise is a cracker.
Having had B3's and B4's (late 80's-mind 90's) the build quality then was better than it is now. I cant help but be a little disappointed by the less robust interior of the B6. although i also have a C5 (a6) and its far more solid in feel. Albeit small niggles.
Seen and been in a fair few 130 and 180 TDi's that have been remapped/chipped. Both run fine. Have seen issues with both in fairness. mainly the usually blowing hoses, cracks or splits. the 1.9 will see better gains than the 2.5. the 1.9 is quite on/off delivery, nowhere near as smooth as the 2.0tdi. The 2.5tdi does suffer from sub 1500 rpm but again remapped it evens out the delivery. Both are also prone to coke build up over the turbo, and the MAF's are also notorious for failing. Smoother drive. The 1.9 will always be more frugal, also note the quattros will rob you about 5 mpg typically between both models. The 1.9tdi unit is a really common powerplant for a lot of the VAG cars around that era and there is a daft amount of tuning options.
Same goes for any remapped/ chipped TDi, drive it hard and it will consume more, but constant velocity commuting you will generally see a few more MPG. typically you get worse mpg a few days/weeks after the remap, from heavy right foot syndrome. Then settles out a few more better off. You aren't going to be that much better off in the 2.5tdi Q over the M3 if you are getting over 30 on the motorway. The 1.9 will give you a better return.
DrG, i have seen you slate the 2.5 a few times, can you give me some reasoning behind your statements?
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff