80 estate 2.0 petrol

John. · 07-06-18, 07:50 PM

Nice looking cheap load-lugger for someone!...…...and low miles to boot(it is an estate!)

Flying Frank · 07-06-18, 08:50 PM

Looks good to me too....... :-)

Ben · 07-06-18, 08:51 PM

Like

audi80fan · 07-06-18, 10:12 PM

Hate the 2.0 petrol in these (sorry I will run for cover now)

Otherwise, nice find

Flying Frank · 08-06-18, 05:27 AM

So what would be your choice......for me in an ideal world a 2.3 engine but I don't think they ever did that with this model.....and of course quattro drive too.

audi80fan · 08-06-18, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Frank

So what would be your choice......for me in an ideal world a 2.3 engine but I don't think they ever did that with this model.....and of course quattro drive too.

I think the 2.3 would be a more desirable choice for sure in an Audi 80 with it's 5 cylinder engine. Followed by the V6's and finally 16v. (The 2.0 16v is arguably more desirable than the V6's due to it being a slightly rarer car). But even the tdi is a better daily than a 2.0.

But yeah, that's just personal preference based on what I have owned so far and what I am yet to own.

mackenzie50 · 08-06-18, 08:15 AM

Yes I'd definitely prefer a 2.3 5 pot in my 2.0 avant, as 114bhp is a bit tiresome compared to my 280 bhp S2....
that said with its straight thro' exhaust and Scorpion backbox it makes the lowly 8v lump more 'interesting', if primitive. Fuel consumption is pleasantly better however!

audi80fan · 08-06-18, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mackenzie50

..with its straight thro' exhaust and Scorpion backbox it makes the lowly 8v lump more 'interesting', if primitive. Fuel consumption is pleasantly better however!

Haha, yes I can imagine!

vorsprung durch technik · 08-06-18, 09:37 AM

Hmmmmmmm

The 2.0 8v was is a better car than the 16v, much better lower end making it a good everyday driver and very good on fuel! High 30's even 40mpgs on a run possible with a light foot and an Excellent handler back then in saloon guise!!

My pals saloon a 94 2.0 8v Sport was a nice car to drive in 96 albeit with a spartan interior. Looked good outside though with it's polished lipped alloys and rear alloy spoiler. Only downside was a slightly boomy exhaust at around 3.5k revs on the motorway which was tiresome.

That's why so few 16v were sold, gutless low down and raucous at high revs, how this makes it a more desirable car today than the V6 i'll never know! The public didn't like the 16v compared to the rest of the range and the same applies today for those that know!

Peacedub · 08-06-18, 10:35 AM

I see some debating going on so i'll join in on the action. The 16v is a fantastic engine, the only thing that lets it down is the injection system. Skip a couple of years to the revamped ABF 16v with digifant and hands down this is one of the best engines of that era. I drive a 16v ACE in my coupe that has been tuned and running straight through exhaust. It is by far quicker than my 2.6 V6 avant, but this is a cruising vehicle and I don't wish to kick the ass out of it. The 2.0 8v is ok but not in the heavy Audi's. In the mk2 golfs I preferred the 1.8 8v to the 16v kr. Much more responsive low down and with a 272 cam it redlined all day long.

I see these Audi's as cruising mobiles, I don't think they are built for thrashing. Even in the S2's you have to think about the corners etc and are not as poised as the light hatchbacks.

07-06-18, 08:51 PM	#3
Ben 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Stockport Posts: 2,348	Like __________________ 1992 80 quattro 20vt

07-06-18, 08:50 PM	#2
Flying Frank 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Kernow, Gods own county !! Posts: 2,388	Looks good to me too....... :-)

07-06-18, 10:12 PM	#4
audi80fan Senior Member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 1,157	Hate the 2.0 petrol in these (sorry I will run for cover now) Otherwise, nice find

08-06-18, 05:27 AM	#5
Flying Frank 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Kernow, Gods own county !! Posts: 2,388	So what would be your choice......for me in an ideal world a 2.3 engine but I don't think they ever did that with this model.....and of course quattro drive too.

08-06-18, 08:15 AM	#7
mackenzie50 Grown up member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Morayshire Posts: 229	Yes I'd definitely prefer a 2.3 5 pot in my 2.0 avant, as 114bhp is a bit tiresome compared to my 280 bhp S2.... that said with its straight thro' exhaust and Scorpion backbox it makes the lowly 8v lump more 'interesting', if primitive. Fuel consumption is pleasantly better however!

08-06-18, 09:37 AM	#9
vorsprung durch technik 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Near Watford. Posts: 7,753	Hmmmmmmm The 2.0 8v was is a better car than the 16v, much better lower end making it a good everyday driver and very good on fuel! High 30's even 40mpgs on a run possible with a light foot and an Excellent handler back then in saloon guise!! My pals saloon a 94 2.0 8v Sport was a nice car to drive in 96 albeit with a spartan interior. Looked good outside though with it's polished lipped alloys and rear alloy spoiler. Only downside was a slightly boomy exhaust at around 3.5k revs on the motorway which was tiresome. That's why so few 16v were sold, gutless low down and raucous at high revs, how this makes it a more desirable car today than the V6 i'll never know! The public didn't like the 16v compared to the rest of the range and the same applies today for those that know!

08-06-18, 10:35 AM	#10
Peacedub Grown up member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire Posts: 142	I see some debating going on so i'll join in on the action. The 16v is a fantastic engine, the only thing that lets it down is the injection system. Skip a couple of years to the revamped ABF 16v with digifant and hands down this is one of the best engines of that era. I drive a 16v ACE in my coupe that has been tuned and running straight through exhaust. It is by far quicker than my 2.6 V6 avant, but this is a cruising vehicle and I don't wish to kick the ass out of it. The 2.0 8v is ok but not in the heavy Audi's. In the mk2 golfs I preferred the 1.8 8v to the 16v kr. Much more responsive low down and with a 272 cam it redlined all day long. I see these Audi's as cruising mobiles, I don't think they are built for thrashing. Even in the S2's you have to think about the corners etc and are not as poised as the light hatchbacks.