Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Social Groups |
Registered
Members: 13,658 | Total Threads: 40,056 | Total Posts: 470,826 Currently Active Users: 812 (18 members and 794 guests) Welcome to our newest member, eniwaxagujuku |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-06-18, 07:50 PM | #1 | |
4 ring whore!
Classic Audi Club Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Scottish Borders.
Posts: 7,520
|
80 estate 2.0 petrol
Nice looking cheap load-lugger for someone!...…...and low miles to boot(it is an estate!)
|
|
07-06-18, 08:50 PM | #2 |
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, 08:51 PM | #3 |
4 ring whore!
Classic Audi Club Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stockport
Posts: 2,348
|
Like
__________________
1992 80 quattro 20vt |
07-06-18, 10:12 PM | #4 |
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 |
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, 07:36 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Classic Audi Club Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,157
|
Quote:
But yeah, that's just personal preference based on what I have owned so far and what I am yet to own. |
|
08-06-18, 08:15 AM | #7 |
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, 08:37 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Classic Audi Club Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,157
|
|
08-06-18, 09:37 AM | #9 |
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 |
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|