5 cyl. 20V vs. 5 cyl. 10V vs. 6 cyl. 12V
02-10-2002, 02:01 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 cyl. 20V vs. 5 cyl. 10V vs. 6 cyl. 12V
Which one of these is engines you think is the most reliable and can handle the most abuse and high number of miles??
My friend is between Audi 90 20v and Audi 90 6 cyl. 12v and Audi 5k 5 cyl. 10v. All 5-speed, quattro cars. (stock engines, no turbos, etc)
He will abuse the car (high revs, burnouts, high speeds, etc.) Which of these engines is for him and will last him the longest.
I personally pick the 5 cyl. 10V, but i might be wrong. What do you think?
My friend is between Audi 90 20v and Audi 90 6 cyl. 12v and Audi 5k 5 cyl. 10v. All 5-speed, quattro cars. (stock engines, no turbos, etc)
He will abuse the car (high revs, burnouts, high speeds, etc.) Which of these engines is for him and will last him the longest.
I personally pick the 5 cyl. 10V, but i might be wrong. What do you think?
02-10-2002, 03:32 PM
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are very wrong my friend...
I honestly believe with all the experience that I've had with audi's that the V6 is the top performer. I have never driven the 20v however. I have had a
84 5000s,
87 5000Turbo
88 80
88 90
93 90Quattro
and now a new 93 90 fwd
Why do I say V6? because the V6 cars drive and ride sooo nice compared to 88-92's. I still love the 88-92's, but the front end design started to bother me a bit after having my 88 for one year and knowing I could swing a 93-94 without financial regrets. The V6 cars are smoother, and seem to be a heck of a lot more reliable than the 88-92 cars. Not only that, but everything from climate control to the design of items on the 93-95 really gets me. Suspension, interior noise level, speed, options, etc.
84 5000s,
87 5000Turbo
88 80
88 90
93 90Quattro
and now a new 93 90 fwd
Why do I say V6? because the V6 cars drive and ride sooo nice compared to 88-92's. I still love the 88-92's, but the front end design started to bother me a bit after having my 88 for one year and knowing I could swing a 93-94 without financial regrets. The V6 cars are smoother, and seem to be a heck of a lot more reliable than the 88-92 cars. Not only that, but everything from climate control to the design of items on the 93-95 really gets me. Suspension, interior noise level, speed, options, etc.
02-10-2002, 04:11 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: You are very wrong my friend...
I agree with everything you say. I just wanted to know how you rate the engine only in the long run. Stuff like compression loss after many many miles, oil leaks, options to upgrade, fuel preference, gas mileage under hard driving, and etc. I'm not comparing interiors or handling here...it is obvious that any 91+ Audi car will better than 88-91. This is the way it should be.
02-10-2002, 04:34 PM
#7
10v's tend to take a beating better. 12v and 20v tend to use oil...
...more so than the 10v's. The 12v gets the worst mileage (weight). The 12v will run much worse on lower octane fuels. None of them are really worth the effort to upgrade.
That said, any of them can run forever if they are properly maintained.
That said, any of them can run forever if they are properly maintained.
