This car has also lived an easy life, all stock, mainly highway miles, always serviced, transmission fluid/filter changed at 70K and 140K.

After reading all the transmission failure posts in here I don't think I would ever own another Audi with an auto tranny. There go my dreams of an D3A8. I am so glad I have a 6-speed.

It is things like this that create the reputation of a brand and scare away customers from Audi and kill resale. Which totally stinks, because I love my Audi, but I don't know what to replace it with when the time comes.

 

Tranny shop said there were lots of metal fragments when they rebuilt it. Another buddy's '03 allroad 2.7t with 40k is in the shop now with tranny problems......not sure if the tranny needs to be replaced.

 

Also, the A8 transmissions are real nice and rarely give problems. The key to keeping anything operating properly is maintenance. For you to Harp on Audi for having a transmission fail after 150,000 miles is a little rough.

I think the majority of the transmission woes on this site are posted by people with 2001 or older vehicles. These vehicles are 7+ years old. Failure comes from things like internal seals (degradable rubber) failing within the transmission. Try finding any type of material to take the abuse and pressure an automatic transmission puts on it and asking it to go forever and ever without needing replacement. It's like asking for tires to go 200k.

I guess my point it, wear happens as a result of use, time, and a multitude of other factors. It's bound to happen at some point, but some automakers have done a better job using higher quality materials and things of the like to keep things smoother longer. I trust that Audi is using all the right parts.

As a side not, you see alot of cars with dead trannies on here with multitudes of modifications on them. The transmissions and Torque convertors were designed with very tight tolerances and performance expectations. When you go above and beyond what they were engineered for, something is bound to happen eventually.

 

als that last a long time. i can't say i would trust audi is using the right parts because that would just make them believe there is nothing to improve on and makes the end product for us....mediocre.

i guess it depends on your experiences with cars on whether or not 150k is good or not for some manufactures 150k is great and for others it's an anomaly.

i hope i get more then 150k miles out of my audi but it is nearly 7 years old now with 76k so at that rate i will hit 150k in another 7 years.

Now if i decide to keep the car for 7 more years and don't have to change the tranny i guess i could be pretty happy...no one wants to have to do repairs so until that point occurs my audi is great

 

Fact of the matter is that these cars have a lot of transmission failures even after being serviced, which Audi claims that it never has to be serviced, but ZF, the maker says does.
I never remember trannys failing this often on the C4 cars when they were the same age.
As for your Ford, I agree with you, I have never know a Ford transmission to last long. But then Fords are cheap disposable cars and cheap to repair.
Other makers however seem to use transmissions that can go 200K+ miles and still work fine. I have no idea of your age, but my parents are panicked when a car gets close to 70K miles, they grew up when cars rarely made it past 100K. I grew up in the Honda/Toyota age where 100K is just getting broken in. My Brother has a land cruiser with over 300K and it just won't die.
I do understand wear happens, but how do you explain all the failures of cars in the 40-70K range that keep imploding transmissions?

Do I think Audi cut corners with the C5? Yes I do, Suspension parts and transmissions being some of the big ones. The accountants got too involved with each penny.

 

says to replace the TB every 60k miles, but AoA says 105k (or at least they used to say this). The German engineers recommend regular maint; the marketing types at AoA are the ones who said "hell, it don't need no stinkin' service". Important distinction, IMO.

 

C4 was 172 HP MOL. No wonder tranny goes longer. I owned one. Throttle a C5 down to 172 horses and I could run a long, long time. By the way, brother in law now has it. Still shifts clean at 120K plus; did change fluid (same type as C5's); similarly grungy as my C5 experience.

For reference 4.2 has the same same tranny as in V8 BMW's and Jag's of similar vintage--ZF makes it, not Audi. It's the heavier 5HP design, but my perception is the 4.2's have more issues in the tranny. Again start w/ 300HP, and probably more importantly 300lb feet of torque and zero slip in the wheels given quattro. Meanwhile, a lot of the 2.7T performance comes from its low gearing. That stresses the tranny too as you pump the torque through, and overall it turns aditional revs per mile over tens of thousands of miles. Meanwhile C4's are leisurely geared by comparison. And a 2.7 stick or auto can walk even a manual tranny original S4/S6 (C4 body) 227HP car all day long. HP (and really torque here) costs, including tranny beating.

You want to talk junk trannies, go back to the C3 3 speed autos (could have been in your 86GT if it was an auto). Horrendous design where gear oil and tranny fluid could and did easily mix, blowing tranny up routinely. And only 115 HP IIRC. An Audi/VW design as I recall, maybe under a ZF license.

As others commented, Fords. Lost first Ford Taurus tranny at 59,500 miles against a 60K warranty. Family member lost three on one second gen. Taurus. Our 2004 Toyota Sienna tranny had to get reflashed--clunky shifting around corners--and shifting is distinctly second rate to modern Audi; dealer reported fluid as bad too at 30K miles, that is when they changed both the radiator AND power steering lines under a customer service notice (aka quiet recall). Recent V6 Honda Accords are pretty widely known for tranny problems too--colleague had his forkifted under warranty in first few years--so the Japanese stuff is not all it's cracked up to be.

Got 172K on my C1 tranny by the way. The only part of the mechanics on that car that did not routinely break. 4.11 gears made it a fun kid car though. And again, 100-115HP and no surprise tranny kept going.

 

Even with the higher HP numbers, the early 2.8 C5, with only 190 HP still seem to eat through transmissions just as fast as the 2.7T and 4.2 motors.
I don't agree with your stating that the 2.7T slush box can pull the UrS4/6 all day long. Having owned the UrS4 and now a 2.7T-6-speed both claim 0-60 at 6.2 and 6.0 respectively. With a 2.7T slush box at 6.6. The quarter still goes to the UrS vs the 2.7T slush box. The 2.7T is definitely smoother and pulls from lower RPM, but the hit of the UrS once the turbo is spooled up definitely pulled harder.

Plus, in designing a transmission for a 300 hp car, one would think they would design a transmission that could handle the power and torque. With all the 400+ hp cars coming out now days and a huge majority of them slush boxes one would think an automaker could build a better transmission to match the engine. I don't know how many RS6's have had tranny problems, but I fear for owners with more than 50K on the clock.

The sad truth about my cabby was that at 90K the transmission was on it's way out, which is the only reason I dumped it. That was a 174 hp wonder yet it still ate the transmission and you could only have FWD on that car.

My Audi mechanic has warned me about the CVT as well, he is seeing them in the shop all the time now that they are off warranty. And they can't repair them, they have to replace at a tune of 5K+

It would appear the the only Audi transmissions that are reliable are the manual ones. My brother had 300K on 85 5000 Turbo before it went, I had 150K on my UrS before I sold it and it was going strong. I have 110K on my C5 now and it is going strong. Unfortunately, we get very few manual transmissions anymore. None in the A6 range in North America. I don't want an A4 size car anymore. I like the size of my A6, but I also like rowing myself. I would consider DSG though, I am hearing great things on that transmission. Maybe I am out of the loop on that one though.

FYI, my CGT was a stick, so I lucked out there.