How bad are the Early 2000's Audi V6's?

So I'm in the market for something comfy in the $7-8K range to serve as a driver and dog wagon when I'm not in the mood to drive my MR2. It will be something like 6-8K miles a year so not a high mileage vehicle.

I keep seeing A4 Avants and A6 Avants with the 3.0L V6 that are in that price range. How are they as far as maintenance? I know the car is comfortable as a good friend had one. Will I be hating life though? I know the issues with the 1.8L Turbo

Also, Any other thoughts? It'll be used as a dog hauler for the 3 dogs and our only 4 door. My biggest car up to now has been a 1994 maxima and I'd like to keep it not much bigger than that. (IE no big Buick, etc.)

I'd rather have a 1.8T. The earlier V6 was known for multiple severe oil leaks; generally, though, the V6 is harder to work on, gets mediocre gas mileage, and the aftermarket support is poor.

I'd be looking for a Saab 9-5 wagon if I were you; any pre-'07 2.3t that has been cared for properly to prevent sludge will be much easier to live with. Or there's always Subarus.

bmw88rider wrote: I keep seeing A4 Avants and A6 Avants with the 3.0L V6 that are in that price range. How are they as far as maintenance?

Run. Away.

No, really. The AVK engine has issues. It's the only DOHC VWAG engine with separate intake and exhaust cambelt pullies, and the pullies are multipiece. The bolts on the backs of the pulleys that hold them together come loose. This destroys the solenoid housing ($700-ish each) as well as the pulleys, and if the cam timing actually jumps, the valvetrain parts are pretty pricey.

Plus, a timing belt isn't really backyardable unless you buy the $450 camlock tool kit. There are no keyways on the cams and no markings, and one of the tools in the toolkit is the device that sets the adjusters to a certain angle. You could just mark the old belt to the pulleys and match up the new one, but that's playing with fire. The bolts will come out eventually, and the only way to access them is to remove the pulleys.

I've done heads on a few of them. Usually runs $7000-8000. (Did I mention that they're problematic?) Have done a lot of timing belts too, and replacing the cam pulley bolts (and Loctiting them!) is part of the procedure. IIRC we're the only independent shop within a few hours' drive that has the correct tools for working on this 4-year-only engine.

They are nice driving engines in nice driving cars, though. I will grant them that. And I frequently think of using the 3.0 shortblock (which is aluminum!) with 2.8 12v heads to make a lightweight 13:1 grunt monster, but that's irrelevant.

They are worth the effort if you need what they can give you.

Up to this point I have a long history of tolerating the cost to have the winter safety of a heavy all wheel drive car. To date the list includes: 4000 CSQ, 5000 CSQ, 100 A6 Avant, 200 TQ and A 6 Avant.

If you are not willing to spend 200 to 300 a month over the course of a year, do not buy one.

Our 1999 A6 2.8 has been a poster child for needing every gasket and seal replacement. The motors cook every thing under the hood. That said it has 186,000 miles on the original transmission.

The only other thing that I have chased on the car is the front suspension. Our car has eaten its more than fair share of ball joints. The multi link system and the weight of the car might be at odds.

But my wife loves and trust the her car. They truly are a winter tank.

That's the weird thing. I have never seen any problems with the four ball joint Audi suspension. I did replace all the links on a 250,000mi A8 because the bushings were worn out, but that's it.

Enough people say they're problematic for me to believe that some people have problems, but it's just odd that, living in a place where the roads are so bad that front subframe replacement after hitting a good hole isn't uncommon, I've never seen them fail.

Knurled wrote: That's the weird thing. I have never seen any problems with the four ball joint Audi suspension. I did replace all the links on a 250,000mi A8 because the bushings were worn out, but that's it. Enough people say they're problematic for me to believe that some people have problems, but it's just odd that, living in a place where the roads are so bad that front subframe replacement after hitting a good hole isn't uncommon, I've never seen them fail.

Really??? - I went through 2 complete front end rebuilds in about 100k kms (60k miles) of ownership on my 99 Passat.

Run away from any B5 VWAG vehicle - and I mean RUN!!!

Thanks for the heads up. I knew the 1.8L were problematic but I hadn't hear anything much on the V6 models.

NGTD wrote: Really??? - I went through 2 complete front end rebuilds in about 100k kms (60k miles) of ownership on my 99 Passat.

Huh, I have customers with 4x that on the original front-end parts. I did have to replace an outer tie-rod end once. The biggest B5 suspension problem I see seems to be the rear shock mount/upper control arm mount rusting away. It's still available but it's pretty pricey.

I've also never seen a sludged 1.8t. Just feed them regular oil changes, timing belt/water pump services, and the occasional downpipe and cam adjuster assembly (live with the oil leak until the adjuster fails, IMO) and they seem to last forever.

I owned a 99 Audi A4 Avant (wagon) w/ the V6. The drivetrain really sapped the engine power. It felt boring as hell over 3,500 rpm. The pedals aren't well positioned for heel-toe. The suspension is prone to requiring frequent freshening. The timing belt was a $1,200 job. Frickin ridiculous.

At 80k miles, the engine burned through a quart of oil every ~2,000 miles. No leaks.

Not worth it.

why do the a6 when S4's are within that price range all day? dont want a burned up turbo car i assume?

Forgive my ingnorance, but are mk 4 GTI's just as much of a problem child as the B5 audi's?

Woodward_Dreams wrote: Forgive my ingnorance, but are mk 4 GTI's just as much of a problem child as the B5 audi's?

The build quality is even worse, I can attest to that. They have pretty bad electrical problems, get ready to blow headlights and taillights daily and prepare for a chronic CEL issue of some kind.

I have a friend with an '02 Beetle, one with an '01 Jetta and one with an '03 Golf. All are TDIs and all say that if it weren't for the gas mileage they would refuse to put up with the ridiculous problems. The Golf in particular has been so bad that his fuel savings have been mitigated by the $200 in parts it needs every month.

Generally speaking, like I said in the other thread, late 90's-early 00's VAG products are just plain crap. The succeeding A5/B6 platform cars, while not without their own faults, are much better.

I have 3 snails in the house already. I really don't want another one for my "appliance" car

SlickDizzy wrote:

Woodward_Dreams wrote: Forgive my ingnorance, but are mk 4 GTI's just as much of a problem child as the B5 audi's?

The build quality is even worse, I can attest to that. They have pretty bad electrical problems, get ready to blow headlights and taillights daily and prepare for a chronic CEL issue. Generally speaking, like I said in the other thread, late 90's-early 00's VAG products are just plain crap. The succeeding A5/B6 platform cars, while not without their own faults, are much better.

Thanks for your responses. I'll be looking into other brands...

2K4Kcsq wrote: why do the a6 when S4's are within that price range all day? dont want a burned up turbo car i assume?

The problem with any 2.7t is that it's a nightmare to deal with the turbos, AFTER you put the engine in service position.

Service position is engine and transmission sitting on the ground.

This does not stop me from wanting to get an Allroad as a daily driver/tow rig. 2.7t AND air suspension, times German simultaneous over- and under-engineering. They were available with 6-speed trannies also, hopefully the 01E and not the 01Z.

To be honest, if I wanted a 250hp B5 chassis, I'd rather get a Passat W8 than the S4. The Passat has the same brakes (expensive-to-service 4-pad calipers from the A8) but it has V8 rumble instead of turbo whoosh. But you have to pull the engine to get at the cam sensors

makes sense. Those are all reasons that keep my cars in the 25+ year old range. . . . it's not about money. . . .

2K4Kcsq wrote: makes sense. Those are all reasons that keep my cars in the 25+ year old range. . . . it's not about money. . . .

Those 25 year old cars are getting thin on the ground.