I can't make my mind up - choice of 3
- Thread starter pmbuzz
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,753
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Not the cat c
You do realise that the 2.5TDI is actually pretty awful for economy? Even more so in Multitronic.
I can't help but think those examples are going to cost you a fair bit of money which will offset the fuel savings and purchase prices. I could be wrong but buying cheap examples of cars like that, especially insurance writeoffs isn't a sensible choice. Old higher mileage diesel engines + automatic gearboxes aren't something that would be on my radar if I wanted cheap reliable transport.
And much as I really like how Saabs look, it's a shame they're a bit crummy
And much as I really like how Saabs look, it's a shame they're a bit crummy
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You really do not want a Multitronic Audi, the gearbox is a terribly unreliable CVT rather than a conventional auto. It's a case of when it goes expensively wrong, not if.
To be honest if you are looking for budget economical transport, which from your requirements and budget it sounds like you, then 10 year old Audi's probably isn't the best way to do this.
A problem you are going to run into is that automatic diesels are a relatively new thing and therefore there won't be many cheap ones around yet.
The A4 - come on, how didn't you spot that? £3.5k for a 2005 A4 diesel on 80k? It's going to have something wrong with it and this one is a Category C insurance writeoff.
To be honest if you are looking for budget economical transport, which from your requirements and budget it sounds like you, then 10 year old Audi's probably isn't the best way to do this.
A problem you are going to run into is that automatic diesels are a relatively new thing and therefore there won't be many cheap ones around yet.
The A4 - come on, how didn't you spot that? £3.5k for a 2005 A4 diesel on 80k? It's going to have something wrong with it and this one is a Category C insurance writeoff.
Wow! Are they really that bad?
Yep, it's a shame really as the box is actually quite good when it's actually working - just not worth the risk or the hassle.
What's worse about them is you can't even really tell when it's failing. They just give a random thump every now and then (can be extremely rare i.e once every few months), then one day you'll hear a massive thump and have no drive as bits of the internals eat each other.
Terrible box for reliability
The post 2006 box is much improved though, nowhere near the number of failures as the pre 2006 box.
It's also not a box I'd avoid from new for obvious reasons
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 431
The GM 1.9 diesel isn't a great engine it has Dpf, dual mass flywheel and alternator problems, all of which are pretty common I wouldn't advise one at that milage.
they don't all have DPF's and alternator problems are specific to the alternator, surely, not the engine? or are you thinking about the saab specifically, because i'm not sure about that? All of the more modern diesels have dual mass flywheels as well. odd comment really
the accord 2.2 is an option perhaps? you'll be lucky to find an auto though
B@
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 431
Sorry I probably should have been more specific the 150bhp version of the 1.9, the alternators are renowed for going as are the dual mass flywheels, I know the dmf's are a problem on a lot of stuff but they seem particually bad one this engine, my father has a saab with it in, he has a friend with an Alfa 159 and I know someone with an Astra they have all had dmf's and alternators fail, also the saab and the 159 have had to have glow plugs replaced, this is just what i've seen of this engine and would personally make me avoid it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,923
- Location
- Rutland
Do you do the miles to justify going diesel, can't help think you'd have more choice if you looked at petrols?