mbeach

Yep, that's a N/A V8. I've never owned an Audi (not sure why, just never got into one.) Had a Touareg for a few months -super headache pos.
I would feel more comfortable with a non-turbo V8, as I've always had good luck BUT the problem with the S4 isn't the (non) turbo. It's the basic design of the timing chain - there's no getting around that.
Start it up cold, you'll hear the guides rattling (they are just a few inches in front of the firewall). That's the sound of the engine reaper, coming for your motor.

My brother just lost the turbo on his '09 Audi 2.0T. 65,xxx miles.

calvin2376

iTrader: (2)

That ignores the myriad suspension/Quattro system problems which have no relation to the engine. I personally know the 2003-2006 era RS6 and the 2007 A4 have huge suspension and quattro problems, and that's enough to tell me those are weak points for Audi as well..

neomedic

iTrader: (5)

Anyone know of a good audi forum with a lot of activity and posts??

Bichon

I used to hang out at http://www.audiworld.com when I had my S4.

neomedic

iTrader: (5)

i was over there in the S4. That place is dead now. Traffic is so slow compared to ClubLexus....guess I've been spoiled.

syzygy

Try audizine -

http://www.audizine.com/forum/

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Road&Track got 4.9. Several members has gone as low as 4.6-7 with a perfect launch. A few years ago Lexus rated the 350 on their website 5.3, recently up to 5.6. It is indeed conservative and mainly to cover themselves

syzygy

Yeah 5.6 was grossly underrated for the IS350's 0 to 60, so Lexus officially reduced the time to 5.3 despite the 2010 IS350 having the exact same engine as the '06-'09 models.

Now, instead of Lexus grossly underrating the IS350's 0 to 60 (5.6), they only somewhat underrate it (5.3).

Lexus also had a vested interest in keeping as much separation between 0 to 60 times for the IS350 and ISF as possible. To the casual buyer, 0 to 60 sells cars.

If they were to realistically advertise the IS350's 0 to 60 and ISF's 0 to 60, ISF 0 to 60 = 4.2 looks bad compared to IS350 0 to 60 = 4.9. The ISF "just" .7 seconds quicker to 60 (which is actually an eternity, but it doesn't strike the average buyer as a large gap).

They're both in the 4 second range, and when you consider the fact that the average buyer has absolutely zero interest in > 100 MPH acceleration and probably very little (if any) interest in acceleration beyond 70-75 MPH, you can understand why Lexus would err on the side of grossly underrating the IS350's 0 to 60 times and only slightly underrating (to protect themselves) the ISF's 0 to 60 times.

Once ISF sales slowed down, the positive benefit of better representing the IS350's actual 0 to 60 time mitigated any negative effects of the IS350's 0 to 60 time "stepping" on the ISF's toes.

This is all pure speculation of course, but it seems plausible enough from a business standpoint.