Audi A3 1.8T around a 2007 plate

JustAnotherSaver

Ideally i'm wanting a diesel for the next car which may lead to a thread of its own in due time.

I know people seem to think you shouldn't have a diesel unless you do 999,999 miles per year but having owned them previously, that idea is just nonsense. I never had an issue with the ones i've had on the miles i've done. The sticking point for me will be these ones with those DPF filters. That's when it will be a problem.


So i was looking at the idea of sticking with petrol, although i'm not totally convinced.
I used to be a member of a few car forums but that's going back a little bit & they've either shut down or they may as well do so. Those that i'm on that are still active tend to be heavily biased. Not only that but the thought process seems to be the heavier the foot = the more pats on the back you get. Not my thing. So as nobody here is sponsored by any manufacturer, i'll try here.




I was looking at the 1.8T. The tax doesn't seem awful, although i could get it cheaper with a diesel.
The MPG is probably at my lower end. Parkers quote 38mpg. I ideally want 45+.


Now the thing with Parkers is that i've driven many cars. Not as many as some here i'm sure but i've driven many cars. I've either gotten the quoted MPG figure or bettered it in every single car, with my best achievement being in an R32. The only exception seems to be my wifes Astra H 1.6. It's bloody terrible.





I was looking in to these Audi's and the returns that people get seem to range from a 'bragging' mid teens MPG up to 40+. These people never seem to go on to talk about the type of driving they do though, so their numbers are pointless.


Most of my journey is 50-60mph zones, uncongested. I'll do a few miles in a 30 zone, maybe 2-3 and then the remainder of the 10 mile commute is in a 60 zone with no traffic lights.



So i'm not really sure what i should expect from one of these. I used to rely on Parkers as it was spot on every time but the experience with my wife's car has put me off it a bit.
Anyone here owned one of these and can talk about what you can realistically expect from them?


Also aside from MPG returns, what about general running costs, reliability etc?

AdrianC

"Audi 1.8T" what?

12 years ago, you could have bought that engine in A3s, A4s, A6s or TTs. Four very different cars, more if you factor in 3dr/5dr A3s, saloon/estate/convertible A4s, saloon/estate A6s, and hatch/convertible TTs.

But given that you're talking about decade-and-a-bit old cars, only a snidge short of average scrapping age - and even more so that you're talking about something that's very likely to have been wrecked by a succession of idiot previous owners - buy primarily on condition. A relatively small difference in fuel cost can quickly become irrelevant by buying what turns out to be a shed. The difference between 38mpg and 45mpg at £1.25/litre is about 2p/mile.

And, yes, lower-mileage problems in modern diesels are all about DPFs, which are pretty much ubiquitous from the mid 00s onwards.

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC wrote: »

"Audi 1.8T" what?

12 years ago, you could have bought that engine in A3s, A4s, A6s or TTs. Four very different cars, more if you factor in 3dr/5dr A3s, saloon/estate/convertible A4s, saloon/estate A6s, and hatch/convertible TTs.

Oops. Significant omission there. I thought i'd put it in - i was talking about the A3. My mistake.

But given that you're talking about decade-and-a-bit old cars, only a snidge short of average scrapping age - and even more so that you're talking about something that's very likely to have been wrecked by a succession of idiot previous owners

See everything has its down side.

The down side to some of the forums i'm registered with is that they can be heavily biased. Some may look down on you unless you're driving with a lead boot for example.
And then there's this one - where if you're looking at anything older than 2-3 years then it's bargain basement and you're taking a massive risk....according to the people here that is. Pros and cons to everything.

A relatively small difference in fuel cost can quickly become irrelevant by buying what turns out to be a shed. The difference between 38mpg and 45mpg at £1.25/litre is about 2p/mile.

True, but if you don't buy a shed then fuel cost is important.
It's funny to me that people often scoff at older cars yet i've known people with brand new ones who've had more issues than i have with my 7 (now 18) year old car. Old does not automatically mean money pit, despite what people who can afford new cars may think. It CAN mean money pit, but it doesn't automatically mean that.


I'm putting in £60 per fortnight. Again this is something i get laughed at for. Usually followed by "you should try paying what i do. I put in £120 per week". Well no, i shouldn't try paying what you do. My idea is to pay less, no more & your situation means nothing to me because you use your car like a taxi. I'm only bothered about my situation, not someone elses.

And, yes, lower-mileage problems in modern diesels are all about DPFs, which are pretty much ubiquitous from the mid 00s onwards.

Which is why i'm running out of time to get one really. Before long they'll all have one of them stupid bloody things on.

I may get away with one with the driving i do, but tbh i don't particularly want to risk it.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Oops. Significant omission there. I thought i'd put it in - i was talking about the A3. My mistake.

So a Golf, then.

The down side to some of the forums i'm registered with is that they can be heavily biased. Some may look down on you unless you're driving with a lead boot for example.
And then there's this one - where if you're looking at anything older than 2-3 years then it's bargain basement and you're taking a massive risk....according to the people here that is.

<chuckle> Our sensible daily is 22yo, and cost £250 four years ago.

If you want to take it as any kind of sweeping generalisation, then take it as one against the kind of person who actively wants a Golf with an Audi badge.

True, but if you don't buy a shed

Well, yes. Hence me saying buy on condition.

then fuel cost is important.

2p per mile.
Two pence.
One of these.


Now think how many miles you have to do to recoup even a £250 bill. (1,250, btw - and you're doing about a dozen mile commute? So about six months.)

I'm putting in £60 per fortnight. Again this is something i get laughed at for.

Only for thinking that's somehow a relevant way of calculating it.

Work your costs out per mile. If you want to save money, drive fewer miles.

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC wrote: »

So a Golf, then.

<chuckle>


No, an A3. I know what you're doing but still, you know what i was saying as well and yet here you are splitting hairs.

<chuckle> Our sensible daily is 22yo, and cost £250 four years ago.

Don't mention that on here, they'll crucify you.

If you want to take it as any kind of sweeping generalisation, then take it as one against the kind of person who actively wants a Golf with an Audi badge.

Ahh you're one of those sort. I get you now. I work with someone like you. VW fanboy.



Is it possible that someone knows the 1.8T engine is used in different vehicles?
Is it possible that that person may prefer the appearance of one dressing over another?
Or maybe they "just want a Golf with an Audi badge". Though if that was the case, i'd just buy a Golf, get an Audi badge off eBay and voila.

Well, yes. Hence me saying buy on condition.

So what's the problem with buying an 'older car'?

There seems to be one here but i'm missing it.

The general consensus seems to be that all old cars = sheds = money pits, bar none, yet i know that's not the case, so why does it keep getting pushed?

2p per mile.
Two pence.

You can break it down all you wish. I work with someone who travels pretty much the same distance i do. They own a diesel and their monthly cost over mine is much less. We can break it right down until we're talking fractions of pence but i look at monthly and it then adds up.


I can sort of see your point if i was going to replace it to make a fuel cost saving and for no other reason.
Fact is i'm looking at replacing it anyway. It's starting to cost, it's scraping through MOTs, it's throwing up problems more and more frequently. so if i'm replacing it anyway then it makes sense to have a look at the all round cost anyway as the car will be getting bought anyway (whatever car that may be).

Work your costs out per mile. If you want to save money, drive fewer miles.

Great, i'll just tell my boss to relocate the business.


Over to you for the next funny....

motorguy

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I know people seem to think you shouldn't have a diesel unless you do 999,999 miles per year but having owned them previously, that idea is just nonsense. I never had an issue with the ones i've had on the miles i've done. The sticking point for me will be these ones with those DPF filters. That's when it will be a problem.

You're saying that people who think diesels are problematic unless they're doing big miles are talking nonsense except for ones with DPFs which you believe ARE problematic - but that covers 95% of the diesel cars out there given they've been fitted pretty much since 2006/7 which is 12-13 years ago?

I'm wholly of the "avoid diesels unless you do big miles" camp. Too problematic now because of DPFs and EGR valves etc.

Honda Civic 1.8 VTEC might be another option? Great cars and very reliable.

Executive spec gets you leather, nav, pan roof (some of those may be optional but my son had an 07 one with all that).

Type S gets you sportier look and feel.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

So what's the problem with buying an 'older car'?

I think you might need to point out where I said there was one.

Over to you for the next funny....

You really do seem to have taken great exception to something. I have no idea what, but I'll let you just get on with your coronary in peace. Good luck.

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

So a Golf, then.

No. An Audi. Apart from anything, a 1.8T was last fitted to a Golf in around 2003, whereas you can get an A3 with that engine pretty much right through to 2016.

born_again

I think you will be hard pressed to get any 12 year old petrol that does 45 MPG. Unless its like a super mini.

So £60 every 2 weeks is approx 48 Litres (based on £1.25 LTR). You do approx 800 miles every 2 weeks commuting. So you are getting approx 37 MPG now. Will be worse if you use car for non commuting.
But unless I've missed it you do not state what you are driving now.

angrycrow

Didn't the a3 move from the 1.8t to the 1.8 tfsi engine around 2005.

1.8t has around 160 bhp and is largely bulletproof although older ones can leak oil from the rear chain tensioner which is a pig of a job to change.

1.8 tfsi can suffer very high oil consumption.

JustAnotherSaver

I was just on Parkers and i have a question for Mr. Golf.


This 1.8T A3, sorry i forgot they don't exist (apparently), i mean the Golf.



I was looking at the A3 on around a 2007 plate. I took a look at the Golf you mentioned & figured similar timeframe - so the MK5. Parkers don't list a 1.8T for the MK5 or MK6.


So are you meaning they put out a 1.8T in the MK4 Golf (98-04), then didn't bother with the Golf after that as far as 1.8Ts go but put the exact same engine in the A3 for another 5 years or so?

motorguy wrote: »

You're saying that people who think diesels are problematic unless they're doing big miles are talking nonsense except for ones with DPFs which you believe ARE problematic - but that covers 95% of the diesel cars out there given they've been fitted pretty much since 2006/7 which is 12-13 years ago?

I'm wholly of the "avoid diesels unless you do big miles" camp. Too problematic now because of DPFs and EGR valves etc.

Yes i understand the timeframe. Obviously i'm looking to get one without a DPF as getting a diesel with one is too risky.


I know you were just 'roughly speaking' but i know the Astra H diesel 2009-2010 didn't have a DPF. Certainly not on the 1.7 and apparently not on the 1.9 either, or at least most of them. That's according to members of one Astra forum.

Now, i wouldn't have the 1.7 (too slow) and i likely wouldn't have an Astra H in general. The 5 door looks incredibly boring both inside and out and the 3-door, well i'm not a fan of them. They look decent enough with the XP kit ... but then there's the interior. I'm drifting off topic though but there's a 10 year car that doesn't have a DPF. There's others, it's just a case of finding them & seeing if they're suitable.

Honda Civic 1.8 VTEC might be another option? Great cars and very reliable.

I'm actually looking at a Civic as a possibility to be honest.

Executive spec gets you leather,

You mention leather like it's a good thing. :rotfl:If i ever got a car that had leather seats i'd have to have them removed for something more suitable. Horrendous things. Same applies for leather sofas too

Type S gets you sportier look and feel.

Yeah i'd need to get to grips with the trim levels.