Audi Allroad

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

There's lots of options in a small SUV that will return good MPG and give far better ground clearance than a wagon.

Older C5 A6 Allroad has 8.2" only when you select the highest setting
2009-up Subaru Foresters have 8.9" of ground clearance, all the time
Honda CR-V 6.7"
Toyota RAV-4 7.5"
Nissan Rogue 8.3"
Hyundai Tuscon 6.7"

The Audi Allroad has a 'current' EPA rating of 14 city / 19 freeway / 16 combined MPG

The small CUVs, including the Forester, have EPA ratings of 21 city / 27 freeway / 23 combined MPG

[Scott R]

Yea, but only one on that list is a twin turbo.

[kaisen]

2009 Subaru Forester XT
Turbo 2.5L 4 cyl 224hp @ 5200rpm , 226ft-lb @ 2800 rpm
3400 lb curb weight
0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds (auto)
8.9" ground clearance
EPA 19 MPG city / 24 MPG fwy

2002 Audi Allroad
Twin Turbo 2.7L V6 250hp @ 5800rpm , 258ft-lb @ 1850 rpm
4200 lb curb weight
0-60 mph in 7.2 seconds (auto)
8.2" ground clearance
EPA 14 MPG city / 19 MPG hwy

[RWebb]

The problem is that the used Forester is:

1. very expensive
2. boring
3. has that same high roll ctr. when on the hwy

the new Foresters have better gnd. clearance, still more costly, boring, same roll ctr. or worse when on hwy.

2 other items - I don't know the used car dealer is shady, just that they are a low end one (and all are likely shady, right?)
- the Allroad does have a LOW range, which can be very useful.

I just wish I could have a nice, fun, fast wagon that could jack itself up high for bad roads.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by RWebb

- the Allroad does have a LOW range, which can be very useful.

If the 2002 Allroad you are looking at has a low range, I'll eat my shorts

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by RWebb

The problem is that the new Foresters.......(are) boring ....

You've said you don't care what they look like, that it's all function for you.

You haven't driven a 2009 up Forester. You haven't driven a turbo Forester. Yet you say they're boring.

Let's see. 800 pounds lighter than the panzerwagon Allroad, with very similar power. FASTER in every way, including handling and braking.... 25% less weight will do that. The 'high center of gravity' is all in your head (literally, your head is higher) as the skidpad and slalom were faster with the Subie. What's boring again?

The 2009-up has a multilink rear suspension that is VERY different than the old one you drove.

Your total cost of ownership (initial purchase price, plus fuel, plus repairs, less resale) will be LESS on a $20K used 2009-2010 Forester XT than that $7K 150K+ mile 2002 Allroad, so it's not all about money.

[RWebb]

what MY's of Allroad have the low range? 2005 & up?

I know the '09 Forester is better than the '07, but did not know about the multilink rear suspension; it is on my list of things to drive. Seriously doubt the interior is as nice as the Audi, but...

re cost of ownership - I am getting different opinions on that; naturally, there is more risk to the Audi, but does the $23,000 price premium for a Subaru offset that risk (????)

Trust me - I am no irrational Audi-lover - my mom had a 100LS and it had serious design flaws.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by RWebb

what MY's of Allroad have the low range? 2005 & up?

Europe only, 6 speed manual only, produced only until Oct 2001. So VERY rare.

I know the '09 Forester is better than the '07, but did not know about the multilink rear suspension; it is on my list of things to drive. Seriously doubt the interior is as nice as the Audi, but...

Interior is not as nice. That's why the Audi was three times as much. But you said it was about function.

Yes, in 2008 when they redesigned the Impreza they added a multilink rear suspension instead of the old strut design. That's what underpins the 2009-up redesign of the Forester too. Made a big difference in ride (esp laden) and handling.

re cost of ownership - I am getting different opinions on that; naturally, there is more risk to the Audi, but does the $23,000 price premium for a Subaru offset that risk (????)

Let's say you drive 15K miles per year (national average) and you get 21 mpg in the Forester and 16 mpg in the Allroad (both EPA combined averages). At $3.50 per gallon over five years, that's $3900 more fuel with the Allroad.

You'd have 65K more miles on either, under 100K on the '09 Subie and over 200K on the Audi. Resale will be quite different. Cost of repairs should be more on the Audi because 1) it has more miles to start with 2) there are more parts to fail as it is more complex and 3) the parts are more expensive as the car is more expensive. You can argue with 4) you will likely have more repairs with a 2002 Allroad as they are known to have issues.

So cost of entry will be more. Offset by resale value, cost of fuel, and cost of repairs, I think the Subie will easily bridge the cost of ownership gap.

If you were consdering a $45K 2011 Grand Cherokee Overland, then you can certainly consider a $20-25K Subie. If not, then buy what you can afford.
I don't think that '2002 Allroad 2.7T with 150K miles' and 'affordable' are synonymous (esp combined with 'no DIY, I'll pay a shop to fix it').

[Icemaster]

Have you driven the Forrester to compare?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Everything else irrelevant, a complex, old, high mileage Audi with unknown service history will likely make you regret your purchase very quickly. But your mind seems to be made up already.

[RWebb]

thx for the info re the low range - do you recall if it was a US or Euro version that completed the Land Rover course?

re the interior, ergonomic function = function

drove the '09 Forester & will bump that thread with comparisons to the '07 & etc.

[Icemaster]

What about an X3 or X5?