Project Autounion

M

m1tch

Registered User
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
25
Points
18
Hi all,

I just wanted to start a build thread for a project car I am looking to start next year, currently in the researching phase to work out which parts I need and in which order. After looking around at many different engine options I found that the 2.0 TFSi engine would be the most cost effective to tune up for my goals. I did look at the 1.8t engine, however for big power its best to run a stroker meaning that the 2.0 TFSi would be a better option to start with, plus a newer design.

My plan is to build a car which has the same power to weight ratio as an Autounion type D (571 bhp per ton in 1939). This is due to my fascination with the early racing technology coupled with the fact that Audi kept the 4 rings of the Autounion brand. I have been looking at 2 different chassis to base this build on, the A3 8P or the A4 B7/8, the advantage to the A3 is that its lighter initially however the A4 has more engine bay space and will probably be a more stable platform (but heavier).

I think I am going to be going for the A4 option as I will be running a big turbo(s) plus other piping etc in the engine bay so the longitudinal design of the A4 would suit my needs better. The car will also be 4wd as its not an Audi unless its a Quattro.

Here are some initial rough specs I am looking at:

  • JE pistons
  • IE rods (rifle drilled)
  • Stock crankshaft (still need to check if this is ok)
  • RS injectors
  • Uprated HPFP
  • Uprated low pressure fuel pump
  • Larger intercooler
  • Meth injection
  • GT32 or larger (I have a GT35 and GT45 on the shelf)
  • High flow cats
  • Supporting intake and exhaust mods
  • Will also look at camshaft options, however the stock cams are apparently quite good

Requirements/goals
571 bhp per ton
Street legal
Looks almost stock from outside (sleeper look)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandra
Replied in your other thread....

http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/threads/2-0-tfsi-crankshaft-limit.304849/


But in short....

Power isn't your problem,it's torque.

I can tell you that the S3 8P crank is good for over 550lbs,but I can also tell you that 800bhp is going to cost you a fortune.

My recommendation aside from what you've already thought of would be and 8 injector setup,as the RS injectors won't get you that far,plus a Syvecs ECU to enable you to run that sort of power,and control the injectors,+/- WMI.

You would need at least a GTX3582 or similar.

So...here's my few thousands worth....

Syvecs ECU
GTX3582 or larger
Boulekos or HPA 8 injector inlet manifold
Race Developments to port/polish the head
Ferrea valvetrain
Nortech tubular exhaust manifold plus BCS exhaust
May want to consider a crank girdle as well.

Then you'll have to think about the transmission.....the stock gearbox will likely not cope with the sort of torque this lot will develop,and the clutch will also need looking at.

Manual....Spec Stg3+ clutch will cope with around 540lbs,and the Stg5 or mini-twin clutches would deal with more.
The gearbox internals wont.

The other weakpoints are driveshaft couplings.

The DQ500 DSG box will deal with around 600lbs.

Cams are OK and some of the aftermarket ones can be serious trouble to dial in without the sort of VVT control a Syvecs can offer.


Have a look also at Craig Cull's thread here...

http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/thread...ine-build-has-started-big-turbo-build.216401/


And mine here....

http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/threads/time-for-a-build-thread-big-turbo.106134/page-57#post-2898708

What you're planning is doable,but seriously expensive.
If you do it properly,I'd say about at least £15k's worth of parts alone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: m1tch
  • Like
Reactions: m1tch
S3Alex said:
These guys may be able to help re: billet cranks....

http://www.zrp-rods.com/product-category/billet-crankshafts/

But they are aimed at their stroker kits and would mean another £2.7k's worth of parts.

They don't specify the torque ratings of their parts,only BHP,which is less helpful.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I will check them out, I replied on the other thread, still researching options to see what is attainable, won't be needing to go for ridiculous power as I will also be cutting down on weight as well. Slight disadvantage of wanting to go with an A4 rather than an A3 due to the weight penalty but it would mean additional engine bay space with the longitudinally mounted engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
After having a think about the details S3Alex has mentioned (which is exactly what I am after in terms of research) I might tweak my project goals slightly.

It would be awesome to be able to run the same power/weight as the Autounions, however looking at the specs of the engines I might tweak my project slightly. The Type C used a 6 litre V16 engine with 2 superchargers making high 400/low 500bhp, the Type D had a 3 litre V12 with 2 superchargers at a higher boost pressure making high 400bhp. It would seem that I could look to have the aim of my project to run the same amount of power as the Autounions but with the smaller engine, eg power goals of low 500bhp - this seems slightly more attainable.

Requirements/goals (revised)
Engine power matching the most powerful Autounions (type C) - 520bhp
Quattro 4WD
Street legal
Looks almost stock from outside (sleeper look)

The engine power goal will mean that the project engine will be making the same amount of power as the type C but with an engine 3 times smaller in terms of displacement (type C had a 6 litre V16 engine with 2 superchargers).

I believe that the A4 B7 TFSi Quattro has a stock kerb weight of 1,490kg, at 520bhp it would give a power to weight ratio of 355bhp/ton with a low 11 second 1/4 mile pass being predicted (11.3 1/4 mile). Pulling out around 200kg from the car in weight reduction, this would give the car a power to weight ratio of 409bhp/ton which is still predicting a very low 11 second pass (11.1 1/4 mile). At 400 bhp per ton, this power to weight ratio would put the car's acceleration up with quite a few supercars and much faster than the Audi R8 V10 (at 369 bhp/ton).
 
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
There are a few further refinements to this project, after finding that most of the saloons don't have rear split seats making them pretty pointless in any useful carrying capacity I am going to be going with the slightly heavier Avant model instead - 1,540kg vs 1,490kg.

It would seem that if I do hit my goals I will probably make one of the most powerful Audi A4 B7 2.0 TFSi Avants out there, further to this it would also seem that the estate will have a better power to weight ratio of most of the R8 models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8

Checking through the specs on the various first generation models, it would seem that most are rather heavy with the Spider 5.2 FSi model coming in at 1,800kg, the lightest being the 329,000 Euro (plus VAT) R8 LMS ultra at 1,245kg.

The power ranges from the 4.2 FSi at 414bhp to 562bhp for the 5.2 V10 LMS model for the first generation.

Looking at the current generation power ranges from 533bhp to 602 bhp although the latest models are still rather heavy with the V10 plus model coming in at 1,555kg.

Stock project car (Avant) @ 520bhp + 1,540kg = 343bhp per ton
R8 LMS Ultra GT3 first gen with 562bhp + 1,245kg = 459 bhp per ton @ 329,000 Euros + VAT
R8 V10 plus current gen with 602 bhp + 1,555kg = 393bhp per ton @ £135,000 RRP

Comparison of the standard second gen R8 is at 339bhp per ton so at 100% stock Avant weight with the project power goal this will surpass this.

Dropping some weight off the Avant we can then see these figures, I know from a previous estate car I simply unbolted things such as the rear seats, tool kit, spare wheel etc which gave me about a 150kg reduction, with this car I am planning on decreasing weight further by removing the air con system, lighter seats etc but I know there is only so much you can pull out the car before it becomes unusable and no longer a 'sleeper'

Keeping the power at 520bhp as per initial project goal here are the bhp per ton figures when removing weight:

Stock = 343 bhp per ton
Dropping 50kg = 355 bhp per ton
Dropping 100kg = 367 bhp per ton
Dropping 150kg = 380 bhp per ton
Dropping 200kg = 394 bhp per ton - Beating current gen R8 V10 plus
Dropping 250kg = 409 bhp per ton

Just working out the power needed at the 250kg weight reduction to match the LMS Ultra GT3 car seems to be at around 580bhp meaning 457 bhp per ton. I would need to pull out around 390kg of weight at 520 bhp to surpass the LMS Ultra GT3, working out at 463 bhp per ton. I have a feeling that the goals might be somewhere in between, it will be interesting to see what I am able to get out of the project as I won't be an unlimited budget on the car but will spend out a bit on the parts that matter.
 
m1tch said:
Looks like I have found some possible solution with regards to the power levels:

https://drive-my.com/en/blogs/entry/audi-r8-2-0t-typ-42-lms-dialynx-performance.html
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....did you read the small print....

Solid lifters
Non-standard head and a lot of head and oilway work
Crank, cam and water pump all had to be re-engineered to line up.
Arrow 144 mm connecting rods
Farndon 92.8mm billet crank
Wossner 82.5mm pistons give 1984cc
1 mm oversize Supertech racing valves, Supertech titanium lightweight valve spring caps and springs, solid rather than hydraulic cam lifters and Piper cams
Titan dry sump system
Bosch 044 fuel pumps
Motec ECU
100RON fuel.

I guess my point here is that you've got a full build there,plus a heap of solutions to engineering problems,and a lot of fabrication.
The S3 engine can produce over 600bhp and a lot more torque(540lbs vs 420lbs),and the cost levels would likely be lower.

Worth thinking about....
 
S3Alex said:
Hmmm.....did you read the small print....

Solid lifters
Non-standard head and a lot of head and oilway work
Crank, cam and water pump all had to be re-engineered to line up.
Arrow 144 mm connecting rods
Farndon 92.8mm billet crank
Wossner 82.5mm pistons give 1984cc
1 mm oversize Supertech racing valves, Supertech titanium lightweight valve spring caps and springs, solid rather than hydraulic cam lifters and Piper cams
Titan dry sump system
Bosch 044 fuel pumps
Motec ECU
100RON fuel.

I guess my point here is that you've got a full build there,plus a heap of solutions to engineering problems,and a lot of fabrication.
The S3 engine can produce over 600bhp and a lot more torque(540lbs vs 420lbs),and the cost levels would likely be lower.

Worth thinking about....
Click to expand...

Looking at the specs and reading through a bit more it seems to show that they were running a much older and simpler head rather than the standard TFSi head which is why they needed to reengineer many parts and the racing class rules meant that they couldn't modify parts of the car that would have made the engine fit easier.

It would seem that the engine still has a stock bore and stroke rather than having a stroker kit, I believe that the ALH crank fits this engine meaning that there are some stroker options at the expense of RPMs. I can see that they are running a lighter valvetrain with slightly oversized valves and its interesting they are going with solid lifters but that might be due to the design of the non standard head.

With regards to this build I will be looking to run better cams which would require some valvetrain work mainly the springs but will be looking into all options at the time. I plan to do some light porting myself (will probably get a complete spare engine to build up in the garage meaning I will have spares of everything.

As for fueling, I will be looking to run some 044 pumps, might have a few sitting on the shelf at the moment, although a dry sump isn't really needed as its not a 100% track day car as the car in the article.

What is so different about the S3 engine vs the 'normal' tfsi engine? Surely its just the pistons, rods, injectors etc which are going to be swapped out anyway from the standard engine.
 
I think what they've done is to take a sort of parts bin approach to building this engine,and obviously had a lot of fabrication as a result.

I also think the solid lifter choice has a lot to do with rpm limits on that as they've chosen to go for a 9000rpm limit.

The S3 version of the TFSi has stronger rods and better internals,but as you say,if you're swapping them all out it's only the block and head that matter,although the TFSi head design is pretty good.
 
S3Alex said:
I think what they've done is to take a sort of parts bin approach to building this engine,and obviously had a lot of fabrication as a result.

I also think the solid lifter choice has a lot to do with rpm limits on that as they've chosen to go for a 9000rpm limit.

The S3 version of the TFSi has stronger rods and better internals,but as you say,if you're swapping them all out it's only the block and head that matter,although the TFSi head design is pretty good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems that they have a lot of experience in slightly older engines and so are adapting what they know works well to the newer engine.

I am going to have a look at rpm limits on this build as well, the stock oil pump balance shaft is only rated to I believe 14,000 rpm (spins twice as fast as the engine) so I would need to swap out to a 1.8t oil pump conversion if I wanted to raise the RPM higher. Might look at a stroker build as it would mean an increase in torque at the expense of higher RPM, but I don't think I will be going for a high RPM build.

Indeed, although I know on the 1.8t, the BAM engine had additional engine block webbing reinforcement making it a stronger block, will look into different blocks, I guess I just need to make sure its a fairly low mileage as I know there is a coating on the bores from the factory - don't plan to overbore the engine.

Another good thing is that the engine is turbocharged so the air is being forced in rather than relying on airflow if it were an NA build, the head still needs to flow the air though but head porting is slightly less important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
m1tch said:
Yeah, it seems that they have a lot of experience in slightly older engines and so are adapting what they know works well to the newer engine.

I am going to have a look at rpm limits on this build as well, the stock oil pump balance shaft is only rated to I believe 14,000 rpm (spins twice as fast as the engine) so I would need to swap out to a 1.8t oil pump conversion if I wanted to raise the RPM higher. Might look at a stroker build as it would mean an increase in torque at the expense of higher RPM, but I don't think I will be going for a high RPM build.

Indeed, although I know on the 1.8t, the BAM engine had additional engine block webbing reinforcement making it a stronger block, will look into different blocks, I guess I just need to make sure its a fairly low mileage as I know there is a coating on the bores from the factory - don't plan to overbore the engine.

Another good thing is that the engine is turbocharged so the air is being forced in rather than relying on airflow if it were an NA build, the head still needs to flow the air though but head porting is slightly less important.
Click to expand...

Your best bet here might be to try Badger Bill in the 8L section who has a load of experience with high power conversions and stroker engines.

www.badger5.co.uk

@badger5
 
S3Alex said:
Your best bet here might be to try Badger Bill in the 8L section who has a load of experience with high power conversions and stroker engines.

www.badger5.co.uk

@badger5
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I think I stumbled on that site a while back when I was looking at the 1.8t stroker options for higher power, still a while to go yet with this project, hope to get the car in the next 6 months or so.

Will be looking to get some stock runs in as well as tweaking a few simple mods such as the intake and exhaust, I can then get to building up a spare engine in the garage ready to be swapped in when the time comes - still need to look into clutch/flywheel combo plus gearbox options as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
Just doing a bit more reading around the subject, it seems that JE pistons have the incorrect spec and the compression ratio is much higher due to this causing engine failures, will be going with different pistons to JE instead now.

Also looking into injectors and stumbled across this thread, seems that someone has found a cheaper GM injector which has a higher flow from a 2.0 Ecotec engine.

OEM part number 12636111
Bosch number 0 261 500 112

They apparently cost around $120 each, still reading through the thread but might be worth looking into so I don't need to run an 8 injector rail etc.

http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43120
 
m1tch said:
Just doing a bit more reading around the subject, it seems that JE pistons have the incorrect spec and the compression ratio is much higher due to this causing engine failures, will be going with different pistons to JE instead now.

Also looking into injectors and stumbled across this thread, seems that someone has found a cheaper GM injector which has a higher flow from a 2.0 Ecotec engine.

OEM part number 12636111
Bosch number 0 261 500 112

They apparently cost around $120 each, still reading through the thread but might be worth looking into so I don't need to run an 8 injector rail etc.

http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43120
Click to expand...

Wossner pistons have a slightly lower than stock CR and may be worth a look...that's what I have.

The best overall would likely be Mahle for quality but you'll pay serious money for those,where the Wossners are good quality and average price.

The problem with interpreting the fuel injector flow rates is that not all are tested at the correct pressures,leading to incorrect/inaccurate values.
 
S3Alex said:
Wossner pistons have a slightly lower than stock CR and may be worth a look...that's what I have.

The best overall would likely be Mahle for quality but you'll pay serious money for those,where the Wossners are good quality and average price.

The problem with interpreting the fuel injector flow rates is that not all are tested at the correct pressures,leading to incorrect/inaccurate values.
Click to expand...

The Wossner pistons seem to be at around £600 mark with the Mahle pistons at around the same (unless you buy Mahle pistons from APR as they are more). The JE pistons are cheaper but as found before have the incorrect CR, will have a look at various pistons, happy to go with IE rods as they are known to be good.

It seems that those injectors were all tested at 5 bar, so 304 cc/min at 5 bar is the same as 1693cc/min at 155 bar - used an online calculator to get a rough idea as to the size at the higher pressure from an uprated HPFP.

Will also look into other HPFPs which aren't cam driven, its common for high pressure diesel engines to run a pump off the cambelt which would mean no issues with cam wear if I swapped it over as I just need to provide a high pressure to the common rail.
 
m1tch said:
The Wossner pistons seem to be at around £600 mark with the Mahle pistons at around the same (unless you buy Mahle pistons from APR as they are more). The JE pistons are cheaper but as found before have the incorrect CR, will have a look at various pistons, happy to go with IE rods as they are known to be good.

It seems that those injectors were all tested at 5 bar, so 304 cc/min at 5 bar is the same as 1693cc/min at 155 bar - used an online calculator to get a rough idea as to the size at the higher pressure from an uprated HPFP.

Will also look into other HPFPs which aren't cam driven, its common for high pressure diesel engines to run a pump off the cambelt which would mean no issues with cam wear if I swapped it over as I just need to provide a high pressure to the common rail.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about rods(if there is such a thing) is that they may all originate from the same few foundries in the far east.
A few years ago when my engine was originally being built,we could not source rods from anywhere,for love nor money....all of the sellers such as IE,JE,PEC etc etc could not get the base parts to finish.
So...we reckoned they all originated from the same place and were finished by individual companies.

The conversion from 5 bar to 135 bar doesn't take things like flow limiting due to turbulence etc into account,so I would be very careful using a linear formula,as there is no way that some of the injectors around were making that sort of calculated flow rate.
It's sometimes easier to determine it by when the injector duty cycle begins to max out.
 
audi upgrades
Just noticed that the JHM A4 B7 Avant with a stock engine and their stage 3 bolt on kit was running a 12.2 quarter mile, they haven't dynoed it for power but working on the stock 1540kg Avant the car would be making around 447bhp. So the kit is making just above the R-tech stage 3+ tune using a hybrid K04 turbo. The JHM car seems to be running just a set of S4 injectors.

I will be on the lookout for the flow specs on the GM injectors, won't be for a while as I will be running on the stock engine initially. I am guessing that the B7 A4 Avant will probably just have the K03 turbo, but might have the valve lift setup.
 
m1tch said:
Just noticed that the JHM A4 B7 Avant with a stock engine and their stage 3 bolt on kit was running a 12.2 quarter mile, they haven't dynoed it for power but working on the stock 1540kg Avant the car would be making around 447bhp. So the kit is making just above the R-tech stage 3+ tune using a hybrid K04 turbo. The JHM car seems to be running just a set of S4 injectors.

I will be on the lookout for the flow specs on the GM injectors, won't be for a while as I will be running on the stock engine initially. I am guessing that the B7 A4 Avant will probably just have the K03 turbo, but might have the valve lift setup.
Click to expand...

Looking at that kit,it appears to be K04 based.
The turbo has been modified,so it might make the sort of figures you're suggesting,as we know other K04 based hybrids such as the TTE can turn this sort of power,but beware of anything that hasn't been near a dyno.

It mentions S3 injectors in the spec sheet,and these won't go much beyond 400bhp.

I think what they've done is to max out the stock components.

Craig Cull's thread here might help a bit too.....


http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/thread...ine-build-has-started-big-turbo-build.216401/
 
S3Alex said:
Looking at that kit,it appears to be K04 based.
The turbo has been modified,so it might make the sort of figures you're suggesting,as we know other K04 based hybrids such as the TTE can turn this sort of power,but beware of anything that hasn't been near a dyno.

It mentions S3 injectors in the spec sheet,and these won't go much beyond 400bhp.

I think what they've done is to max out the stock components.

Craig Cull's thread here might help a bit too.....


http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/thread...ine-build-has-started-big-turbo-build.216401/
Click to expand...

Looking on the site its a modded K04, the kit requires to have S3 injectors rather than anything more, base price is $3,000, extra if you haven't got the S3 injectors or an uprated HPFP - also need a full exhaust system as well so for the $3k it looks like you just get the turbo and manifold.

https://jhmotorsports.com/shop/catalog/jhm-k04-turbo-kit-tune-and-fueling-for-b7-a4-20t-p-4003.html

It would seem their 'big turbo' kit has a TD05 turbo, still requiring S3 injectors, $4k seems to just get you the 'big turbo' and exhaust manifold with all of the other parts being extra.

https://jhmotorsports.com/shop/cata...-for-b7-a4-20t-p-2588.html?cPath=21_62_65_255

The TD05 turbos are fairly cheap as they are OEM on Subarus, guessing its a GT30/Gt32 sized turbo equivalent. Not sure how the turbo kit could cost $4k especially if it doesn't include injectors, HPFP, mapping or basically any of the mods to make it work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
The trouble is that there are so many kits around,not all of which either fit or do what you think they will do.

I found a lot of this along the way,and finally found the right set of parts,but it is a real uphill battle.

What I should have said also is that if you can do all of it in one big hit,it may save money,rather than what I did which was to buy a kit,adapt it,add to it,find you'd outgrown it,and then go looking for more.
Back then,there were really only 2 kits,and neither of them fitted a UK car,but not you have solutions from 400 through to 700bhp+,and the experience from tuners to build these engines.
 
Last edited:
S3Alex said:
The trouble is that there are so many kits around,not all of which either fit or do what you think they will do.

I found a lot of this along the way,and finally found the right set of parts,but it is a real uphill battle.

What I should have said also is that if you can do all of it in one big hit,it may save money,rather than what I did which was to buy a kit,adapt it,add to it,find you'd outgrown it,and then go looking for more.
Back then,there were really only 2 kits,and neither of them fitted a UK car,but not you have solutions from 400 through to 700bhp+,and the experience from tuners to build these engines.
Click to expand...

I will still have a look at some of the kits, I know that its probably going to be cheaper to do it all in one go with an off the shelf kit, however for me its more fun to work out issues and go a slightly different route for certain things and fit parts that I trust.

As mentioned before it will take me a few years to get things how I want them, ideally I would have gone with an A3 but need the space for the larger turbo and intake pipework without compromising angles etc.

Another goal for this project is from a learning perspective, I enjoy learning new skills and will look to put them into practice on this project, as the car won't be my daily drive I can take my time on parts and no be rushed. I do plan to buy a spare engine so I have spare parts and can take my time over the build without taking the car off the road. Eg the car might be at a 'stage 1' level of tune whilst I am building up the engine at the same time - I will be documenting what I do as well so that other newbies will hopefully get some learnings from it.

I will be trying to lean towards the Lotus philosophy of "simplify, then add lightness" which is why I am not looking at some of the heavier cars (even though they are more powerful) as the power to weight isn't there. I have noticed that newer cars are indeed more complex vs previous cars such as my 1982 mini and the mk1 MX5s. I plan to pull out and simplify some of these things from the car eg the air con, heavy seats, plastic vanity covering trim etc.

I will also look to do some experiments to see which mods make the most difference in terms of running stock vs running stock with X weight removed vs simply bolt on such as air filters and exhausts.

I think I will be looking to follow this kind of experiment in stages, doing a weekend of drag runs to average out the times, this will show which mods would make the biggest difference.

Test 1 - Car is 100% stock and serviced
Test 2 - Remove easy to remove parts such as spare wheel etc to reduce weight
Test 3 - Remove harder to remove parts such as air con
Test 4 - Add on some bolt on parts such as intake and exhaust pre remap
Test 5 - Remap to stage 1 with the engine 100% stock
Test 6 - Swapped out fueling parts and remapped to max out stock setup

Beyond the 6th test would mean an upgraded turbo and engine, might also be looking to remove additional weight internally such as carpets, door cards etc before dropping in the uprated engine with forged internals.

I have found that IE have a useful guide with regards to the different power level needs, seems that the crank will be fine but its more about the end caps, dampers and wrist pins that are forgotten about:

https://www.performancebyie.com/blog/definitive-guide-building-2-0t-fsi-bottom-end/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
That's a great approach.

I've always gone for incremental rather than "mental" and made sure each stage runs reliably first.

Yours sounds even more so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m1tch
S3Alex said:
That's a great approach.

I've always gone for incremental rather than "mental" and made sure each stage runs reliably first.

Yours sounds even more so.
Click to expand...

Indeed, part of the fun is the journey to get there anyway, I plan for this to be a long term project which is why I wanted to use a slightly newer engine rather than the 1.8t. Also it being an avant will mean its useful - plus it might turn into a 2 seater estate :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: S3Alex
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gez77
Project A6
Replies
18
Views
4K
Radford212
Radford212
Stevie170
Headliner project
Replies
1
Views
3K
A4 geordie
A4 geordie
B
Project TTS
Replies
8
Views
4K
babyboss
babyboss
S4_dan
Project 'B161'
Replies
2
Views
2K
S4_dan
S4_dan
C
PrOjECt *$%STORMTROOPER*&%$
Replies
18
Views
10K
20v-turbo
2
Top
Back