A simple google search would have shown you would want to change the timing belt well before the recommended 105k interval. Over the last 12 years it's become well known that replacing it at 70-80k is more prudent.

 

That is great if you have the extra $1200. lying around. The belt could be made of materials that last for 200-500k miles, it is just that Audi used poor manufacturing specifications for that part. The same goes for the center console display, and other parts on these cars. Why don't they just own up to it, and rectify their errors?

 

Because its typically not the belt that goes first, it's the tensioner. I've replaced upwards of 50 Audi timing systems on a wide variety of engines and have seen only one or two belts that had worn teeth or degradation of the belt, and in both cases these cars were significantly beyond the known interval for service. It sucks that the literature included with the car turned out to be wrong in the 105k service interval, but that's why the Internet and forums like this are so valuable. No matter if it's a new car or a used car, periodic research into service and issues is a no-brainer. Of course things will be discovered by owners, and with this type of car, there are enough hands-on guys out there that the info will make its way online for anyone to find, should they take half an hour or less to do a quick search. Continuing self-education about caring for a big-ticket item should be par for the course.

As to the comment about having an extra $1200 lying around, well, research more than the 0-60 time before you buy a car. Look at the costs of maintenance, or shop around (indie shops are several hundred less, and enthusiast owner-mechanics are usually less yet). Or get some tools, use the aforementioned Internet to search out info, and do it yourself for the cost of parts. If none of these are your taste, then trade it in before a big service comes due or don't buy the goddamn car. Don't blame service costs which are easily quoted as the reason you feel screwed, if you don't bother to look into it before you buy the car.

 

I don't agree with how Audi tracks manufacturing defects, and corrects them. I do know and like the general product. Thanks for the info that the tensioner, not the belt, is the timing belt service interval issue. Can anyone else verify that conclusion?

I drive my A6 mostly long distance (LA to SF and back), 25k per year, and I baby it. No racing, starting gently when ever possible, only accelerating hard when merging into traffic. Other than an AC pump, and the weird 1/2 rich 1/2 lean issue that I currently have, all of the problems I have had have been caused by poor quality work by certified Audi mechanics. So I have been working on my car myself over the last year.

 

You should know what youre getting into when buying a B5 S4. Its not made to be cheap or reliable, its made to put a smile on your face!

 

That is correct. I bought my Saab Sonnet when I was 19, and I immediately had it rebuilt to double the stock horse power. It is amazing that we both survived the first 10 years. Now I just want my A6 to get me through grad school without serious problems.

 

I believe in "preventative" maintenance. Having a 1996 Land Rover Discovery, still running strong at 230,000 miles that I bought over 12 years ago in 2000, I can say having a good tech, preferably the same one every time, look over all the stuff you aren't expecting to be bad, can go a long way to never being stranded or killing the car.

So, about the 2.7t timing belt issue. I learned a little recently about interference motors + timing BELT = do not EVER let the belt break.

I car guy I know mentioned some interesting info on Audi and CARB.... in order to pass, a maker can only have but so frequent service requirements. On the one hand, it seems this is so that it forces a manufacturer to build more reliable cars.... makes sense right.

However, (and this is hear say but so believable) Audi simply stretched out the documentation on various service intervals.... such that some items ought to be done sooner than the books say. Seems like savvy techs apparently know this and will tell you "maybe get this done sooner" .

Anyway, that's what I heard and i'm sure it's easy to look into deeper.

 

What do you think on what I just posted? Accurate?

 

Consider this: when you have not gotten the answer you were looking for, maybe you have not asked the right question.

In your case, I read this thing twice, to be sure, those guys actually answered your QUESTION. The rest of what you wrote to them was just background ranting. It's ok, I RANT with the best of them, but none of that other crap was a question, request, wish, suggestion, or however you thought you presented it.

The very single thing you asked was answered. Basically, "can I feel safer in buying a new current generation Audi? " Um, they specifically and quickly pointed out statistics on more recent reliability, using % numbers, independent reviews, etc.

Next time if you are looking for a certain answer, ask the right questions.

The in between the lines answers you actually got were that better parts are now used, better systems are employed, etc, etc.

Personally, you might now consider a car which is NOT an interference motor design, meaning one where the pistons won't smack the valves/head when let loose upon timing BELT failure. Only two ways to do that, non-interference motor or not a belt.

Now I'm even more happy with my hunch which prompted which Audi to buy back in 2008, that the 4.2 in my S4, also bought new like you did, may actually last 200k miles, or more

You should feel thrilled you got the responses from that you did. I got essentially nowhere with LR NA on an lr3 issue and that was even having shown them I've bought over $250,000 in land rovers since 2000!

Anyway, good luck and realize there are many aspects to why you ended up where you are with that engine but they addressed your actual questions quite well.

If I were you, I would seriously consider a new S5 with the 4.2 which uses a timing chain. If you worked your angle better, ie, apparent attitude, you may be able to net a nice discount. Better yet, a 100k warranty

 

"they specifically and quickly pointed out statistics on more recent reliability, using % numbers, independent reviews, etc"

What??? No they didn't. The marketing hack who responded didn't point to a single specific evaluation, let alone "reviews". All he said was their current models were much more reliable, and intimated that I could check for myself (which I did, and found no such comparison anywhere!). That's called marketing pablum, not statistics. Furthermore, his suggestion that current models were much more reliable is an implication they THEY KNEW thier prior models had known reliability problems, which gets to the first and foremost concern of mine -- that Audi OWN UP to its widely-experienced reliability problems without needing to get SUED first.