😫😫 my face when I watch these retro reviews that tell you all what you need to know and show you all what you need to see in 5 to 7 minutes. No bullshit or purposeless content we see today with many car reviewers. Old is apparently gold.
These early 1990's (and even the 80's models) Audis appeal to me a lot more than anything they make now. All the European luxury brands are becoming the same. Aggressive looking sports sedans. I prefer the days of classy European cars. The old style Jags come to mind as well.
Right on the money you are absolutely correct these Aldi's back in the day didn't cost as much as the Audis today in fact I don't even think an Audi was considered a luxury car back then
God of destruction I just purchased a 1992 Audi URS4 and it originally sold in 92 for $45k, equivalent to $82k today. 250,000 miles on it. Bone stock with decent maintenance. Everything functions, makes 15psi of boost on the factory turbo, and is an absolute joy to drive :)
I have this wagon in white. It has a few issues but only 160,000. Currently my daily driver. Got it for 1500 just below 150,000. It hasn't really given me much issues at all. Was it a good deal? I'm thinking a steal?
Wow! This car still looks like it could fit in pretty well with most cars on the road today. Very nicely designed car that's stood the test of time. Seems to look better than it performs though.
And safety, maybe even fuel economy. I own a 1991 audi 100 quattro sedan. Definitely shows it's age, but is rust free and is very smooth, but its thirsty. Still a good car nevertheless. And its a 5-speed manual.
The price in Europe was almost identical to its main competitors Bmw 525 and Mercedes Benz E260 but Audi offered more car than both of its German rivals. Quattro for the same price, better engine (excellent fuel economy, lots of torque), zinc body, more options. Regarding acceleration, this is a completely wrong figure. Even the Audi 100 2.3 with its 133hp clocked 0-100kmh in 10.4 seconds. The real figure for the 2.8 (174hp and 245nm) 8.0 seconds from 0-100kmh (or 0-62 mph). We had one in the family 1992-2010 and the acceleration was comparable to Bmw 535, seriously quick time at that era. The car was extremely reliable and thanks to the zinc and built quality had no rust even in Finland in where rust becomes a serious issue for many manufacturers (Japanese - especially Mazda, and even the German Mercedes…) The engine sound of that V6 was glorious when I compare it to my E350.
Well, insurance is low, no payments, so repairs and maintanence are the main costs! The Boxster with +40hp mods and Bilsteins is by far the most fun, N/A beats turbo for day to day driving! Thanks for asking!
I remember my parents had the sedan version of this for one weekend. It was really nice! Unfortunately (or fortunately) they decided against buying it. These looked so good back in the day, in my opinion.
44k because back then nobody other than Subaru offered a 4wd car based wagon with Limited Slip differential and low range. Subaru sold them for $20k. And you could say, why would anyone go for a wagon when you can buy a SUV like Jeep. Well, car based wagons ride 100x better than SUVs and that is very important on long trips cross country. Not to mention that SUVs of that era got 12mpg vs 20mpg in a car. Thats $2000 a year extra in gas alone.
Low range?? Not even Subaru had one in 93. But yeah an Audi of this era are very much top of the line and compete with BMW, so $44k is a lot, but not out of the normal spectrum.
I assume 0-60 in 12.7 seconds is down to a very lazy power sapping auto gearbox (not the car's weight as he states)? As it should be something like 9 seconds for the manual version!!!! Clearly auto boxes have come a long way since the early 90s! The interior on the other hand still looks great even today, a very tasteful and clean design. Better than current Audis with 12 different LCD screens everywhere IMO!
I have the same car, except in sedan form and FWD. Suprisingly, the FWD model is MUCH quicker than this version, about 3 seconds faster 0-60. The quattro system and wagon body style add a ton of weight. This is an excellent car, quite rare to find one nowadays as well (especially compared to rival BMW 5-series and Mercedes E-class vehicles from the same period).
The fact that its awd and a family hauler with that rear facing bench seat and the fact that it can pretty much take you wherever you want with that rear diff locker, all those things allow me to forgive the slow performance....not to mention that its a really good looking station wagon.
If you bought this almost 30 years ago you probably didn’t need another new car ever since and just clocked 400.000 miles...never again did the industry make such high quality, long lasting vehicles
In 2023 money, this car costs 90,000 dollars. That’s wild. They sure don’t make ‘em like they used to, money isn’t worth much, and jobs don’t pay like they did.
Everyone is going crazy over how it was $44,000 in 1993 and how it adds up to $77,000 now. In 1993 it was $99,950 in Australia. With inflation that adds up to $174,000 today...
Jake Johns Yes, and $44,000 in 1993 was a good deal worth more than $72,000 in today's money. Goverment CPI underestimates the actual inflation by a good deal because it doesn't take many items into equation.
that's a lot of money for such low power but I guess that today we can be thankful features like heated seats and optional AWD or 4WD are much cheaper and than they used to be.
hapend to have a most sluggish gearbox of the world and paired with not most torque addicted engine.. results that pathetic sprint times. That engine with torsen at rear, give decent dynamics with manual gearbox only. For auto gearbox, were somehow compatible just 2 engines: 2.2turbo petrol and 2.5tdi Anyway, VAG didn't produced any decent automatic gearbox until b7 generation (we don't talk about DSG but automatic, mean torque converter gearbox)
@@napraznicul VAG doesn't make transmissions. They use transmissions from a transmissions manufacturer such as ZF Friedrichshafen. This particular auto tranny was the ZF 4HP18, and yeah, it was a dog and wasn't efficient. The engine was also well far behind it's rivals. The Mercedes E320 wagon had a 3.2L DOHC 24v I6, with variable valve timing and a plastic intake manifold to save weight, producing 217HP, the 525i wagon had a 2.5L DOHC 24v I6, also with variable valve timing and a plastic manifold, producing 190HP. This Audi had a 2.8L SOHC, 12v V6, making 172HP, without any variable timing and a metal intake manifold.
@@BlagoP i mean "vag didn't USE in their cars..". Of course vag didn't produce gearboxes for mass production cars. But where do you seen some versus against bmw or merc in my post above?!? For who is your answer about power/engines comparation?! I just said that audi were huge sluggish for an european 2.8 petrol engine. Please don't explain to me about variable valves timing, because in those two examples which you show me, that system IS DEFINITELY NOT performance-oriented, BUT economy oriented, respectively for low rpm torque. But Of course, 30-40bhp really matter in terms of dynamic performances... even if discussion wasn't that, nothing about some versus from me!
@@napraznicul Didn't really understand what you're talking about there or whom you're quoting, but the point is that the car was slow compared to it's competition at the time because of it's weak engine. The engine should have been a 200HP, 24v engine to begin with.
@@BlagoP you're a kid which talk from stories and technical specifications.. "at least 24v".. not even 30v 2.8 from audi.. did not produce more than 19x bhp. You don't know nothing about engines, and talk about variable valve timing at those two engines, as the system was at least some kind of vtec from crx 😂😂. I will repeat here for you: neither (merc or bmw which you mention above) were performance oriented vvt, but fuel economy, so doesn't matter. Now you're jumped on 24v as main advantage 😂.. but if i would dissasembly a simple M50b25 engine, you won't be able to re-assembly not even in a year (without youtube tutorials😂). Scuse me, but seems you just make noise here, as any noob kid would do😂😂
12.7 seconds 0-60? how did you test this? I‘m german and had this car as a sedan with the same 2.8 liter V6 engine with 174 HP. Audi rated it 8.0 seconds 0-100 kph with the manual gearbox, so that should be around 7.5 seconds 0-60. With the automatic transmission, the time should be 1 to 2 seconds higher, but not 12.7 seconds.
don't think I would trust those rear facing 3rd row seats. if you get rear ended at a certain speed you may have to get your legs decapitated from knees down seeing as they would be crushed with the little space there is between the foot wells and the rear bumper
Please DONT let this be the beginning of the Audi flood! More american and Japanese Retro Reviews Please!! I beg you, Retro's are the highlight of my week!! lol
Volvo 940 Turbo, 960 or 850 wagon from the same model year will beat this thing silly and out last it. Quattro was the only benefit to the Audi - I'd take a Volvo w/ a set of snow tires instead.
@@DrewLSsix My 95 Audi wagon is still on the road and running.... almost 24 years later. Not sure we can say the same for the other manufacturers from that era.
Loved the styling of Audis of that era, but my ancient 2002 Corolla is much faster! 12.7 sec for 0-60 is simply too slow even by the standards of the day, especially for a luxury car.
A Volkswagen Group engine that was under powered for this size and weight of a car. Basically it's the VR6 engine that was used in several Volkswagens at the time.
markjwil / this is a separate 90 degree V6, not related to the VR6. Slow because it's heavy. For the era, unlike say a Honda Accord of the time, you'll still have much less injury in an Accident.
who the fuck would buy ..even in 1993, a 2.8 v6 that sprint 0-60 in..12.6sec?! :))). Who the fuck'n stupid dealer, would ask audi for that engine with mega sluggish auto gearbox, instead of manual, as the differences of sprint times, are astonishing huuuge? why they didn't bring to us market, the 5speed manual with 2.2l turbo, or superb 2.5tdi?!
😫😫 my face when I watch these retro reviews that tell you all what you need to know and show you all what you need to see in 5 to 7 minutes. No bullshit or purposeless content we see today with many car reviewers. Old is apparently gold.
These early 1990's (and even the 80's models) Audis appeal to me a lot more than anything they make now. All the European luxury brands are becoming the same. Aggressive looking sports sedans. I prefer the days of classy European cars. The old style Jags come to mind as well.
Right on the money you are absolutely correct these Aldi's back in the day didn't cost as much as the Audis today in fact I don't even think an Audi was considered a luxury car back then
God of destruction I just purchased a 1992 Audi URS4 and it originally sold in 92 for $45k, equivalent to $82k today. 250,000 miles on it. Bone stock with decent maintenance. Everything functions, makes 15psi of boost on the factory turbo, and is an absolute joy to drive :)
I have this wagon in white. It has a few issues but only 160,000. Currently my daily driver. Got it for 1500 just below 150,000. It hasn't really given me much issues at all. Was it a good deal? I'm thinking a steal?
I agree and it’s only gotten worse the last 4 years
@@Reefer-Rampage69 Yep. There's not a whole lot of difference between Mercedes and BMW any longer. Not to me, anyway.
Wow! This car still looks like it could fit in pretty well with most cars on the road today. Very nicely designed car that's stood the test of time. Seems to look better than it performs though.
Still dailying mine! I keep a maintenance binder replete with spreadsheet and window sticker. I call it my $25,000 binder.
Ouch.
Still a beautiful looking AUDI wagon, way better looking than the ugly looking crossovers on the street today.
Still a beautiful car!
Out of all of the cars I have owned this was the very best for everything. I loved it.
Still better than most new cars today. In every way.
Except acceleration
And safety, maybe even fuel economy. I own a 1991 audi 100 quattro sedan. Definitely shows it's age, but is rust free and is very smooth, but its thirsty. Still a good car nevertheless. And its a 5-speed manual.
Except speed and reliability
Look, I understand that it's 1993 but seriously, a 0-60 time of 12.7 seconds and at a cost of $44,000.00 ($72,043.99 today's cost). Wow! Just wow!
Pretty weird, considering factory 0-100km/h time is 10.5 seconds
The price in Europe was almost identical to its main competitors Bmw 525 and Mercedes Benz E260 but Audi offered more car than both of its German rivals. Quattro for the same price, better engine (excellent fuel economy, lots of torque), zinc body, more options.
Regarding acceleration, this is a completely wrong figure. Even the Audi 100 2.3 with its 133hp clocked 0-100kmh in 10.4 seconds.
The real figure for the 2.8 (174hp and 245nm) 8.0 seconds from 0-100kmh (or 0-62 mph). We had one in the family 1992-2010 and the acceleration was comparable to Bmw 535, seriously quick time at that era. The car was extremely reliable and thanks to the zinc and built quality had no rust even in Finland in where rust becomes a serious issue for many manufacturers (Japanese - especially Mazda, and even the German Mercedes…) The engine sound of that V6 was glorious when I compare it to my E350.
Why Audi introduced that engine w 2 valves per cylinder I’ll never understand
Figure for 8.0s to 100km/h was for 2.8 fwd, limo with manual transmission....not for auto transmission avant with quattro.
I love the big ass rear of this audi wagon
I love my 1995 S6 Avant, 5 cylinder turbo heavily modded with RS2 engine goodies...
Charles Lu Is it better than your Porsche Boxter and VW Camper? Wish I could afford all those cars.
Well, insurance is low, no payments, so repairs and maintanence are the main costs! The Boxster with +40hp mods and Bilsteins is by far the most fun, N/A beats turbo for day to day driving! Thanks for asking!
Лучшая, всегда ,,во все времена . Только она !!! Мне и нужна.
I remember my parents had the sedan version of this for one weekend. It was really nice! Unfortunately (or fortunately) they decided against buying it. These looked so good back in the day, in my opinion.
12.7 sec?what? my manual equal version do 8.9 sec....something wrong there....
Is it the European version? All American German imports are tuned down to make the cars less competitive and meet emissions standards.
44k because back then nobody other than Subaru offered a 4wd car based wagon with Limited Slip differential and low range. Subaru sold them for $20k. And you could say, why would anyone go for a wagon when you can buy a SUV like Jeep. Well, car based wagons ride 100x better than SUVs and that is very important on long trips cross country. Not to mention that SUVs of that era got 12mpg vs 20mpg in a car. Thats $2000 a year extra in gas alone.
YES10 plus wagons are generally lower and safer for quick emergency maneuvers.
YES10 aaaaaa
Low range?? Not even Subaru had one in 93. But yeah an Audi of this era are very much top of the line and compete with BMW, so $44k is a lot, but not out of the normal spectrum.
I watched the video and thought, that's a very nice car in 93. $44000 though!?!
I assume 0-60 in 12.7 seconds is down to a very lazy power sapping auto gearbox (not the car's weight as he states)? As it should be something like 9 seconds for the manual version!!!! Clearly auto boxes have come a long way since the early 90s! The interior on the other hand still looks great even today, a very tasteful and clean design. Better than current Audis with 12 different LCD screens everywhere IMO!
Slow even for 1993 standards, but I like the wheels and it's a nice looking wagon.
If I could find a Lexus is350 wagon 😫
wow, I really dig the folding third row seat. So slick yet I wonder about the safety sitting in the back .
I have the same car, except in sedan form and FWD. Suprisingly, the FWD model is MUCH quicker than this version, about 3 seconds faster 0-60. The quattro system and wagon body style add a ton of weight. This is an excellent car, quite rare to find one nowadays as well (especially compared to rival BMW 5-series and Mercedes E-class vehicles from the same period).
The fact that its awd and a family hauler with that rear facing bench seat and the fact that it can pretty much take you wherever you want with that rear diff locker, all those things allow me to forgive the slow performance....not to mention that its a really good looking station wagon.
If you bought this almost 30 years ago you probably didn’t need another new car ever since and just clocked 400.000 miles...never again did the industry make such high quality, long lasting vehicles
I wonder if you ever got the old VW Rabbit pickup? I would love to see that one...
I'm proud to say this my first car I bought ❤
I had a cs100 Quattro sedan it was amazing. Didn't seem slow as a sedan and she would go 230kmph all day if you have the roads for it.
Do you have a retro review of the 89-94 Nissan maxima? PLease and thank you
Just to be clear, that's about the equivalent of $72,000 accounting for inflation. Crazy.
In '93 in Australia it was $99,950...
MrCarGuy20 Yup. And most people financed back then, and usually 36 months. $2,000/month car payment for 3 years in today's money.
Gas was less than a dollar. Minimum wage was about $5. A new Miata was like $12,000.
GT6SuzukaTimeTrials Nothing was truly cheaper back then. If you haven't heard of a purchasing power index, then look it up.
MrCarGuy20 Yeah crazy for a car that takes almost 13 seconds to get to 60.
Please let this be the beginning of the Audi flood :)
2003 audi rs 6 please.......
Audi flood?? Is that what you call the aftermath of too many audis parked in the same place?
kma198199 oddly, BMWs (of which we just had a flood) leak just as much as Audis... and often from the same places
12.7 sec? WTF? I bet they accidentally started off in 2nd gear.
In 2023 money, this car costs 90,000 dollars. That’s wild. They sure don’t make ‘em like they used to, money isn’t worth much, and jobs don’t pay like they did.
Wow. The original 100 wagon looks like a 5000 with flush door handles.
I think you did the review of the S4 sedan, and the S2 3 door hatchback.
Such a nice looking car. A bit on the heavy side though. :-p
Everyone is going crazy over how it was $44,000 in 1993 and how it adds up to $77,000 now. In 1993 it was $99,950 in Australia. With inflation that adds up to $174,000 today...
Jake Johns Yes, and $44,000 in 1993 was a good deal worth more than $72,000 in today's money. Goverment CPI underestimates the actual inflation by a good deal because it doesn't take many items into equation.
that's a lot of money for such low power but I guess that today we can be thankful features like heated seats and optional AWD or 4WD are much cheaper and than they used to be.
The early adopters pay for technology that 2-3 yrs later you can get in a Hyundai. Just ask John Cadogan.
0 to 60 mph in 12.7 seconds...what happened?
hapend to have a most sluggish gearbox of the world and paired with not most torque addicted engine.. results that pathetic sprint times.
That engine with torsen at rear, give decent dynamics with manual gearbox only. For auto gearbox, were somehow compatible just 2 engines: 2.2turbo petrol and 2.5tdi
Anyway, VAG didn't produced any decent automatic gearbox until b7 generation (we don't talk about DSG but automatic, mean torque converter gearbox)
@@napraznicul VAG doesn't make transmissions. They use transmissions from a transmissions manufacturer such as ZF Friedrichshafen. This particular auto tranny was the ZF 4HP18, and yeah, it was a dog and wasn't efficient. The engine was also well far behind it's rivals. The Mercedes E320 wagon had a 3.2L DOHC 24v I6, with variable valve timing and a plastic intake manifold to save weight, producing 217HP, the 525i wagon had a 2.5L DOHC 24v I6, also with variable valve timing and a plastic manifold, producing 190HP. This Audi had a 2.8L SOHC, 12v V6, making 172HP, without any variable timing and a metal intake manifold.
@@BlagoP i mean "vag didn't USE in their cars..". Of course vag didn't produce gearboxes for mass production cars.
But where do you seen some versus against bmw or merc in my post above?!? For who is your answer about power/engines comparation?! I just said that audi were huge sluggish for an european 2.8 petrol engine.
Please don't explain to me about variable valves timing, because in those two examples which you show me, that system IS DEFINITELY NOT performance-oriented, BUT economy oriented, respectively for low rpm torque. But Of course, 30-40bhp really matter in terms of dynamic performances... even if discussion wasn't that, nothing about some versus from me!
@@napraznicul Didn't really understand what you're talking about there or whom you're quoting, but the point is that the car was slow compared to it's competition at the time because of it's weak engine. The engine should have been a 200HP, 24v engine to begin with.
@@BlagoP you're a kid which talk from stories and technical specifications.. "at least 24v".. not even 30v 2.8 from audi.. did not produce more than 19x bhp. You don't know nothing about engines, and talk about variable valve timing at those two engines, as the system was at least some kind of vtec from crx 😂😂. I will repeat here for you: neither (merc or bmw which you mention above) were performance oriented vvt, but fuel economy, so doesn't matter. Now you're jumped on 24v as main advantage 😂.. but if i would dissasembly a simple M50b25 engine, you won't be able to re-assembly not even in a year (without youtube tutorials😂). Scuse me, but seems you just make noise here, as any noob kid would do😂😂
Very handsome engine
Same engine was found in the Passat VR6!
@borninhk, No, it's not the same.
is a 7 seater!!!!!! i want my hatch back to do something like this
12.7 seconds 0-60? how did you test this? I‘m german and had this car as a sedan with the same 2.8 liter V6 engine with 174 HP. Audi rated it 8.0 seconds 0-100 kph with the manual gearbox, so that should be around 7.5 seconds 0-60. With the automatic transmission, the time should be 1 to 2 seconds higher, but not 12.7 seconds.
Looks like the new Q7
Is there an 87 Audi 5000 CS Turbo review??
If you want fresh air, roll down the window. How can that be confusing?
А такие диски что шли и на 100/С4?????
In 100 c4 and a6 c4 best climat-contrrol
A to the W to the D...
i like it
How the heck could it be so slow 0-60?
A Euro spec 2.8 manual transmission should do it in less than 10 seconds.
don't think I would trust those rear facing 3rd row seats. if you get rear ended at a certain speed you may have to get your legs decapitated from knees down seeing as they would be crushed with the little space there is between the foot wells and the rear bumper
I don't understand why some of you people are making such a big deal out of this cars price considering my Mercedes new in 1983 was over $30,000
A Mercedes-Benz from the days of intense quality were quite different (as in much more valuable) from an old VW platform with AWD.
Please DONT let this be the beginning of the Audi flood! More american and Japanese Retro Reviews Please!! I beg you, Retro's are the highlight of my week!! lol
Really? I wouldn't want to see the lowlights then.
Woa.. for the price of this slug you could have had a 3,000 sq ft house in Oklahoma.. On second thought.. I'd take this beater.
Sure, but then you'd have to live in OK. With the Audi you can go anywhere.
Volvo 940 Turbo, 960 or 850 wagon from the same model year will beat this thing silly and out last it. Quattro was the only benefit to the Audi - I'd take a Volvo w/ a set of snow tires instead.
Back when Audi's had souls
Im not sold on this thing, thats 2x the cost of gm, or ford, with extra money for repairs.
bradley goode. Its not like either offered something to compete with this....
@@DrewLSsix My 95 Audi wagon is still on the road and running.... almost 24 years later. Not sure we can say the same for the other manufacturers from that era.
Audi fandom, What does 100cs stand for?
100 is the model serie, and the CS means that it is a luxury model
Here's a MotorWeek Retro Review of the Audi 100CS Quattro Wagon from 1993.
Loved the styling of Audis of that era, but my ancient 2002 Corolla is much faster! 12.7 sec for 0-60 is simply too slow even by the standards of the day, especially for a luxury car.
That is rather poor economy. I get 24mpg out of my Impala. And that's a bigger 3.6 V6. Also twice the horsepower and half the 0-60 time.
12.7 seconds?! With a modern DSG it would probably be around 7.8 seconds. That transmission is AWFUL!
This must be the slowest 170+hp V6 I have ever seen.
A Volkswagen Group engine that was under powered for this size and weight of a car. Basically it's the VR6 engine that was used in several Volkswagens at the time.
I know what it is. And I know that it's junk. It still doesn't change the fact that it's the slowest 170+hp V6 I have ever seen.
markjwil / this is a separate 90 degree V6, not related to the VR6. Slow because it's heavy. For the era, unlike say a Honda Accord of the time, you'll still have much less injury in an Accident.
Very misleading video!! The Audi 100 2.8 Quattro 0-60 time is 8 sec in manual and around 9 in Automatic.
Probably the 3 speed auto eating up the power
أبيه
“Fresh” air? I rarely want outside air from my climate control and it’s really simple to roll down the window.
Had this car and it caught on fire with baby in backseat. Common Audi problem
Mike Cernovich looks like the baby's is the fault, did you get it checked every 5k?
You guys are slacking on these Retro reviews. 1 video per week is not gonna cut it
Im glad Audi learned how to reduce weight in their wagons. This thing was too slow
who the fuck would buy ..even in 1993, a 2.8 v6 that sprint 0-60 in..12.6sec?! :))). Who the fuck'n stupid dealer, would ask audi for that engine with mega sluggish auto gearbox, instead of manual, as the differences of sprint times, are astonishing huuuge? why they didn't bring to us market, the 5speed manual with 2.2l turbo, or superb 2.5tdi?!