

| Subject: | Re: Audi 2.3 l conversion report (long) |
| From: | Bruce J. Wilbur |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:41:38 -0700 |
Hi Pat: I too was surprised. I don't think that this amount of wear would be typical for a maintained Audi with 78k mi. on it. When Detlev and I saw that the engine and accessories looked "well used" I agreed that a rebuild made sense. It made me wonder how many miles were actually on the engine or if the car had received poor maintenance. I guess the other possibility would be that it had many very short in town trips or other "severe service" use. I have heard only good things about how Audi motors hold up. This experience would bias me towards using a donor car rather than hoping donor parts from a wrecker would be as hoped. I think there was a thread on this 4-6 mos ago and the conclusion was that whether or not to rebuild remains an individual decision. Best regards, Bruce Wilbur '87 Westy syncro Pat wrote >Bruce, your comments on the Audi engine surprise me. >I have never seen the inside of an Audi 5 with 78k miles, they are too new >to open up at that point. >The last motor I took apart was a Turbo 5 with broken timing belt and bent >valves. The valves impacted the pistons and bent the stems. The pistons >were fine, only had to be polished. The cylinder walls looked brand new, >with visible factory cross hatching still intact. This motor had 160,000 >miles on it. >My Quantum had 150k miles on it and looked much like the turbo Audi inside. >These motors commonly go 200-300k with no major problems. > > >> would be good to rebuild the engine. I am glad it was done because the >> engine showed much wear including deep grooves in the cylinders and out of >> spec pistons. The rest of the engine needed rebuilding as well.
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »