The late ’80s and early ’90s might be my favorite automotive era; my idea of the good ol’ days. Chassis were light and able to boogie, but not yet too heavy, burdened by stability control, or gigantic tires. Engines were strong again, visibility was good and luxury had to do with everything but telematics and navigation systems. My favorite Audis thus came from the period, including this 1991 wagon with the turbo’ed, 20-valve head which was a one-year-only deal.
We’ve covered the C3/Typ44 Audi before, but not any specific model, and the 1991 200 Quattro sedan and, especially, Avant are basically the holy grail for fans of the platform. And usually I don’t borrow too many pics which aren’t of the featured car, but I’ll allow myself to do so this time since my shots were taken from confining angles.
As we know, upon its 1982 debut, the cars inaugurated a design language which defines the company’s sedans to this day. There had been a C2 five door hatch, but this was the car that introduced Audi’s first real midsized wagon.
None since have had as fast a tailgate angle as the C3 did, either, making it unique among Audi estates. Powertrain options were tame at first, with US models getting power from a 2.1 liter straight five and a 140-horsepower 2.1 liter, front-wheel drive, three-speed auto-only turbo.
1986 brought the first round of improvements with flush mounted headlights on US models and a new intercooled, high-boost 2.2 turbo with 158 horsepower, now available with Quattro all-wheel-drive (five-speed only). And check out those wheels, which were some of the most attractive out there.
Unfortunately, this was also the year of the 60 Minutes scandal, occurring right as the model was hitting its stride, sales wise, and at the same time additional additional safety systems like ABS and the ProCon Ten were added, the latter which linked the engine to the steering wheel and seat belts via thick cables. During an accident, these cables would pull the seatbelts tight (like pretensioners) and yank the steering wheel out of the way as the engine was shifted backward.
Buyers nevertheless began staying away, even if by this point, the cars were genuinely exhilarating to drive. A W124 would not have been nearly as fun without the V8 which came after the C3 Audi was replaced and in this size class, only BMW’s 535i provided more thrills behind the wheel, and only for much more money and with much less stability (I’ll concede its superior safety and refinement by 1991, however).
Even with all the bad press, the best was yet to come. By 1988, the non-turbo was given a displacement increase to 2.3 liters, and now had a passable 130 horsepower and 140 lb-ft of torque to move its 2,800 pounds (3,300 in the new non-turbo Quattro variant). The turbos now made 162 horsepower and 177 lb-ft of torque to move their 3,400 pounds (3,000 for the auto-only front wheel drive). Top speeds ranged between 120 and 135, owing to excellent aerodynamics, with sixty achieved in less than eight seconds for the turbo variants.
My favorite models, aesthetically speaking, would be the 87 and 88 5000 CS turbo quattros, as I like the original turbo interior better. It was stark and had no wood trim, but it was very unique and high-tech looking (for its day). Plus, I prefer the original VAG parts-bin switchgear and, as I mentioned, the five-spoke wheels.
In 1989, the 5000 was renamed the 100/200 and facelifted with flush door handles and a new interior, which finally included wood trim.
This was definitely a step forward in quality and ambience, despite my preference for the more H.R. Geiger-inspired (believe it or not, that’s a compliment) original. The establishment of Audi’s reputation for truly opulent interiors began around this time.
With continually declining popularity, the cars were becoming well-kept secrets, and in a way, that meant that Audi’s five-cylinder turbo, manual-transmission centric approach to performance was less of a consequence as multi-valve sixes and V8s hit the scene. The buyers who kept coming back were a self-selecting bunch and Audi rewarded them for their loyalty with even more dramatic improvements.
The biggest of these was the addition of a multi-valve cylinder head for the final-year 1991 turbo quattro, which can be identified by flared wheel arches, with full openings for the rear wheels seen here.
This gave the car genuine 150 mph capability and sub seven second 0-60 times, with 217 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 228 lb-ft torque available at 1,950 rpm. With a low, low compression ratio of 7.7:1, that meant that judicious tuning of engine management and a smallish snail ensured an even spread of power while taking advantage of the well-breathing cylinder head. As these are famously stout engine blocks, more power can safety obtained without grenading the engine. Drivetrain components are stout as well; it’s the electronics which go bad on these cars.
The soft leather used in these cars doesn’t hold up as well as it could, though the very tender material used in Volvos and Saabs is even more fragile in the long term. That means this wagon has received a reasonable amount of care. Compared to the likes of Saab’s well regarded 9000 Turbo, this car’s closest competitor (in my mind), the Audi doesn’t score as well in terms of passive safety or all-out blistering performance, but it excels in its ability to get power down in all conditions. And while its chassis may not be quite as sharp, its balance is superior, and feel through the controls, heftier.
A short-lived Audi innovation was the “UFO” front disc brake. Rather than having to resort to bigger wheels for more swept area on a larger rotor, the system placed the caliper inside a rotor which wrapped around it. So while the surface area of the rotor itself didn’t change, the amount of useful friction surface increased.
This shot, on which I adjusted contrast and exposure, shows the way the rotors looked behind the openings in the wheel. Almost like a steel wheel hiding behind a plastic wheel cover.
Here’s what the system actually looked like. With smaller calipers and a thinner rotor, unsprung weight might’ve been lower and heat dissipation was reportedly superior as well. Unfortunately warping of the $200 rotors was a frequent issue. The Audi V8, derived from the C3 chassis, was the first model to use the system, along with later 200 Quattros, like our featured Avant, and early versions of the C4 with the turbo’ed five (that is, the original S4), which was the 200’s spiritual successor. Many cars have since had their UFO front brakes replaced with conventional units, but that requires changing the hub carrier, so many other cars have remained as the one seen here.
Very interesting car! I really can’t every remember seeing many of these in person, and thus I never really knew a lot about the 200. That’s interesting about the rotors. I’ve never seen a system like that.
There’s always something especially appealing about late-’80s/early-’90s Audis. Probably their rarity compared to similar Bimmers and Mercedes. Their designs, both inside and out are so timeless.
Well, in a way, they were rustic, as far as their lumpy 5-cyl engines, narrow cabins and three-speed autos were concerned. But they never cost anywhere as much as a Bimmer or Benz, which were better suited to life with automatic transmissions. And the ’86 W124 was already a nineties car in terms of its refinement, and the ’89 E34 was also. In so many ways they are comparable, but in many ways the Benz and Bimmer are in a different league. These Audis were kind of their own thing and many people initially thought cars like Acura could fill the void (they were so much tamer, though).
Being born in 1983 myself, they were already starting to get thin on the ground as they were unreliable outside of primary powertrain components and body hardware and had depreciated massively (hence how my dad could afford a used one as a young professor with a family). After four years of ownership, my dad ran away screaming, but they really were slick machines for the mid ’80s.
Doing what right?
Taking them 20 years plus to beat the Cw value of Citroën’s DS?
Pulling the steering wheel like a moron because the FWD system could not cope with the power of these cars?
Ok, Audi introduced the galvanized body with these, which was great.
Going straight, they were great (rhymes!)
But ‘t were hardly drivers cars.
That all changed with the Quattro.
Which was something completely different.
Specially the street S1 version, my mate had to take for a spin on sunday mornings, orders from the owner.
We actually flew it more then drove it.
The mean snerping sound of the alloy five-cylinder.
Disc brakes as large as LP records
The idiot sold it
For an M3 BMW, which could not hold a candle to the S1.
The 200 Quatro Turbo sold in Europe was a driver’s car. Of course the smaller models were nimbler but what such relatively big cars could do was nothing short of amazing for the time, particularly when the road got slippery due to rain or snow. As for the tuning potential, Mr. Shoar is indeed correct; up to 700 hp in a car you can (just) drive on the street, all from such a small engine is nothing to laugh at. The UFO front brakes were useless – the car below which I built with a friend (his car) has Porsche 930 brakes front and rear (needed in a car capable of doing a genuine 200 MPH).
That’s still the “small” engine (500 hp)
Yes exactly, doing what right besides the exterior and interior styling? When unintended acceleration killed resale value I took a chance on one of these. I was a young guy with a two-year old $7,000 car that looked like a new $35,000 car and felt pretty darn good. Mine was an ’87 5-speed because I knew enough to avoid the 3-speed auto.
The ownership of that car was one of life’s lessons. Not that Audis are crap but that you get what you pay for. The resale value would have taken a hit with or without the UA issue because the C3s were dreadful cars. Audi should thank 60 Minutes for giving them that wonderful excuse.
First off the car felt exactly like what it was a puffed up Passat which was little more than a stretched and pulled Dasher. Note the very narrow rear track and off kilter steering column which is a well-known solution for a car that has seats more outboard than originally intended by the platform.
The brake dive in this thing was phenomenal and no the shocks were not worn out. The gearing on the 5-speed was a joke. 1st was like that stump puller 1st on a Mercedes but here you had to engage it every time, for two seconds. A simple car wash would bend the cheap aluminum window trim. Vibration from the steering wheel at idle was ever present, a hallmark of VWs going back to the Golf 1.
There were so many other things like the roar of the electric cooling fans which seemed to be always running on the Turbos. When those kicked in the steering wheel vibration got worse.
The Turbo Quattro with A/T did not feel sporty at all. The Mercedes 260E could be had for the same price, it wasn’t thousands more.
5-speed Turbo sales were slow because the guy who wanted a 5-speed Euro sport sedan could get a 325i or 740T for thousands less.
You would think a car as rare and technically interesting as the 5-speed Turbo would make a great hobby car but there are none around. These cars flat out did not last and more importantly weren’t worth the cost to fix up as there was nothing to fall in love with. They were like that guy with the perfect resume but no personality and are overrated to this day.
There were no quattro turbo models with the A/T.
Sorry I meant the Turbo A/T FWD did not feel sporty at all, typo. The Turbo + Quattro coming only with M/T famously limited the sales. I doubt they broke 5,000/year even when the car was new. You didn’t have to step up to an M3 or V8 to have a nice driving Bimmer or Benz. When you include handling, the 260E was a match to the Turbo A/T, at the same price. That was my point but thanks.
No, you didn’t have to step up to those models, but I think that a 300E, prior to the 24-valve head, compared to a turbo quattro (yes, manual only) may not have been as fun. Stable at high speeds, and unflappable, sure, but also more sedate. And without the 3.5 liter six in the 5-series, not as much in the way of guts compared to the Audi.
I certainly understand the virtues of a W124 or E34 over a Typ44 Audi; but there are virtues they lack in comparison. But I get your point.
It’s a simple point, the C3s that were good were not affordable and the C3s that were affordable (like my car) were not good. There was nothing exhilarating about them unless you took the 5-speed Turbo to represent the whole line which I cannot do because it was very expensive and slow selling. And none of the C3s, especially the good performing ones, were reliable.
That said the Turbo Quattro was technically interesting and great for Audi’s image. The buff books were sure impressed. I let emotion get the better of me and ate it up too. That’s why I sound a little bitter 😉
So here’s what I’ve been dying to know: what finally helped Audi turn the corner from the 5000 debacle? The company was on the wane until the A4 and A6 came out, after which the company started turning its fortunes around.
So, did the A4 have anything to do with it? Or was it a case of “time heals all wounds,” as being a decade away from the events of 1986 gave people time to forget?
The A4 is widely credited with turning Audi’s fortunes in the US around starting in late 1995.
I don’t think most people really felt the unintended acceleration was Audi’s fault. To the extent people stopped buying Audis, it was, I think, more of a just-in-case-I’m wrong precaution. And when the bogusness of the 60 Minutes segment came to light, the remaining fears pretty much evaporated. Finally, the original A4 was such a nice car that so perfectly nailed the market that it was pretty much impossible to hold a grudge against Audi.
Was this 1986-1991 Audi 80 available in the US ? Very successful here. As a matter a fact, the 1982 Audi 100 as shown above and the (smaller) 80 below marked the starting point of where Audi is right now.
Yes they were. Initially as the 1988 Audi 80 with the same 4cylinder from the VW GTI, the 80Q with the 5 cylinder and the 90 and 90Q, all with the 5 cylinder. They did not light the world on fire over here. My recollection is they were considered a bit expensive, and too small. Reworked around 1992 as the slightly larger 90 and 90Q, all with 5cylinder power. Also available in ’90 and ’91 in Coupe Quattro form and 90Q20V form, available only with the 20V 5cylinder NA engine (code 7A).
The prior model 4000, 4000Q, Coupe GT (FWD) was offered through the 1987 model year. (these were like your 80 and 90 (80’s with 4cylinder, 90’s and GT with 5cylinder).
Quattro Turbo (Ur-quattro) was offered 1981-1986 (extremely rare in 1985 and 1986), always with 10V 5cylinder turbo power. Later models of these are now reaching the 25-year importation free-for-all exemption in the US, I anticipate seeing more of the 20V turbo models over here soon – although the price of those seems to be spiking nowadays in Europe… Audi USA always did a very poor job of using that car as a halo car with only relatively recently beginning to really acknowledge it and use it (very sparingly) in advertising.
Jim,
Actually, when the revised 90 and 90Q came over to the U.S. in late 1992, they came with the 2.8-liter OHC V-6, not the 5-cylinder. The V-6 had been introduced a year earlier for the C4 100s. A lot of techs have told me that the motor was a dud and not all that popular with the Audi faithful.
The last naturally-aspirated 5-cylinder Audi was the 1992 80.
Oops you are absolutely correct, not sure what I was thinking there, thanks for the edit. I believe that engine (2.8 12V V6) was also one of the two original engines in the A4, along with the 1.8t.
As PJ wrote, Audi 90 featured V6 engine vs. 80’s inline 4 or 5s. However, no difference in body size. Had predecessor B2 series (4000 in North America) with 1.6l engine in Germany as company car.
As Jim says definitely the A4.
Perry –
So you’re actually conceding that a BMW 535i of the time was more superior in safety and refinement than the Audi? That’s a first!
Yeah, I’d rather get in an offset collision in an E34 over a Typ44, and the BMW is definitely quieter.
Some questions and thoughts:
1) Doesn’t that badge on the grill identify this wagon as an early “S” car? I think they were called S4’s and then S5’s if I remember but I’m not exactly up on my Audi info.
2) Was that brake system on the 1999 A8? My dad had a 1999 A8 and it’s front brakes required replacement at 4,000 miles and I believe again multiple times before he replaced the car. As he’d not had an Audi since a 1974 Audi Fox that was highly unreliable, it seemed not much had changed.
3) Maybe the handling of the A6 really was superior to Mercedes and Audi, but the A8 was a far inferior car to the 1997 Mercedes E420 that was my father’s predecessor. It’s front tires squeeled as it cornered, and it’s tiptronic transmission wouldn’t hold first gear. The mercedes, though smaller on the outside was nearly as big inside, and was more powerful, more fun to drive and more reliable.
That S-badge is not original to the car. The US saw its first S-car in 1992, the C4 chassis S4, which was renamed S6 for 1995. The S8 arrived around 2000. The S5 was not introduced (anywhere) until the A5 coupe debuted a few years ago.
An E420 is not really comparable to an A8. An E420 would be more comparable to an Audi A6 with the 4.2 V8 (albeit not available until 2000 over here) or the BMW 540i of the day.
Here are our family drivers.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7299/8733757012_79d4f000d6.jpg
Great cars and a nice find, Perry, especially in wagon form. These engines (code 3B) usually live on in other cars if there was an accident or other issues sidelining the original car due to their robust nature. It is rare to find them in junkyards as they are highly sought after for transplants into Coupe Quattro’s, 90Q’s, 4000Q’s etc.
An interesting fact is that you only got the “good” engine if you ordered the manual. If your 91 200 was automatic equipped you got the normal 10v head, good for 168hp I believe. The successor S4 was not even available with an automatic.
Other niceties were the option to disable the ABS via a button on the dash (Audi maintained that on certain surfaces – snow, gravel- the car would stop faster with the wheels locked). Also there was a manual rear differential lock button that would unlock itself after reaching 15mph (the speed restriction could be overcome by cutting a wire, making both locking and unlocking a driver controlled affair).
The weakest part on these cars were the headlights (Euro replacements being a popular option) and the brakes as you alluded to. Even the S4 successor had weak brakes, most serious enthusiasts will significantly upgrade the brakes at the same time they upgrade the engine. Porsche brakes are a popular and easy replacement with various kits available.
Thank you, Jim. It’s nice to see someone who appreciates these are much as I do.
Which would you chose Perry? This or SAAB 9000?
The Audi, easily. But if we’re talking the smaller models, the Ur Saab 900.
Will you please provide some insight? I’m not looking to argue with your choice; I’m just curious.
Isn’t this the body style that Ford is alleged to have “copied” for its first Taurus?
If so, perhaps years of seeing the Taurus have blurred my memories (out here in California, where cars don’t turn into pathetic piles of brown flakes, one still often sees first-generation Tauri), but this Audi sure looks boxier than the Taurus ever did.
I think they’re referring mostly to the sedan.
I recall seeing a feature in an early issue of Automobile magazine on the first-gen Taurus. There was a picture of a version of the Taurus wagon with a slanted tail very reminiscent of the Audi. Still wish that had made it to production.
Great find, and one of my serious objects of automotive lust. My family had an ’86 5000S when I turned 16, and though it wasn’t “mine”, I got to drive it from time to time. Even though it was the NA version it didn’t feel slow, and compared to our other cars at the time (big RWD GM A- and B- bodies) it handled with such precision and feel. Plus it looked great, leather interior, pretty good fuel economy, what was not to like? Oh, the unending electrical gremlins. I wasn’t paying for the repairs! That was Dad’s first, and last, German car.
Despite that I’d love another C3 Audi someday, and these 20V Avants are the best of breed. I’m with Perry in that I actually prefer the earlier interior, and I actually like the styling better with the flat-top rear arches (I’m pretty sure I’m in the minority with that one). But that 20V engine plus AWD, in one of the best-looking wagon bodies ever? Emphatic Yes Please.
The only way Audi could have topped this was to have built an Avant version of the V8 Quattro, and they didn’t. Well, they built one, for Ferdinand Piech’s wife. That’s in their collection in Ingolstadt.
Oh, but I did find this parked in Durham one day…
I can’t say I like the V8 as much as the inline five BUT the updated from end kept the original 1982/1983 design fresh for a bit longer. The C4s did even more so, but they weren’t as fun to drive; I think even the S4/S6 got that awful servotronic steering, though I’m not sure. In terms of refinement, though, they finally were a match for the W124/E34, although by that time, those cars got powertrains which could compete with the Audis.
Anyway, mid ’80s- mid ’90s a great time for Eurolux.
Perry, on the car I posted above we hung V8 fenders, rear doors, hood and h/lights so one has the best of both worlds (lighter, more tuneable engine, better handling, cheaper bits, V8 looks and the bigger arches mean that you can get large rubber on the car legally (in Austria)). This can be done on the Avant also. There’s a bit of work involved, yes… In that case the owner wanted to reduce all door/hood/trunk lid/fender to 3.8 mm instead of the canyon-like 7 mm from the factory, so there was a LOT more involved.
Very cool. I didn’t know the V8 got aluminum rear doors!
Am I the only one who sees a lot of Audi 5000/100/200 Avant influence in the early 1990s Honda Accord wagon?
I don’t see either car very often anymore. The Hondas were reliable but rusted, while the Audis didn’t rust but…well, seemed to have reliability issues with everything else.
I have to say, though, that I saw lots of the Audi 80/90 of this era in Poland last year. None had any visible rust! Did the 80/90 just have fewer gadgets to break?
You see a lot of ’80s luxocars in former Yugoslavia since so many guest workers in Germany came home to show their success in Northern Europe; those cars are still alive and kicking in the former Balkan republics today and remind most of the now-impoverished populations of the good ol’ days under Titoism’s final act.
In Eastern Europe and Russia, also, a lot of Western cars flooded their markets and people snapped them up; they still have legendary reputations. Couple that with different standards for reliability across the continent and solid bodies and you have a recipe for long life.
I think the Accord, with its enormous rear suspension only was viable as somewhat of an Avant-style tourer and, combined with its quasi-sporty nature, you can definitely sight a parallel. Though in terms of driving experience, a Legacy Turbo would by a more apt comparison.
I’m with you on this one Perry,
After this generation of cars, Audis seem to have lost their main USP, that of sharp stylish exterior design, and their appeal has, to me at least, dropped. To me, they are now, fairly or unfairly, nicely trimmed, more upmarket VWs, with by most accounts a pretty inert driving experience.
Thanks Rog, although I have to respectfully disagree on your latter point, since Audis (mostly) have relied on a longitudinal platform not shared with (most) VWs. But I certainly agree that recent Audis have become isolated and inert, with chassis tuning designed to chase Bimmers rather than promote the unique character which defined their cars earlier.
Agree with Chris M, prefer the earlier flat-top rear wheel arch. Gives car even more of an “avant-garde” Citroenesque look. 1988, bought a 1985 5-spd 100 Avant with 100k miles from original owner. Good performance with manual transmission, up to 30 mpg hwy. Driver side window regulator only unscheduled maintenance. Wish I still had it. Sold only after divorce.
Great car, crappy automatic transmission. I had a beautiful 1990 Audi 200 Turbo sedan. Even at the end of it’s run, the 100/200/5000 Audis were beautiful cars. Very elegant. Too bad mine was a 3-speed automatic that was made out of paper maché I think. Tranny went out on it at about 210k km. I’d love to find a manual transmission 1991 200 Turbo.
Perry, you must have missed my ’90 100 CC from last year: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1990-audi-100-a-5000-under-an-assumed-identity/
Perry I have inherited a 1991 Avant unfortunately it is missing some parts in the induction system. The car was involved in an accident the dear did not survive nor did the air filter assembly and varies outer parts. I am trying to locate a detailed drawing or photos of all the induction plumping including the inter cooler its missing. any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Found out that this wagon is still alive and was purchased recently as a project car. Immediately recognized it in the pictures