B8 A4 1.8T or 2.0T Multitronic.

Quantum Theory said:
Google brought me here, so I'm going to revive this old thread... almost a year later.

Are you guys still happy with your Multitronic gearboxes, or are there issues to report? I'm looking at an A4 1.8T Multitronic.
Click to expand...

I've had my 2.0T B8 for about 2 years now and still love it. Have had no problems at all. Best car I've ever had by a long way.
 
Thorin said:
I've had my 2.0T B8 for about 2 years now and still love it. Have had no problems at all. Best car I've ever had by a long way.
Click to expand...

Excellent. I know motoring journalists don't really like CVT boxes, but I guess you can't compare the multitronic gearbox with Japanese CVT's... Good to see only good things in this thread. If the drive and the deal is right, I'm going to take this one :D
 
Quantum Theory said:
Excellent. I know motoring journalists don't really like CVT boxes, but I guess you can't compare the multitronic gearbox with Japanese CVT's... Good to see only good things in this thread. If the drive and the deal is right, I'm going to take this one :D
Click to expand...

Bad reps seem to last for years. The old multitronic boxes gave issues. They have since fixed the major issues.

You wont be sorry. They are simply fantastic cars.
 
My wife traded in her 1.8T multitronic 2 months ago. She lost R40k on trade in because of the multitronic and the mileage (180K).
The dealer said more often than not the gearbox needs to be replaced by 200K and is around R80k. They split this in half and share the cost when you trade in.
She called around to see if this was the case amongst dealers and it appeared to be so, and so she took the R40k knock.

This on a B7. Dunno about the B8s, but a heads up anyway.

I am on my fourth Audi now (currently an A6 3.2 Fsi Quattro) and all have been tiptronic. I did not enjoy driving my wifes car. For me, tiptronic is much nicer than multitronic.
 
I've looked at a couple of A4 1.8T's with low mileage. One was an Attraction, but the one I'm interested in, is an Ambition. Something that is concerning me, is that it does not have the A4 or 1.8T lettering on the back. Could this mean that it's been in a rear-end collision? I can't see any other signs that something is/was wrong...
 
They probably didn't want people to see they could only afford the entry level A4.
 
Wow it's been almost two years since anybody posted on here... Well I hate digging up old bones but I am looking for accurate fuel consumption figures from these 2.0T Multitronic Audi's, particularly the 2010 model...

The reason for me asking is that the wife and I test drove one today and she's really keen on getting it. I'm just worried that it returns insane fuel consumption which will surely sour the overall experience for us... Power is brilliant and I'm still struggling to get my tongue out of my throat and my eye lids to close, but I'll be fine I'm sure :)

So if you own/have owned one of these, please share. Also, I'm not sure how many KW's the 2010 2.0T has, maybe if someone could give me some info on that too I'd be really happy.

Thanks gents

Werner
 
Honestly, I'd avoid a CVT if at all possible and rather go for either a Tiptronic or S-Tronic.

Not sure on fuel economy myself but from what I've heard a CVT is usually much heavier.

The 2.0 TFSI should be around 150 kw if I'm not mistaken
 
Last edited:
The 2.0T delivers 155kW & 350Nm (from launch in 2008 until today)

The quattro model has the S-tronic gearbox, the non-quattro is still stuck with the Multitronic. In my humble opinion the multitronic does not do the engine justice, the combination does not gel so well. It pulls great, yes, until you experience the same engine with the S-tronic gearbox...

Cannot comment on fuel consumption for the multitronic...the S-tronic would be more fuel efficient though.
 
I get about 10l/100ks freeway driving on a 2.0T multi. 11ish if I'm not watching the speedometer. 9ish if I'm cruising. Heavy in urban areas. Its an awesome drive. About 550km from a 60l tank. If you drive sensibly you should be able to get that up to 580 or so.
 
Problem with fuelly is that people often neglect mentioning the transmission they have so one can't be entirely sure.
 
Quantum Theory said:
No it's not...
Click to expand...

I'll defer to your input. I honestly haven't owned one myself, so I'm speaking from indirect knowledge. Might have been due to those being older CVT's then, if the new ones are truly improved then I apologize for my misconception
 
Debeer165 said:
I'll defer to your input. I honestly haven't owned one myself, so I'm speaking from indirect knowledge. Might have been due to those being older CVT's then, if the new ones are truly improved then I apologize for my misconception
Click to expand...

It's never been "much heavier" TBH. We can't compare A4's, but... Suzuki Kizashi 2.4L is 7.9l/100km for manual vs 7.9l/100km for CVT. Nissan Qashqai 2.0L is 8.1l/100km for manual vs 8.2l/100km for CVT. New Corolla 1.8L is 7l/100km for manual vs 6.4l/100km for CVT. Worst one (with consumption) I know about, is the one I own. Jeep Patriot 2.4L is 8.5l/100km for manual vs 9.1l/100km for CVT.

Mechanically CVT is a very efficient technology. It is the feel that most people don't like, but when you learn how to drive it, it becomes quite pleasant.
 
Just did an 8 hour Road trip. 8.1l/100km using cruise control where possible. B8 A4 2.0T multitronic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X