A friend of mine is trying to decide between two European sedans to purchase. He's looking at a '95 850 GLT, 5-speed, 79k, and a '93 Audi 100S, auto, 112k. I've told him to go for the Volvo for its reliability; he's leaning towards the Audi because it has a V-6 engine. I can't recommend the 100 due to its questionable electrics. What do you think? I need tips.

If i were you i would tell your friend to go for the volvo, and of course so is everyone else on this website because people who come here are usually volvo enthusiasts. Just a little food for thought

And Volvos don't have "questionable electronics"?! (Hmmm...lemme think, 1982 - 1987 wiring, perhaps the worst in Automotive history.) Seriously, I can not honestly say Audis are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but then I can't say it about Volvos either.

Now, ranting done I will try to rationally help. You are comparing apples to oranges as has previously been said. Engines? Between a 1993 Audi V6 an a Volvo I5 turbo I would take the Volvo. N/A with 5spd as mentioned above sounds good too. The basic 100s is not an Audi that would excite me, and I can't imagine this choice is close in price either.

As far as weighing specific problem areas and risks I offer the following comparisons:

Electrical and climate control: advantage Audi (can anyone say evaporator?) Audi electrical systems are not as bad as people make them out to be...they are pretty solid from late 1980s on, as are Volvos now.

driveline and suspension: slight advantage to the 850 due to the manual trans

Engine reliability: Both are relatively new designs that do not have large numbers of cars up in the multi-hundred thousand mile range for datapoints. The early Audi V6 engines had some oil consumption issues and use a pair of very expensice catalytic converters. Advantage Volvo 850 (in this comparison only ...if we were comparing the Audi I5 20v turbo to the Volvo I5 20v turbo I would go the other way).

Fit and finish quality: Audi wins hands down

Safety: Slight advantage to the 850

Service requirements and costs: Despite what was written in this thread about Audi parts prices, my personal experiences (7 Audis and 4 Volvos to date and many miles on all of them) are otherwise. In almost all cases equivelent parts for my Volvos have been more than for my Audis, not a lot more, but more. Also, in every case where I have history since new the Volvos seemed to rack up as much, if not more, in service costs. The service intervals for my 1994 850t exceed the service interval requirements for my 1987 Audi 5000 turbo quattro. Despite the Audi model in question having some issues (oil consumption and catalytic converter issues) the Volvo can too (gobbles brakes and the AC evaporator fear) so I will call this a draw. (In other words, either way is a gamble...which way will you be luckier is the real question.

Fun factor: Given the choices, advantage Volvo. If the Audi were a quattro, with a stick, this opinion would change.

I had to make this very choice myself. I am a die hard quattro fanatic (and am the Motor Sports News Editor for the Quattro Club USA's magazine). I was trying to choose a new (to us) wagon for my wife to get her into something newer than our 1983 245t that would also double as our family road trip car (relegating my aging quattro to a backup role there). Audi 100cs quattro wagons are available for around 10-12k. Automatic only and have the issues described above. We opted for a Volvo 850t wagon (paid 8600) for various reasons, but to be honest I feel the Volvo was slightly more of a maintenance risk, but very close really. It came down mostly to price and my wife's preference since it is primarily her car.

I would be looking at other Audis, but the Volvo mentioned sounds like it should be followed up on. It is lighter and doesn't have all that much less power and *may* be slightly more reliable and certainly more fun. Good luck to your friend...

Not exactly apples and apples but...my daughter's 89 Audi 100 has been a boatload of little problems. The five volvos we've owned over the years have required less maintenance in total than her 89 has in just one year. A $195 sensor here, a $125 sensor there, disentegrating door hardware, and on and on. And it's only got 89K on it. Did I mention that it's slow, too? What may be different is her's is the 5 cyl. engine (which someone in an earlier post identified as the predecessor to the engine now humming along smoothly in our 5cyl bricks).

David

98 S70 T5SE | 92 940 GLE

Judging by what condition early 90's 100S's are around here in Maine, I'd definitely tilt towards the 850. My 5spd '94 850 has 230k miles and it has been incredibly reliable. In fact I still have the original clutch and the tranny is still very smooth. Chances are the 850 your bud is looking at has the cloth (velour) interior which holds up really well and doesn't look ragged like most leather interiors after 6 or 7 years.

The 5 speed has surprising pick up as well, just drive it like you mean it. I have always driven mine well into the high 4k rpm zone if not 5k on acceleration, and it hasn't missed a beat in 230,000 miles. In fact, I think these engines stay cleaner if you rev 'em high now and again.

I've had tons of cars over the years (many company cars as I travel a lot) and the 850 is hands down the most reliable of them all, and quite easy to work on.

'94 855M

'99 Saab 9-3 Viggen

'65 Microbus!

The Audi is a great car but unless your friend enjoys paying ridiculous parts prices go for the Volvo. Example, my parents had to replace two anti lock sensors on their audi 100: cost 350 Dollars for two..Dealer only item and we installed them ourselves. I have also owned Audis and I love the cars but was turned off by ridiculous parts prices and the inherent complexity of the mechanics.

Have two Volvos now: 99 S70 5 Speed with 70 K (AWESOME RELIABILITY and 30MPG)

1995 Volvo 850 5 Speed Wagon 104K Miles (Awesome reliability and still looks brand new..

Go with the Volvo!!!

Consumer Reports.....(8/92) "The new Audi 100 doesn't quite cut it. Among its several unpleasant idiosyncracies we found the erratic shifting and awkward shifter of the automatic transmission most irritating. The workings of some operating controls must be learned through experience and memorization rather than simple logic."

(8/94) (854T) "The Volvo outscored the BMW by a narrow margin, thanks mainly to it's spacious and comfortable rear seating and roomy trunk. Those may be deciding factors if you often carry passengers. The Volvo also has the fastest acceleration in this group."

CR actually liked Volvos until the last couple of years. In '95 they rated the 850 in second place "medium cars over $25,000".

BTW #1 was the Toyota Avalon....which is what your friend should actually buy.

-Groundhog

AVALON? Yuck! I cannot see someone buying that car that belongs to a...grandfather (designwise) after looking at two European sedans...Brrrrr!

Yannis