Pics aplenty: 2009 Audi A4 Avant
by Damon Lavrinc on Feb 20th 2008 at 8:03PM 
Click above for a high-res gallery of the 2009 Audi A4 Avant.
Audi was nice enough to provide us with some more shots of the 2009 A4 Avant ahead of its official unveiling in Geneva next month. As discussed previously, the new estate gets an extra five inches tacked onto its back end to produce a total of 50-cubic feet of storage in the boot. At this point, Audi will only be offering those of us in the States the 2.0-liter TFSI, whereas sedan buyers can opt for the larger 3.2-liter V6. Disappointing as that may be, Audi was able to shave off ten-percent of the weight on this model when compared to the outgoing version.
Check our original post for all of the details and see the gallery below for 29 images of Audi's new A4 Avant.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Matt Keller 8:23PM (2/20/2008)
That interior.....
Amazing. I have never seen an interior so nice all around, you can't even dispute it.
Cadillac neeeeds to one up Audi. Because that destroys the CTS interior.
Reply
zamafir 8:47PM (2/20/2008)
.. Good luck, say what you want about audi's handling or reliability - if there is one thing audi has been consistently congratulated for the last decade (in terms of automotive press and accolades) it's their interior. Honestly I don’t think the outside is that bad either.
Calguy 11:59PM (2/20/2008)
It's a nice interior -but it's so cookie-cutter Audi. Same old recipe (not that it's a particularly BAD recipe). Plus, it needs cover over those nasty cup-holders. It just looks cheap without.
The exterior is fantastic though.
moose 1:14PM (2/21/2008)
It has covers for the cup holders. The armrest can slide forward and cover up the cup-holders when they are not in use. No idea why they didn't do that for the photo.
JunkStory 8:56PM (2/20/2008)
Looks nice but the rear room spacing is pretty bad.
Reply
BENJAMIN K PEREZ 9:30AM (2/21/2008)
Nice! It looks much more aggressive than the last Avant. Bodes well for an RS4, if only for other than US markets.
Reply
slim 9:43PM (2/20/2008)
just give us a tdi option in this thing!
Reply
Juan 9:18PM (2/20/2008)
Why would anyone want one of those so-called "crossovers" when you have things like this that pack 50 cubic feet of interior room and looks this good? Please enlighten me...
Reply
MajorGeek 9:39PM (2/20/2008)
I dont see it as a crossover, looks like a wagon, similar to a Mercedes I saw recently. Ill call it a wagon. Its not bad looking, but station wagons should have stayed gone.
Reply
Nick 1:18AM (2/21/2008)
MajorGeek, I think you misread the comment. Juan is saying that this wagon is way better than "those crossovers".
Jack Goodwin 9:41PM (2/20/2008)
I currently drive a 1999 A6 wagon, and I love it. If I was to get a new wagon down the road, I would definitely grab one of these bad boys.
Reply
almost Dr. G.. 9:43PM (2/20/2008)
i like wagons. a lot. id def drive this. just audis reputation pushes me aside, and not from what i read on these posts, but from my friends' personal experience. i really hope that its true that audi has come a long way. i say americans NEED to get off of their SUV powertrip and start driving small cars and wagons. they make sense. imo at least.
Reply
Ligor 10:43PM (2/20/2008)
I really don't like how all those buttons are by the shifter
once you spill coffee there once good luck footing up the bill for the electronics - it's not liek Audi is know for top notch electronics quality
But, I guess next time I buy a car It will be a station wagon - so far the BMW 3-series and C-class are the only two, the G35 will not have a wagon version, so this Audi and the CTS will be the other options, although I want a RWD one, so hopefully the G8 wagon come along as well
Reply
Nick 11:02PM (2/20/2008)
Choice is good, but if only one engine is offered, I'm glad audi picked the 2.0 TFSI. Because of the abundant low end torque, it's only slightly slower than the 3.2 and it gets way better fuel economy. For the more adventurous, a chipped 2.0T destroys the 3.2. The 4 cylinder cars also tend to be very nice handlers, as the smaller and lighter engine in the front leads to better weight distribution.
-n.
Reply
simianspeedster 12:55AM (2/21/2008)
On paper, the 2.0T makes sense, but it feels and sounds somewhat cheap and unrefined in a $40K+ wagon. We'll will bummed if the reports of the 2.0T being the only engine in America prove to be true and Audi will likely lose a sale. We have a 2006 Avant 3.2 that will be coming out of lease early next year -- we test drove a 2.0T and the 3.2 before deciding on the 3.2 (it wasn't even close). If the 2.0T is Audi offers on the B8 Avant, we'll probably end up with something else. That Saab TurboX Combi is looking better every day!
MikeW 12:47PM (2/21/2008)
There were some changes to this V6
"Enhancements to the V6 include considerably lower inner friction and a valve actuation system called the Audi Valvelift System, which varies the stroke of the intake valves."
The mileage point is probably a wash now.
The engine may be smaller, but it has an iron block + turbocharger & intercooler. How much lighter than the V6 is it?
http://gallery.audiworld.com/gallery/album386/A3C070024_medium?full=1
http://gallery.audiworld.com/gallery/album403/A4080034_medium?full=1
If you want to give away you engine warranty by chipping it, so be it. Audi can easily explain what changes, internally, were made for the S3 & TTS. And seeing as you don't have those...
http://gallery.audiworld.com/gallery/album220/S3060039?full=1
Nick 2:29PM (2/21/2008)
We'll see how much valvelift really helps. The FSI technology is crippled in the US because of our high sulfur fuel which prevents use of the stratified charge due to high NOx emissions.
Won't argue with you on the warranty point- it's a valid one and only time will tell if the chipped 2.0T's explode. Data on Stage 1 1.8T's is fairly positive as the block is strong and the bump is only about 10% of peak hp while improving low end torque by 70% (the real reason people use chips). I'd turn around the argument of 2.0T weight vs 3.2 weight and ask: how much cheaper is the 2.0T to build vs the 3.2, considering the addition of the turbo and intercooler? I'm sure it's not the 4-5K premium on the sticker. I'd venture to guess that the 2.0 engine is slightly detuned to avoid too much comparision to the 3.2. I'm not saying that chipping a car to S3 levels makes sense (or is even possible), but there are quite a few milder chips that have ~10% improvement in peak horsepower while having a big impact on low end torque.
Road and Track got a 6.5 sec 0-60 on the 2.0T A4 S-line, whereas I've never seen a 3.2 review improve upon that number. The worst I've seen is 7.9 for a 3.2 tip (apples and oranges I know). Audi V6's are nice revvers but are generally not good for the way americans drive their cars, merging into interstates and accelerating off the line. I'm skeptical of their ability to turn it around with valvelift. Anecotal fuel economy numbers on the current 3.2 are not great compared to the 2.0T, and Audi has to cripple the FSI technology in the states by disabling the stratified charge feature- which results in high NOx on US fuel.
Audi's reputation on 4 cylinders (especially turbocharged ones) is much better than their rep with the 6's.
MikeW 1:12PM (2/22/2008)
If you live at altitude, then by all means, turbo all the way.
I guess if you keep the power down to GTi edition 30 levels, instead of 250hp, 300ft-lbs you'd probably be more than safe.
With the addition of 'Audi VTEC', the tumble valves were removed.
Low speed output is enhanced with swirl from differential valve lift. Isn't it 2mm for one valve & 5.7mm for the other.
When operating in this mode (700-4000rpm), the throttle angle has to be opened to a much larger angle, for comparable cylinder filling [thanks throttle by wire], and this reduces pumping losses compared to the current valve actuation.
Does Audi even use lean burn with this V6 outside the US?
Total weight is supposed to be 375lbs, so that might be 50lbs heavier than the 2.0T, I guess use 245/45 17 tires instead of 225/50 17.
Val 11:06PM (2/20/2008)
I guess there is no pleasing the US consumer. First they cry about nice interiors, and when audi once again delivers a superb product, along with the proverbial 2 cupholders, it's the electric gremlins that spoil the deal. Judging by the latest survey that americans want cupholders more than anything else in this world, audi might have done this just to please the US buyer. But, alas, he/she cannot be fooled that easily. Now it seems that the electronics and buttons around the shifter are not coffee-resistant, unlike the ones in cadillac and lincoln, which come with a certificate for coffee-proof presurization. I wonder who will the driver of, say, for example a buick, blame for his burned crotch if he spills hot coffee on himslef and then crashes into a tree whilst looking in disbelief at the steam coming off his pants.
Reply
fizzandpop 4:15AM (2/21/2008)
A little word of advice. When you buy a 40K car, don't drink coffee in it. Duh.