Rare Rides: The 1990 Audi V8 Quattro, First Time Full-size Failure

rare rides the 1990 audi v8 quattro first time full size failure

In our last Rare Rides, we discussed how the W126 S-Class established the model as a default for the large German sedan shopper. I also referenced the failed attempt at S-Class competition which was the Audi V8 Quattro.

So today let’s expound upon that failure a bit.

Prior to the V8 Quattro, Audi had built sporty small four-wheel drive cars, and luxurious midsize cars with front- and four-wheel drive versions, but never a full-size car. That changed in the fall of 1988 when the company started production of its new flagship.

Aside from its size, the V8 Quattro carried a couple of other firsts for the brand. It was the very first time any Audi used a V8 engine and predicting the future of the brand a couple of decades later, it was the first Audi to combine Quattro all-wheel drive with an automatic transmission. Imagine Audi’s crossover sales in 2020 if all-wheel drive required a manual. Laughable!

Audi did not create an all-new platform for their new large car, but rather stretched one from the 100/5000 instead. The resulting larger chassis was called the D1, and Audi layered on technology and features for its first-ever full-sizer. The body was galvanized steel and carried a 10-year corrosion perforation warranty. There were two all-new engines to power the V8 Quattro, in 3.6- and 4.2-liter displacements. Earlier examples from 1988 through the model’s discontinuation in November 1993 offered the 3.6 (247hp), while the 4.2 (276hp) was only available from late 1991 onward. The automatic transmission on offer was a ZF-built four-speed, while the manual transmission depended on engine selection. Cars with the 3.6 offered a five-speed manual, but the 4.2 offered a six-speed. It’s worth remembering that outside North America, a V8 engine was not usually standard equipment for a large luxury sedan. Buyers would normally opt for the V8 over many smaller 6 cylinder gasoline and diesel engines, and pay a hefty premium.

Standard equipment on the V8 Quattro included many niceties for which other manufacturers of the day charged extra. Climate control, cruise control, central locking, tinted glass, Bose stereo, car phone, halogen lamps, and walnut trim to name a few. But its most notable feature was the Quattro system. It was the only full-size luxury sedan on sale with all-wheel drive.

Not that it mattered to most consumers, who sought rear-drive for their large luxury cars circa 1990. The V8 Quattro could not compete with established German players like the 7 Series and S-Class, even with its novel method of power distribution. The unsuccessful V8 Quattro was discontinued at the end of 1993, as in 1994 the D2 A8 was ready as Audi’s second full-size salvo. It did much more respectably and was more in line with its competition than the debut version (and had six-cylinder engines for Europe). North America had no large Audi again until 1997 when the A8 was finally delivered.

Today’s Rare Ride was sold on Bring-A-Trailer back in 2016, as I couldn’t find a remotely decent example for sale today. Nagging reliability and a probable lack of parts availability took most V8 Quattros off the road long ago. In pearl white (the correct color) over black, this one sold for $3,000 in excellent condition.

[Images: seller]

Join the conversation
9 of 26 comments
  • ThomasSchiffer ThomasSchiffer on Oct 28, 2020

    Back in the day this was on my list of dream cars. I am old enough to remember the introduction of this car into the market well. It was a novelty for Audi at the time. It certainly looked good at the time, at least to me. This is because when I was growing up your typical Audi was an underpowered and slow but relatively well-made lower to mid-middle class car which would rust after maybe five or seven years. And the much praised Quattro system was not available on most Audis, only on a select few chosen high-end trim models, which weren’t sales successes. The Quattro breakthrough only occurred with the C3 Audi 100/200 (known as 5000 in North America) and the Audi Quattro Coupe. But the car flopped because Audi’s image was not yet up to par with BMW and Mercedes-Benz and despite the perceived value-for-money, those who could afford such a car gladly paid a little more to get a BMW 7er or Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse (which later were also available with V12 engines). Also, at the time of introduction, sales of manual transmissions in the BMW 7er and S-Klasse from Mercedes-Benz were on a massive decline anyways, so this car might have gotten the interest of a sporty driver who valued doing their own shifting and was not opposed to AWD. In my neighborhood in Munich there is actually an Audi V8 Quattro, a gray model with dents all over and clouded headlights. It sporadically changes parking positions indicating that it gets used from time to time. I have never seen the owner(s) but this car cannot be used as cheap transportation considering the outrageous rip-off fuel prices we have to pay here.

  • Jagboi Jagboi on Oct 28, 2020

    At the time though, a typical American V8 put out about the same power as a European 4 cylinder and burned a lot more fuel to do it. Looking at the Town Car for example, a European would have been astonished that a 5.0 V8 only put out 150 hp. Staying with Ford, the European Sierra had a 2.0 that put out 125 hp, and the 2.0 turbo was 225 hp. Ford knew how to make small, powerful, fuel efficient engines in Europe, why didn't they do that in North America?

    • See 6 previous
    • Ajla Ajla on Nov 01, 2020

      @Jagboi "Catalytic converters in Europe were optional in 1990, mandatory for 1992." I'll take that as a "no" on the Sierra Cosworth having one then. "The Rover V8 and Jaguar V12 were both 1960’s designed 2 valve engines and each put out almost double the power per litre of the Ford 302." So were the American V8s you're using as examples. The Ford 302 came out in 1966 and you're choosing the lowest spec version as comparison.

  • FreedMike Back in the '70s, the one thing keeping consumers from buying more Datsuns was styling - these guys were bringing over some of the ugliest product imaginable. Remember the F10? As hard as I try to blot that rolling aberration from my memory, it comes back. So the name change to Nissan made sense, and happened right as they started bringing over good-looking product (like the Maxima that will be featured in this series). They made a pretty clean break.
  • Flowerplough Liability - Autonomous vehicles must be programmed to make life-ending decisions, and who wants to risk that? Hit the moose or dive into the steep grassy ditch? Ram the sudden pile up that is occurring mere feet in front of the bumper or scan the oncoming lane and swing left? Ram the rogue machine that suddenly swung into my lane, head on, or hop up onto the sidewalk and maybe bump a pedestrian? With no driver involved, Ford/Volkswagen or GM or whomever will bear full responsibility and, in America, be ambulance-chaser sued into bankruptcy and extinction in well under a decade. Or maybe the yuge corporations will get special, good-faith, immunity laws, nation-wide? Yeah, that's the ticket.
  • FreedMike It's not that consumers wouldn't want this tech in theory - I think they would. Honestly, the idea of a car that can take over the truly tedious driving stuff that drives me bonkers - like sitting in traffic - appeals to me. But there's no way I'd put my property and my life in the hands of tech that's clearly not ready for prime time, and neither would the majority of other drivers. If they want this tech to sell, they need to get it right.
  • TitaniumZ Of course they are starting to "sour" on the idea. That's what happens when cars start to drive better than people. Humanpilots mostly suck and make bad decisions.
  • Inside Looking Out Why not buy Bronco and call it Defender? Who will notice?