Imagine the scenario

Auto so I can jerk off

2004 fabia 1.4

and in traffic jams automatics are more convenient

Lmao you can be happy if that thing reaches 230 kph

The second generation S80 did also have a manual gearbox option. I would choose it.

Why would you choose such a luxury machine as a manual?
The whole point of that car segment is to be as detached from your surroundings as possible

v90

This.
No plus of a manual in such cars.

Automatic E38 obviously. Manual luxury is the dumbest thing ever.

Manual, as others said you'll either be cruising in top gear or driving slowly in traffic jams. It doesn't matter and an auto has a higher chance to randomly shit the bed at high speeds. (overheating etc)
Europeans and Germans in particular drive much more smoothly than Americans in traffic jams since nearly everyone is driving a manual.
Also be prepared for gerries in 1.0 cuckboxes that massively lose speed on uphills. On the autobahn I regularly get overtaken while doing 150km/h, only to see them fall back to 90 on the next hill and overtake them while still doing 150 myself

This. I don't know how Audi or BMW's auto transmissions are, but the 5G and 7G transmissions in Mercs are really good and the manual transmissions being kind of mediocre in comparison, it's rare to actually find anything outside of maybe the A-class hatchbacks that isn't automatic.

Because op wanted to have a car to choose with manual. If automatic is option of course I would choose it. And in fact I have S80 with v8 and automatic. T.

Supercharged Cherokee SRT8.

youtube.com/watch?v=FUKuD3APAtk

>autobahn machine

German here, The autobahn is a meme, everything that can drive 100 kph is just fine.
There are lots of open speed limit segments but people usually drive slower to not bur fuel.
If you go fast you will be stressed that some slow cunt could go into your lane while you do 200+ kph.
I mostly cruise 110-120 kph with my Audi A4 B6. Rarely go 150, its just not comfy.

What if you just see Germany as a big transit road?

I'm thinking about getting a A4 b8, would recommend?

Whats the implication of this? See it as whatever suits you, guess.

Have no experience in newer audis. Only stuff i heard is the typical problems like tfsi engines being shit in the first generations and too much electronics that might break down.

My dad drives an a4 b7 wagon, with the 2.0 turbo diesel. Engine is solid, is plenty enough for the weight of the car. Uses something like 6 liters diesel /100km. He has a very bare bones version with no electronics. 234 000 km and and its still going strong. He had some problems with the rear hatch lock and the rear hatch wiper motor. Replaced it himself and was ok.
Im driving the regular fuel 2.0 na with 131 hp and its also fine, engine is okay for commuting. 173 000 km and engine is fine too.
Both cars are manual, transmission is solid, had nothing to change.
I guess its an ok car, read some reviews about the engine you want in it and about electronic gremlins.

>electronic gremlins.
Oh is it bad? I have a Peugeot now and it has serious electrical problems.
I've read that pre-2012 2.0 TFSI engines have oil consumption and leak issues which apparently was fixed in 2012.

I kind of want a 3.0 TDI V6, but I'm struggling to find one in my price range with all the options I want.
Usually see 120hp gasoline engines, not sure if that's strong enough for such a large car.

The BMWs used GM 6 speeds and ZF 8 speeds. Both are alright boxes, with the ZF having pretty fast shift speeds.

The MB 5G Tronic shows its age, but is bulletproof so long as you change the fluid unlike the factory recommendation of sealed for life. The 7G Tronic is proving to be relatively reliable, quick enough, and economical. Like anything Mercedes, they're not outstanding in any one thing, but adequately good in all respects.

MB's RWD manual gearboxes have easy clutches, good shift gates, and little feedback through the stick. Not much different from modern BMW ones, really.

>so bad
I havent heard anything particularly bad, i guess audi will have some quality. But just read more in different forums.

>120hp gasoline
If its a turbo then it will feel fast. Maybe it wont have huge topspeed, but i guess it will be enough. Id just testdrive it.
A NA ill be slow. My sedan has 131 and its ok, but the added weight of the wagon will probably be a bummer.
>3.0 TDI v6
Engine will be very solid, they put it into a lot of vw models and it was proven by time that it will last. Maintenance could be a bitch however. Its a big engine and crammed into the small engine bay. This could be a huge pain in the ass. Id rather go for the 120hp, if turbo.
Also, when i changed the timing belt and waterpump on my B6, i had to get the front bumper off and unscrew the radiator just to make enogh room to reach the front of the engine. I guess its the same with your model.

>Also, when i changed the timing belt and waterpump on my B6, i had to get the front bumper off and unscrew the radiator just to make enogh room to reach the front of the engine.
That's just how Audi does things. They add a whole bunch of extra steps that aren't necessarily difficult, but take time and effort anyway.

Yes, thats true. I wanted to warn him, just in case.
Most modern cars engine bays are crammed.

>Most modern cars engine bays are crammed.
Yeah it's like that with all modern cars, BMW's too.
I miss my old 1990 Opel Vectra actually, it was so easy to work on, it was extremely reliable too.
Too bad it rusted to the ground.

> living in a shit Bundesland
Ich lachte.

>manual
>fwd
>A8

But that means no veeate

7 series all day. Not saying that I wouldn't also like to drive an S80 also

The first gen A8 was actually available with a 3.7 V8 and FWD

Why the fuck was fwd even an option on these cars?

>But do you choose the manual or do you go for automatic?

doesnt even matter. you put it in highest gear and dont touch the shifter until you get off the autobahn.

Was it? I thought that was just the base V6.

>manual
No torque converter losses, just stick it in top.

Nothings better than this, plebs

Audi 200 or V8?

it's an Audi 100, with the turbo engine from a 200 swapped in it. the previous owner was was a mad cunt

I would go with an Volvo S90 Royal, Automatic.

Did someone order a bahn burner?

Nice
I had an old 100 with the 1.8 and automatic as my first car.
Comfy as fuck

You dumb or just trying to be funny

Drove to Austria in a Chrysler Voyager last week.
3.3L v6 with autotragic 4 speed.
That thing did exactly what you described, drives 140/150 normally, then drop down to 120 whilst blasting in 3rd gear uphill, then ever so slowly climb back to 140/150.
it's a max comfy car but my god, are american drivetrains outdated.
Felt like i was back in 1995.

in a large luxury car drivetrain layout doesn't matter.
You'll never be driving on the edge of grip, be it over- or understeer. Or if you do you've bought the wrong car.
The big engines these cars have are meant for accelerating at speed. They're not meant for 0-60 times.
as a matter of fact, the fwd layout makes cars inherently more stable at high speeds. too bad that that's not a number normy's can use to compare cars.
now there are the extreme luxo-barges S8, 760, s550 etc. Off course these are built to do extreme 0-60 times and burgerring laps. But unless you want that, which OP clearly said he doesn't, you should look at the luxo barge and its intended use quite different.

Just get automatic since you'll be mostly driving through traffic jams.

t.amerifat

I'm recently converted to auto yuropoor.

Still have manual in truck.

Fucked up my leg from all the clutchwork in this hellish traffic, went to auto that I hated and guess what, it's fucking not that bad.

Enjoy my fast kickdown and outjumping other euro shitboxes daily.

I wasn't even referring to American cars specifically. Mainly to pumped up turbo ecoshits that can deliver their top power for only half a minute or so before overheating and lowering the turbo pressure.
I sometimes drive company cars for my work, and the worst one so far was a 3 cyl turbo vw polo with "75" hp. I have an old golf 3 in my garage with a 75hp n/a 1.6, it weights only 70kg less, and it's a hell of a lot quicker.
The polo had an absolute top speed of 130km/h, but it would overheat and limit to around 110. 120 was it max for constant driving, but it would only get 10km/L. (My dd, a 2.39L volvo 940 gets 11km/L)
My golf has a top speed of 170km/h gets 14 km/L when going for 140km/h, while having a low as fuck 5th gear in which it does 130 at 3800rpm. The polo did 120 at 2100rpm in 6th.
While having approximately the same power/weight on paper, the Polo was completely unfit for highway driving, while the Golf is good enough for highways limited to 130km/h.
Still my 300hp Volvo is a lot comfier on the highway, also due to better gearing for cruising and better sound isolation.

yeah, I have a stick USDM Benz c230 6 speed, and it shifts decent, but don't drive a Civic SI then get back in the benz, you'll be very sad lol

I don't think you should be comparing an old golf to a modern polo. safety regulation are so much different that the cars that are over 20 years apart will never compare.
Off course the comparison for engines stands.
And i'm a bit surprised you couldn't get the polo over 130. In what gear did you find that top-speed? it's supposed to be able to do at least 170 on flat surface. But that's probably not in the highest gear as that usually is a gear for cruising, not for performance.
Now in the situation you described, ecoboxes not able to maintain speed uphill, this could very well be due to the fact that people don't shift back (kills the fuel economy, makes noise, is 'scary'). and off course the actual problem; they are underpowered for speeds 110/120+. Let alone faster than that.
but my comment about the chrysler was merely to show that it's not solely a yuro-econobox problem. A big, heavy american can easily have the same problem.

For a one-time-trip or commute?
I commute from wolfsburg to Munich every other week because of work and auto/ manual is pretty much up to you, I drive at night so I only change gears on the on/ offramp to the autobahn. Rest of the trip is sitting at 200km/h and waiting for the end of the trip.
I had a 2015 a4 avant s-line as company-car till two months ago, worked fine (at leasing end it had 110k km), leather covers on seats were pretty worn down on the sides tho (and I'm a 6'4 85kg lanklet). 2.0tdi with cvt, averaged 10,5l/100km or about 150€ per commute

>I don't think you should be comparing an old golf to a modern polo. safety regulation are so much different that the cars that are over 20 years apart will never compare.
Sure the polo was comfier overall and safer, but it was a top trim with airco, heated seats, fanciest audio system. My point was that all modernization didn't help and it was more stressful to drive on the highway than a 20yo some what base model golf of same dimensions and weight. On top of that it was unstable and kept "falling" in truck tire tracks with its thin 145 A-brand low-resistance tires. The golf is that much faster while having 195s.
>And i'm a bit surprised you couldn't get the polo over 130. In what gear did you find that top-speed? it's supposed to be able to do at least 170 on flat surface. But that's probably not in the highest gear as that usually is a gear for cruising, not for performance.
In 4th gear it could reach 140, but you had to be driving 120 before accelerating, not much wind, and it would overheat (and the CEL would come on) after driving that for half a minute. Driving 120 in 6th gear was difficult for it as well, I had to shift back to 5th after going over 110. It wouldn't surprise me if they measured that speed with a 170km/h wind from behind.
>but my comment about the chrysler was merely to show that it's not solely a yuro-econobox problem. A big, heavy american can easily have the same problem.
American cars often had extremely low power/litre so 3.3L doesn't mean anything. Throw a crappy slushbox at it and you're left with barely any power.
The Foxbody 2.3 n/a had only 85hp, while Volvo did 125hp n/a at the same time, also on regular fuel and 8 valves. (and being a torque luxobarge)
My company had autotragic Ford Mondeos in the late 90's, people were allowed to use them during their holidays. The transmission of most that went to the mountains self destructed by constantly shifting between 3th and 4th at constant speeds.

Volvo and luxury? 940s are legit the miatas of Sweden

On the subject of Volvo's.
Why does Volvo always use such shitty leather compared to other car makers?

>Volvo and luxury? 940s are legit the miatas of Sweden
Meh I'll honestly say the handling of 940s is terrible. The only reason you can take corners with some speed and why they're popular is that they have natural tendency to oversteer and are more sensitive to weight shifting than contemporary cars.
The live axle makes every pothole a noticeable bump and the weight combined with ride height is the exact opposite of sportiness.
I think that despite being fwd, a hot hatch will be more similar to a miata than a 940.
Swedish-era Volvos? Old fashioned design and extreme sturdiness. The leather is thick as fuck and won't tear at all. The thickness makes the seats hard and gives them a huge heat capacity (ie. burnt ass in summer, frozen during winter before heating kicks in) so it's actually worse.

All era Volvo's have shitty hard leather.
It feels kinda fake

why choose a german luxury sedan as an autobahn machine? they usually top at 155mph anyways

Meant more of the buy a cheap shitty car for some fun speed and easy mods.

>S80
>german
user