One of the most persistent dangers of doing this job is finding cars that I want to buy for myself. Especially since I have kinda-sorta been thinking about another “fun” car ever since I sold my MG. An old Audi has been on my list of cars to look for since time out of mind, but since they’re so rare, they’re usually not much of a temptation. But then I find these two, nearby and reasonably-priced. Our Lady Of German Engineering, give me strength. Since I’m not realistically in a position to buy either one of them right now, I’ll just show them to you and see what you think.
We looked at a couple of pink Hondas yesterday, and I was surprised by the outcome: the Bubblicious-colored Element came out on top. Was it just that the CRX was so sad-looking? Maybe so. The Element’s ad did show a couple of red flags (pink flags?) that I didn’t notice at first glance; there is a chance that those interior photos don’t go with that car. Hopefully everything is on the up-and-up, and it serves someone well. They certainly won’t lose it in a parking lot.
For me, it’s simple; I like the Element, but I have wanted a CRX since they came out. It’s one of those cars that has just never been in the right place at the right time, but I wouldn’t turn this one down on account of some faded paint and a boop on the nose. It’s maybe a little bit more expensive than it should be, but that’s where prices are going. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.

My parents had a lot of unusual cars when I was growing up, but they kept coming back to two automakers: Chrysler and VW/Audi. That will come as no surprise to anyone who reads this column regularly and knows my taste in cars, I’m sure. I’ve had plenty of Chrysler products over the years, but I never went back to VW, and I’ve never had an Audi of my own. As with CRXs, it was never the right car in the right place at the right time. Audi gets a bad rap for reliability, particularly the newer ones, but these old models are fairly simple machines. Electronics may fail, power features may conk out, but the basic guts of them are sturdy. And with the exception of the Quattro models, they’re usually cheap – if you can find one. Well, I found two, so let’s take a look at them.
1986 Audi 4000 CS – $2,500

Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter OHC inline-4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Odometer reading: 190,000 miles (but it’s broken, so more than that)
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Audi changed its cars’ names when it brought them over to the US, and I couldn’t tell you why. In Europe, this car is called the Audi 80, but here it’s the 4000. The CS designation marks this car as a “Commemorative Design” edition, available only in 1986. I don’t remember the exact details, but it was basically a fancy interior and maybe some special wheels. Neat, but not really anything special. The CS package is more commonly seen on the 4000 Quattro or the Coupe GT, making this a pretty rare car. But as we all know, rare doesn’t necessarily mean valuable.

The 4000 Quattro came with Audi’s five-cylinder engine, but the 2WD version made do with a 1.8-liter four, usually coupled to a three-speed automatic, which is what this car has. It’s not what you’d call speedy, but it gets the job done. The seller says it has had a lot of recent work done, and it runs and drives great. In fact, it was daily driven not too long ago.

This is the only photo we get of the interior, and it’s not much to go on. It has what looks like aftermarket vinyl covers on the front seats. The seats should be suede or velour under them, and I would hope that they’re in good condition, but I fear they’re not. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the power stuff doesn’t work, too. It’s just how it is.

Audi started galvanizing the bodies of its cars sometime in the ’80s, so it’s rare to see one with much in the way of rust. But of course, other stuff can rust too, like suspension arms and brake lines, so it’s still worth checking it out underneath. I do see a little bit of rust along the leading edge of the hood, and possibly a bubble or two in the rear wheel arches, but for a forty-year-old Michigan car, it’s in remarkable shape. The aftermarket cherry-bomb muffler poking out from under the bumper worries me a bit; I hope it’s not the only thing quieting the exhaust.
1986 Audi 5000 CS Turbo – $2,200

Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.2-liter OHC inline 5, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Laingsburg, MI
Odometer reading: 131,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
This car would have been known in Europe as the Audi 200, and it was the flagship of the line until the V8 sedan came out in 1990. One of the Audis my family had when I was younger was a 5000 CS Turbo like this, and it was a damn nice car. This one doesn’t look quite as fancy as the one we had, but it has one feature none of our Audis ever had: a five-speed manual transmission.

The turbocharger adds almost fifty horsepower to Audi’s legendary inline five, and from what I remember it’s all up top. Performance off the line is about the same between the turbo and non-turbo versions, but passing gear is a whole other ball game. It probably wouldn’t feel nearly as fast to me now, since I’m used to a Chrysler Hemi, but back when I was 18, the turbo kicking in made me giggle. This one has only 131,000 miles to its name, and recently had a new clutch, brakes, and timing belt installed. The seller does mention that it has an oil leak that needs some attention; they think it’s coming from the pan gasket. But other than that, it’s in fine mechanical shape.

The interior of these cars is really nice, and this one is in good shape. There’s a smudge or something on the driver’s seat bolster, and some discoloration on the door panel, but otherwise it’s clean. Again, I’m sure there is something broken in there, there always is, but the seller does say that the air conditioning works beautifully.

The outside looks really nice, but there is one rust spot on the right rear quarter panel. Apparently it was involved in a fender-bender and repaired ages ago, and now the repair has started to rust a tiny bit. You can redo it, or just ignore it, which is what I’d probably do. It also has some rock chips in the leading edge of the hood; I’m guessing it lived on a gravel road at one point.
Personally, I’d be happy with either of these. They both have their strengths and weaknesses: the 4000 is going to be a bit pokey, but it’s a much simpler car. The 5000 would be more fun, especially with its manual transmission, but it’s an order of magnitude more complicated. Either one is more DIY-friendly than any Audi made in the last twenty years, though. Which way would you go?






Gimme the 5000 and a bumper sticker reading “FOAD, 60 Minutes.”
I had a 5000T of about this vintage and loved it. Until it broke down and would cost more to repair than it was worth. Despite that, had a very comfortable interior and would get up and go. Could cruise at 80 or more all day with a smooth comfortable ride. 5000 gets my vote.
If the 4000 was a stick, I would have chosen that. But with the 3spd sludgepump, no way, Jose.
So I will take my chances with the 5000, and make sure I always have comfy walking shoes on. Love the look of these things, even don’t mind how they drive, but plenty of experience with just how reliable they were NOT even when relatively new cars, never mind 40 years on. At least these were one of the most rust-resistant cars of it’s era, so being from MI isn’t as scary as it might be otherwise. Shame it’s not a wagon, but I don’t think the turbo wagon was a thing yet in ’86 in the US.
It’s even prettier than I remember.
And really, an inspiration for the Ford Taurus’ design. And that was a pretty good American car for that era.
I may go down a rabbit hole tonight and see what a decent example of the ’86 (coincidentally, same year!) Accord LX-i I bought new back then goes for. I LOVED that car. I loved (lower case) my Peugeot 504s and my ’88 Saab 9000 Turbo, but that Accord was so solid. I’ve bought two more Hondas (at 2nd gen CR-V and my current DD ’17 Accord V6) and an Acura MDX since then and none of them have been disappointing or money pits.
And I went with the overwhelming majority with the 5000.
I saw one of this generation 100/200/5000 in France the other week and it was a pleasant surprise – I never see them anymore even here.
Clearly the 5000 is winning this in a case of unintended acceleration.
Ha! My (then) 89-year-old mom managed to do the root cause in a much newer car.
Fortunately, she hit the back end of a pickup truck with a hitch and didn’t do any damage to it and more importantly, didn’t hurt anyone. A punched in front end and radiator was enough to total her car.
And my brother and I were happy to let the state take away her keys instead of us having to do it.
I had a first generation Audi 5000. Because I could not afford a Quattro you never ever ever see first gen 5000 anymore.
I’m voting for the 4000, I never really like the updated 5000, it was just too big and round
I bought one of the first 5000’s to hit the dealership in 78, 4 speed manual too. It was a terrific car. Later i bought an 83 (last year of the first gen) and it also was wonderful.
I had two, both from 1979, the first one was automatic, but it got in a wreck, and the second one is manual, but it rusted out pretty fast
I liked the 4000 better – back in the day working for Audi I drove them regularly – but with the auto gearbox it’s a dog, the 5000 turbo sounds like it’s actually in better shape, esp since the A/C still works!
Oh, and the comment about these being simpler cars than anything Audi builds now hits home hard, as I have a 2017 and a 2018 Allroad. Complex doesn’t begin to describe them, tho *touch wood* mine have been dead reliable.
And seeing the insides of an Audi V8 gives me the creeps.
Before I started reading I thought this looked like a great match up, but now that I have read the article I am going to guess that, like me, 90%+ are going to vote for the cheaper, lower mileage, better condition, more powerful car with the manual transmission.
And now that I have cast my vote, yeah, utterly unsurprised that the 5000 currently has more than 95% of the votes.
Yeah, it’s kind of a no-brainer, it’s not even a case where the options are kinda close, if they were both inline-5’s and 4-speeds, only one turbocharged and manual while the other is N/A and auto, I could see some contention due to the 4000 being simpler and lighter, but with a 1.8 OHC and a 3-speed, there’s an absolute chasm to cover before a candle can be held up to the 2.2T and 5-speed manual.
You had me at “Turbo” and “Five speed”
Just get the 5000 Mark,I know you want it. You can probably get the price down a bit,and it look really decent.
I’ll take the stick five thousand, as it won’t be affected by that dreaded ‘unintended acceleration.’
Reminds me of the ditzy high school girls in the 90s. “I’m leaving” became “I’m out of here” became “I’m outtie” became “I’m outtie, outtie five thou” like an Audi 5000. Like these 80s haircuts gen-Z young men are wearing these days, it was bad then, and it’s bad now.
My wife had one of these when we first met, but that Audi seems too good not to vote for it.
I don’t know which is the “correct” choice, but I’ll always go with the one that has more power, a manual trans, and more headaches to eventually drive me nuts. 5000’s an easy choice.
Most of the problems I had with my 100cs quattro was the automatic trans, and the 12v V6. That 5000 has neither, and those engines have support. so the 5000 is a no-brainer.
It’s got to be the 5000. I grew up riding in two 5000s – an ’81 Turbo and an ’85 turbodiesel. Both were mostly reliable other than some electrical gremlins. The diesel did need one head gasket over the course of 250 000 km.
You’re right about the turbo adding top end. These are definitely not quarter-mile cars, but passing power on the highway was where they shone. Even the td would surprise you when you dropped a gear to pass at highway speeds.
I’ll take a 4000 CS Quattro for $1000 more:
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/1513477757232037/?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3Aa1832a2b-5701-4759-b7a1-782464356392
With a stick, no less!
I don’t know, Ed Bradley says the 5000 is evil and will kill me and everyone I care about
Was this before or after they “reported” on the “French Parodox” and convinced Americans that red wine was actually good for the heart?
They’re not forgiven for that piece of obvious graft, either.
Don’t forget all the reports that consuming eggs noticeably raises serum cholesterol in the blood stream
And margarine is healthier than butter!
Ed Bradley would kill you and everyone you care about if it boosted ratings.
I had a 4000 (well, an 80 in the UK) for about 4 years. Perhaps surprisingly it was 100% reliable apart from the odometer but I guess about 50-60k miles. It had a stick though, so here I pick the 5000. It was the 1.8E so it was fuel injected. Could you even get it with carbs in the US? That was the 1.8S back then
5k all the way!
Comparing these two is like choosing between a rocket ship and a very comfortable, beautifully styled boat anchor.
5000 because it’s 1000 better.
5000
It’s impossible to overemphasize what a stir the 5000 made in the US when it was released. It looked like the 21st century had arrived a bit early. I still really dig these, and it’s an easy choice today.
Easiest one in a while. The 5000 all the way. The inline 5 Turbo with a stick. Oh yeah!
I have a soft-spot for the 4000 but the 5000 looks to be in better shape, it has a manual, and the better engine.
Here you go:
https://www.theautopian.com/which-old-audi-is-more-your-speed-1986-audi-4000-cs-vs-1986-audi-5000-cs/comment-page-2/#comment-1047223