You may not have noticed, but for 2002 Audi has redesigned the A4. I say you might not have noticed because they’ve redesigned it to look just like the A6, just a foot shorter. Strangely, this style works a bit better on the smaller package. The proportions are better, with a very short rear deck. Flared wheel openings, found in the A6 only on the top-of-the-line 4.2, also keep the A4 from looking as chunky as the A6 does from some unflattering angles. Best of all, the huge expanse of smoky plastic surrounding the rear plate on the A6 (and picked up by Cadillac for the upcoming CTS) is absent here. Overall, the new style works. Some people will complain that different models should look different, but I personally favor a family look among a brand's cars. Also, the old A4, once the style leader among near-luxury cars, now looks bland in comparison, even economy. I do have one caveat about the looks of the new car, but it can wait.

In addition to the styling, the other big news with the new A4 is the availability of a continuously variable transmission (CVT) instead of a conventional automatic with the front-wheel-drive models. (The A6 also gets this transmission.) This is somewhat odd, since in most parts of the country Audi sells mostly all-wheel-drive “quattros,” but I suppose they haven’t gotten the CVT to work with the all-wheel-drive system yet. What they have done that no one else has is gotten the CVT to work with a powerful engine, a 220 horsepower 3.0 liter six. (For my review of the A4 with that engine and all-wheel-drive, click here.) Until now, CVTs have only been available with much weaker engines, because there ability to handle torque has been limited. The CVT also takes the place of a conventional automatic in front-wheel-drive models with the junior A4 engine, a 170 horsepower 1.8 liter turbo four.

I’ll take a shot at explaining how a CVT works. Basically, it involves a pair of beveled pulleys linked by a chain. Each pulley has two separate halves, the distance between which can be varied. When the halves are brought together, the chain is forced higher up the bevels of the pulley, effectively increasing the pulley’s diameter. And vice versa. The transmission is “continuously variable” because the distance between the pulley halves is infinitely variable between their extreme positions. The problem has been designing a chain that does not slip (since it is held in place entirely by pressure) and does not break. Audi seems to have gone well beyond previous limits, in part by having the chain pulled rather than pushed. Since this is how a bicycle chain works, I have no idea why other CVT manufacturers bother with the push method.

Why is “continuously variable” an advantage? It should be smoother than a conventional automatic, because it can slide smoothly from one gear ratio to another rather than jumping. It should get better fuel economy, because it does without a conventional automatic’s torque converter (“slush box”) and enables taller gearing. And it should enable faster acceleration. Theoretically, a CVT should be able to let an engine quickly jump to the RPM where it makes the most power, and then hold it there as the car accelerates. With other transmission designs, the engine is always starting well below the point at which it makes the most power, accelerating to a point where it is beyond this point to the redline, and then moving back below this point when the transmission shifts. Peak horsepower does not totally determine acceleration. Horsepower across the entire RPM range the engine uses while accelerating does. With a CVT, the engine can theoretically be kept right at the RPM where peak power is made for much of the time it is accelerating, which off the top of my head I’d guess could easily be equivalent to 15% more effective horsepower. It also helps that a CVT can cover a broader range of ratios, so that it can start lower and finish higher than a conventional transmission, improving both performance and economy.

The problem with actually doing this is it feels weird, at least to people used to conventional transmissions. Whether you know it or not, an engine sounds right when it is continuously gaining RPM, then shifting, then gaining RPM again. When the engine stays at a set RPM while the car is accelerating, it just sounds wrong, as if the transmission were slipping or something. Which it is, but then with a CVT that’s how it works.

To provide the option of a more “natural” driving experience, Audi's CVT acts like a manually shiftable six-speed automatic when the shifter is in the “tiptronic” position (located in a short slot to the right of "D"). In this mode the driver is able to move among six predefined ratios using either buttons on the steering wheel or the shifter.

Intrigued by this new transmission, I test drove a new A4 equipped with one.

Audi A4 Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to more clearly know what difference it will make if you buy an Audi A4 rather than something else? My website, truedelta.com, will be providing this information in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats.

From these stats you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.3 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision than you can today.

I aim to provide the highest quality information to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, these goals conflict. If I simply give the information away, few will help provide it. So I'm doing the next best thing: those who have been active participants for at least six months will receive free access to this site's reliability information; otherwise this access will cost $24.95. The average time commitment for someone reporting on two cars will be (at most) 15 minutes a year, so you'll essentially receive $100 an hour for doing your share to help everyone make better decisions.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

Styling and accommodations

I’ve already commented on the exterior, with one exception. The only car the dealer had with a CVT was a base car, metallic paint and a sunroof its only optional equipment. This meant it had the base tires and wheels, the former being 205/65R15s. Now, the base wheels are fairly clumsy looking to begin with, with a large number of thick, flat spokes. But the huge sidewalls of the base tires are even worse. Together, this tire and wheel combination on this car looks flat-out awful. The A6 styling of the new A4 looks pudgy without large wheels to trick the eye a bit. If you’re considering an Audi at all, it’s likely because of the style. And for this car to have style, it needs at least the 16” wheels. So spend the extra $450. Even those are marginal. It really takes the 17” wheels that come with the $1,000 “Sport Package” to look its best. But I’m a bit wary of recommending this package before I drive it because the stiffer suspension and shorter sidewalls are bound to affect the car’s ride, the only question being how much. So I’d advise driving the sport package car over the sort of roads you typically travel on, and if you find the ride acceptable spend the extra grand.

Inside we have the usual Audi interior, which is to say the best you’ll find in a German car, with high quality materials and stylish yet tasteful touches all around. The 1.8T is available with only cloth and leatherette, a fancy word for high quality vinyl that many people will be hard-pressed to tell isn’t leather. I sat is a car with leatherette, it feels up to this class of car. The car I drove had the cloth. It’s has a thick diamond texture to it. It looks and feels at once stylish and durable, if not quite luxurious. If you want real leather, you’ll have to spring for the six. Which you might want to do anyway, but more on that later.

The new A4 is a bit larger here and there on the outside, which translates to an inch more rear seat leg room. That extra inch is nice to have, but it isn’t going to make the A4 a roomy car. It’s still a compact. Larger men will have trouble fitting into the rear seat. People about my size (5Í”) will fit back there, but as in other cars in this class a higher cushion to provide more thigh support would still be welcome. I guess that’s what the A6 is for.

The interior may not be larger, but the new A4 from the driver’s seat feels like a much larger car. Thank the A6 styling, which brings with it a higher cowl and beltline (base of the windows). As a result, while the width of the cabin feels fairly compact (in a generally good, sporty way) the car still feels fairly massive. Like in the A6, you’re a bit buried in the car. Nothing like in the TT, but a definite change from the old car and much different from the ambiance of, say, an Acura TL. I’d personally like more glass, but people seem to expect a more closed in feeling in a high-priced car. At least that’s what nearly all of them provide.

The trunk is decently sized and usefully shaped. For more cargo space, the rear seat folds down in two sections.

On the road

A couple things about the car I drove stole my attention. I hope to drive a six to get a more thorough taste. Aside from the specific details that follow, my main impressions were that this car drives like other Audis I’ve driven in the past. Meaning it has that solid buttoned down feel typical of German cars. . The ride had a bit of bump-thump that was heard more than felt; it was generally composed. Noise levels were reasonably low, in line with this class of car.

The car’s weight probably helps its ride. Audi talks a lot about all of the aluminum used in the suspension to keep weight down. Nevertheless, the new A4 is about 100 lbs. heavier than the old one. At 3400 lbs. even in base CVT form it ranks up there with the average mid-sized American or Japanese car (i.e. a loaded Taurus or Camry).

This weight is not good for acceleration. With the 1.8 acceleration is definitely adequate, but falls well short of thrilling, the best efforts of the CVT notwithstanding. In a 3400 lbs. car, 170 horses can only do so much. The manual transmission will help here (at least in terms of sensation; Audi claims 0-60 is the same at 7.8), the six (3627 lbs. in quattro automatic form!) even more.

The handling is fairly nimble, if not sharp (the Sport Package would help here). There is too much roll for aggressive driving, but that’s why a sport package with a stiffer suspension is an option. The steering wheel has a great shape and feel to it—I want this wheel in my car.

The seats in the German idiom are firm yet supportive. The four-way power lumbar support is very nice. If you want power seats, you’ve got to get the six. In the four, height is adjustable manually, but only up and down, no tilt. The base seats don’t have much in the way of lateral support, but the cloth is grippy. Seats with more aggressive bolsters are not available, so leather or leatherette could pose a problem for aggressive drivers.

The couple of things I want to talk about are the engine and transmission. First, the transmission. After all, it’s why I drove the car in the first place. My sister also drove the car, and my father was also along for the ride. (Supposedly we were shopping for a new car for my sister, but this one was a bit out of her price range.) Neither one of them noticed anything unusual about the transmission. Which is saying a lot, since past CVTs I’ve driven have made it sound like the car was about to die, or like a sewing machine gone beserk, take your pick. I had to pay attention to the tachometer to get a sense of what was going on. When I floored the accelerator, RPM would instantly jump to 4500, then very slowly build as the car accelerated. I suppose they built in a little bit of RPM gain to make the engine sound “right.” We're used to hearing revolutions build as speed builds. This compromise to consumer expectations must take its toll on acceleration, as 4500 RPM is 1400 RPM shy of the engine’s power peak. I had the transmission in D. There was also an S setting, which I believe would tell the transmission to allow the engine to spin faster. At any rate, Audi has done an excellent job making a CVT powertrain feel right. At 20/29, fuel economy is actually one MPG worse than last year's car with a conventional automatic, but they've done so well with the other aspects of the transmission I'll let this one slide.

Ah, but then there’s the engine. This engine appears in a large number of VW and Audi models, producing anywhere from 150 to 225 horsepower. The main difference from version to version is the amount of boost provided by the turbo. The more boost, the more power, but also the longer the lag before the turbo kicks in. In the A4’s 170 horsepower version lag is minimal. Unfortunately, vibration is not. At idle, this engine vibrated the whole car in a minor yet all too noticeable manner, entirely out of keeping for a $28,000 car. The CVT also had the turbo working hard, making for a lot of noticeable whistling. I’ve driven turbo cars in the past where this whistling added to the performance feeling of the car. Here the sensation is somehow more semi, as in 18-wheeler. At highway speeds, even the most minor stab at the accelerator leads to whistling, maybe that’s why. Strangely, I noticed neither the vibration nor the ever-present whistling in the automatic 1.8 turbo Jetta (with ten more horsepower) I drove earlier the same day. In the A4, unlike the Jetta, the engine is mounted longitudinally. But usually this allows for engine vibration to be better isolated. Maybe the lack of a torque converter hurts? I don’t know. What I do know is that I do not feel the 1.8 turbo four as executed here is suitable for this price car. Maybe if they executed it like in the Jetta, where I found it more than acceptable, but for some reason they did not. The six is a lot more money, but in this car it’s the way to go.

Last words

The new A4 looks good and the CVT is done right. Then again, most will be sold with quattro anyway, which comes with a conventional automatic. I guess they spent all their energy on the hard stuff, because somehow the four cylinder has not been implemented in this car nearly as well as in the Jetta, at least not with the CVT. (The 1.8 may feel better with the manual.) Otherwise, the new A4 is a very good car. Just be sure to get it with the six (if only for the added refinement) and the optional wheels. I’ve given the A4 three stars here because of the engine. I expect the 3.0 would get at least one more star, and quite possibly two. A second test drive will tell.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough, up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Amount Paid (US$): 27000
Model Year: 2002
Model and Options: base CVT