Audi Cabriolet

Audi Cabriolet: which version to buy (1991–2000)

If you are choosing an Audi Cabriolet from the single 1 generation (1991–2000, Cabrio, 11 versions), the numbers pick a clear ranking. 2.8 MT is the fastest and strongest: 174 hp, 250 Nm, 9.8 s to 100 km/h, 218 km/h. 2.8 AT keeps the same 174 hp Gasoline 6-cylinder V-shaped engine and 250 Nm, but 0–100 takes 11.1 s (1.3 s slower) and top speed is 217 km/h.

If you are choosing an Audi Cabriolet from the single 1 generation (1991–2000, Cabrio, 11 versions), the numbers pick a clear ranking. 2.8 MT is the fastest and strongest: 174 hp, 250 Nm, 9.8 s to 100 km/h, 218 km/h. 2.8 AT keeps the same 174 hp Gasoline 6-cylinder V-shaped engine and 250 Nm, but 0–100 takes 11.1 s (1.3 s slower) and top speed is 217 km/h. 2.3 MT is the lightest strong Gasoline pick: 133 hp at 1350 kg kerb (10.15 kg/hp), 10.8 s, 198 km/h — 105 kg lighter than 2.8 MT at 1455 kg. 1.8 MT beats 2.0 MT on power despite a smaller 1781 cm³ engine (125 hp vs 115 hp). 1.9 MT is the only version with a full city / highway / combined mpg set: 7.5 / 5.2 / 5.6 L/100 km Diesel Turbo, 90 hp. There is no second generation in this catalogue, so the choice is between these 11 names, not between years of a later Cabrio.

Specs table: every version in 1 generation

2.8 MT torque is 250 Nm (same as 2.8 AT). All 11 versions are FWD, Front, longitudinal, 95 gasoline or Diesel fuel as labelled, and disc brakes front and rear (data label: Disc). Eco class is not measured on every version.

Manual vs Automatic: what the gearbox costs in seconds

Five engines exist as both Manual and Automatic. The Automatic is always 4 speeds; the Manual is always 5.

• 1.8 MT 11.5 s / 195 km/h vs 1.8 AT 13.5 s / 192 km/h: Automatic costs 2.0 s and 3 km/h.
• 2.3 MT 10.8 s / 198 km/h vs 2.3 AT 12.6 s / 194 km/h: Automatic costs 1.8 s and 4 km/h.
• 2.6 MT 10.2 s / 209 km/h vs 2.6 AT 11.4 s / 207 km/h: Automatic costs 1.2 s and 2 km/h.
• 2.8 MT 9.8 s / 218 km/h vs 2.8 AT 11.1 s / 217 km/h: Automatic costs 1.3 s and 1 km/h.
• 1.9 MT and 1.9 AT share 14.7 s and 175 km/h: the Diesel pair is the only pair where the Automatic does not slow 0–100 in the measured figures.

If you want Automatic, the smallest time penalty is on 2.6 AT (1.2 s) and 2.8 AT (1.3 s). The largest is 1.8 AT (2.0 s). 2.8 AT is still 2.4 s faster than 1.8 AT (11.1 vs 13.5) and 16 km/h faster at the top (217 vs 192).

Kerb weight does not always follow the gearbox. 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT are both 1370 kg. 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT are both 1350 kg. 2.6 MT and 2.6 AT are both 1455 kg. 2.8 MT is 1455 kg; 2.8 AT is 10 kg lighter at 1445 kg. 1.9 AT is 1390 kg; 1.9 MT is 10 kg heavier at 1400 kg.

Engine size vs horsepower: the 1.8 beats the 2.0

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres):

• 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT: 125 hp / 1.781 L = 70.2 hp/L (highest Gasoline specific output).
• 2.8 MT / 2.8 AT: 174 / 2.771 = 62.8 hp/L.
• 2.0 MT: 115 / 1.984 = 58.0 hp/L.
• 2.6 MT / 2.6 AT: 150 / 2.598 = 57.7 hp/L.
• 2.3 MT / 2.3 AT: 133 / 2.309 = 57.6 hp/L.
• 1.9 MT / 1.9 AT: 90 / 1.896 = 47.5 hp/L (Diesel Turbo; torque arrives at 1900 rpm, not at the 3000–4000 rpm Gasoline band).

2.0 MT is the trap if you assume a larger number on the badge means more power. It is 203 cm³ larger than 1.8 MT (1984 vs 1781) but 10 hp weaker (115 vs 125) and 8 Nm weaker (165 vs 173). 2.0 MT 0–100 is 12.9 s vs 1.8 MT 11.5 s (1.4 s slower). Top speed is 187 vs 195 km/h (8 km/h slower). 2.0 MT uses 2 valves per cylinder; 1.8 MT uses 5. Compression ratio on 2.0 MT is not measured; 1.8 MT is 10.3. Bore × stroke on 2.0 MT is not measured; 1.8 MT is 81 × 86.4. 2.0 MT is 20 kg lighter (1350 vs 1370), so it is not a weight problem — it is a power problem. 2.0 MT kg/hp is 1350/115 = 11.74; 1.8 MT is 1370/125 = 10.96.

Buy 1.8 MT instead of 2.0 MT unless you specifically need the 1984 cm³ engine.

Five cylinders vs six: 2.3 MT vs 2.6 MT vs 2.8 MT

2.3 MT (5 Inline, 2309 cm³, 133 hp, 186 Nm, 1350 kg) vs 2.6 MT (6 V-shaped, 2598 cm³, 150 hp, 225 Nm, 1455 kg):

• Power: +17 hp (+12.8%).
• Torque: +39 Nm (+21.0%).
• Weight: +105 kg (+7.8%).
• 0–100: 10.8 s → 10.2 s (0.6 s quicker).
• Top speed: 198 → 209 km/h (+11 km/h).
• kg/hp: 10.15 → 9.70.

The extra 105 kg of 2.6 MT is more than offset by +17 hp: specific load falls. 2.3 MT still has the better power-to-weight among the light cars; 2.6 MT is the first step into the 1455 kg group.

2.6 MT vs 2.8 MT (same 1455 kg kerb, both 6 V-shaped, both Manual 5, both FWD):

• Displacement: 2598 → 2771 cm³ (+173 cm³).
• Power: 150 → 174 hp (+24 hp, +16.0%).
• Torque: 225 → 250 Nm (+25 Nm, +11.1%).
• 0–100: 10.2 → 9.8 s (0.4 s quicker).
• Top speed: 209 → 218 km/h (+9 km/h).
• kg/hp: 9.70 → 8.36.

Because kerb weight is identical (1455 kg), every extra horsepower on 2.8 MT goes into performance. Compression is 10.0 on 2.6 MT and 10.3 on 2.8 MT. Bore × stroke is 82.5 × 81 on 2.6 MT and 82.5 × 86.4 on 2.8 MT. Peak torque rpm is 3500 on 2.6 MT and 3000 on 2.8 MT.

2.3 AT vs 2.6 AT vs 2.8 AT (all Automatic 4):

• 0–100: 12.6 / 11.4 / 11.1 s.
• Top speed: 194 / 207 / 217 km/h.
• 2.8 AT vs 2.3 AT: 1.5 s quicker, 23 km/h faster, +41 hp, +64 Nm, +95 kg kerb (1445 vs 1350).

2.8 AT is only 0.3 s quicker than 2.6 AT (11.1 vs 11.4) but 10 km/h faster (217 vs 207). On Automatic, 2.6 AT already captures most of the 0–100 gain; 2.8 AT mainly adds top speed and 24 hp.

Rear suspension labels differ: 2.3 MT, 2.3 AT, and 2.8 AT are listed as Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem; 2.6 MT, 2.6 AT, and 2.8 MT are Dependent, spring. Front is Independent, spring on all 11.

Diesel vs Gasoline: 1.9 MT / 1.9 AT

1.9 MT is the only Turbo version (boost: Turbo). Gasoline versions are all No boost. It is also the only Diesel in the 11.

• 90 hp vs 1.8 MT 125 hp: −35 hp.
• 202 Nm vs 1.8 MT 173 Nm: +29 Nm, and at 1900 rpm vs 3950 rpm.
• 0–100: 14.7 vs 11.5 s (3.2 s slower).
• Top speed: 175 vs 195 km/h (−20 km/h).
• vs 2.8 MT: −84 hp, −48 Nm peak, +4.9 s to 100, −43 km/h.
• kg/hp: 1400/90 = 15.56 on 1.9 MT; 2.8 AT is 1445/174 = 8.30 (almost half the mass per horsepower).

Compression 19.5 on 1.9 MT / 1.9 AT vs 10.3 on 1.8 MT and 2.8 MT. Bore × stroke 79.5 × 95.5. Fuel system is not measured on both Diesel versions.

Economy is the Diesel case for buying. 1.9 MT city 7.5, highway 5.2, combined 5.6 L/100 km. 1.9 AT city / highway / combined are not measured. 2.8 AT is the only Gasoline version with mpg: city 16.1, highway 8.8, combined 11.4 L/100 km, CO2 267. Combined, 2.8 AT uses 5.8 L/100 km more than 1.9 MT (11.4 − 5.6). City, 2.8 AT uses 8.6 L/100 km more (16.1 − 7.5). On a 70 L tank, combined range arithmetic is 70/5.6 ≈ 12.5 units of 100 km for 1.9 MT vs 70/11.4 ≈ 6.1 for 2.8 AT. CO2 on 1.9 MT, 1.9 AT, and every Gasoline version except 2.8 AT is not measured.

Buy 1.9 MT if measured Diesel consumption is the decision. Do not buy 1.9 AT for economy: its mpg is not measured, and 0–100 / top speed match 1.9 MT (14.7 s / 175 km/h) with a 4-speed Automatic.

Performance ranking (0–100 and top speed)

Fastest to slowest 0–100:

1. 2.8 MT — 9.8 s, 218 km/h 2. 2.6 MT — 10.2 s, 209 km/h 3. 2.3 MT — 10.8 s, 198 km/h 4. 2.8 AT — 11.1 s, 217 km/h 5. 2.6 AT — 11.4 s, 207 km/h 6. 1.8 MT — 11.5 s, 195 km/h 7. 2.3 AT — 12.6 s, 194 km/h 8. 2.0 MT — 12.9 s, 187 km/h 9. 1.8 AT — 13.5 s, 192 km/h 10. 1.9 MT / 1.9 AT — 14.7 s, 175 km/h (tied)

Spread: 4.9 s from 2.8 MT to the Diesel pair; 43 km/h from 218 to 175. 2.8 AT outruns 2.6 MT on top speed (217 vs 209) despite being 0.9 s slower to 100. 1.8 MT is 0.1 s behind 2.6 AT on 0–100 (11.5 vs 11.4) with 25 hp less and 85 kg less kerb (1370 vs 1455).

Weight, clearance, tank, wheels

Ground clearance is 140 mm on all 11 versions. Tank is 70 L on all 11. Wheel size is not measured on all 11.

Kerb / gross (kg):

Payload is 400 kg on every version except 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT (420 kg). The 6-cylinder cars carry 105 kg more kerb than 2.0 MT / 2.3 MT (1455 − 1350). Dimensions beyond weight, clearance, and tank are not measured.

Which version to choose

Want the strongest Cabrio in this catalogue: 2.8 MT. 174 hp, 250 Nm, 9.8 s, 218 km/h, 8.36 kg/hp. Same 1455 kg as 2.6 MT, so the +24 hp is free of extra kerb. Fuel use is not measured on 2.8 MT.

Want Automatic and still close to that peak: 2.8 AT. Same 174 hp and 250 Nm, 11.1 s, 217 km/h, 1445 kg. Only Gasoline mpg in the table (16.1 / 8.8 / 11.4; CO2 267). Automatic penalty vs 2.8 MT is 1.3 s.

Want Automatic without the 2771 cm³ engine: 2.6 AT. 150 hp, 11.4 s — only 0.3 s slower than 2.8 AT, 10 km/h slower on top. Mpg not measured.

Want the lightest Gasoline that still pulls: 2.3 MT. 133 hp, 1350 kg, 10.8 s, 198 km/h, 420 kg payload. Skip 2.3 AT unless you require Automatic (12.6 s, 1.8 s slower).

Want four cylinders, Manual, and the best hp/L: 1.8 MT. 125 hp, 70.2 hp/L, 11.5 s, 195 km/h. Do not step up to 2.0 MT for “more engine”: you lose 10 hp and 1.4 s.

Want measured Diesel mpg: 1.9 MT only (7.5 / 5.2 / 5.6). Accept 90 hp, 14.7 s, 175 km/h. 1.9 AT is the same speed with mpg not measured.

Avoid if the goal is performance: 1.8 AT (13.5 s, largest Automatic penalty), 2.0 MT (weaker than 1.8 MT), and both 1.9 versions if 0–100 under 12 s is the filter.

There is one generation only (1991–2000). Reliability and typical faults are not measured in this dataset; compare the 11 versions on hp, Nm, seconds, kg, and the two mpg rows that exist.