Audi Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
2014 A5 Premium Plus Cabriolet Quattro 2.0T
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm the original owner of a 2014 A5 2.0T, with a CPMB 2.0 turbo 4 cylinder engine, now at 66,000 miles. I've long been aware of various older Audi engine issues, oil consumption and cam chain tensioner failures with this engine type, but I've never seen specific correlation of either of those issues with the generation of engine in my car, built late in the 2014 model year. "CPMB" is a code you can see on the white computer printout sticker underneath the trunk floor and I think elsewhere on the car, the "B" meaning that my car can burn E85 ethanol (but I've never used that; it's virtually never seen here in the PNW). So I have various curiosity questions... Am I right the CPMB engine has a better reputation than earlier versions? My car still gives virtually zero detectible oil consumption between changes I do every 5,000 miles. Do problematic cam chains give audible or other symptoms of problems, with some amount of time to react, before catastrophic failure? When/how so? (My car sounds great at every startup and during all driving, I think just like it did when new.) Is other preventive maintenance advisable, other than the normal maintenance I'm doing now?
 

·
Registered
2014 A5 Premium Plus Cabriolet Quattro 2.0T
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
One stimulus for puzzlement is observable in the current reliability statistics from Consumer Reports - the current engine reliability status of the 2014 A4 and 2014 A5 are distinctly inconsistent now, with the A4 being much worse than the A5. I can't think of any good reason for that, unless A5 drivers as a whole large group put a lot fewer miles on their cars on average per year, or that the % of the models which are actually 3.0 V6 S4 and S5 models lumped together with the respective 2.0T data, is a lot different between the coupes and sedans and also if the 2014 V6 engine has a much different reliability profile. But I've never heard that either. What else might explain it? I trust CR to compile data accurately, but that doesn't mean that they always interpret data correctly.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top