Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Audi A6

1121122124126127136

Comments

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I've used the trip computer and the old fashioned computer to calulate miles per gallon in my A6. It exceeds 30MPG from time to time and exceeds 24 regularly.

    I drive on a mix of freeway and city (60 40 would be my guess.)

    I keep my 18" tires at 38f and 35r.

    Thus far I have NOT made the switch that "we're all supposed to make" to nitrogen inflation which they claim has some tiny possibility of improving mileage (both tire life and fuel.)

    Otherwise, I found your perspectives track mine "close enough for jazz."
  • wbwynnwbwynn Member Posts: 246
    The Audi expert who made the quote was responding to a question about Lexus and the Mercedes M350; I have not driven a M35, but it seems to causing some kind of positive impression with people who want driving dynamics. I have been in a Lexus for the last 5 years, so I found the A6 experience to be what a car should really feel and drive like...I am sure an S4 or the forthcoming S6 would give me heart failure.
  • habuhabu Member Posts: 52
    I have about 600 miles on my '06 A6 Avant. Trip 1 is zeroed at the start of each trip and trip2 is measuring all trips since my first fill up. On 40 mile trips with equal highway and suburb driving I have seen between 35 and 27mpg on trip1. Overall avg mpg on trip2 is 23.5 for the last 200 miles. The computer says I have over 400 miles left on this tank of gas. I find moving quickly to join highway traffic and using "S" to pull away smartly from lights once in a while is not hurting the mileage. I run 39 rear, 35 front per Audi's recommendations for the wagon. Biggest problem to date is staying within 5 mph of a speed limit. The car feels like 40 at 65.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    Thanks to all for your real-life clarifications of Audi A6 V6 mpg. That's very encouraging. I have followed similar reports on the M35 board and, while there is a very clear sense of enthusiasm about the car's driving dynamics, complaints show up regularly about 16-17 mpg with only an occasional 19 mpg report.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    When playing a CD on the A6, what shows up on the car's NAV-info screen? Does it just say: "Track 1" or does it display the song title, etc? There's a photo of the Audi A6 system in the brochure for the car and it makes it look as if the complete song info is being displayed. Not sure if that really happens on any car.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    One owner, who loves his 4.2 Quattro, complained on Edmunds site (where A6 4.2 is reviewed): "Need random shuffle on the CD Changer. Wheels are built to be scratched - I'm afraid to run this car through a car wash - not good in snowy areas where you need to constantly wash the salt and road grime off."

    Is there something unique about Audi wheels that makes them extraordinarly scratchable?
  • rjlaerorjlaero Member Posts: 659
    Don't take every word literally about what one person said on an edmunds site. Every wheel is different. Some may have thicker or thinner spokes. The 7 arm wheels have a lot of surface area as they are thick spokes, so there's more room on the wheel to scratch them.

    You always have to be careful with any wheel to avoid curb damage when you park. That's not just with Audi wheels, but every wheel.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    At 5,000 or so miles, your car will almost certainly feel as if someone removed the governor and the mileage will improve.

    If you want to see yet another improvement in both mileage and handling NOW, add at least 3 pounds of pressure to the front tires.

    Audis -- thus far ALL Audis as far as I know -- are nose heavy. And, although I do continue to believe the ado about the Audi quattro dispensing power at a nominal f/r ratio of 50 50 vs the rear-biased quattro of 40 60 is more marketing brouhaha than would be the creation of a near 50 50 weight balance instead, well, your version is still the 50 50 version and therefore (in combination with its nose heaviness) WILL benefit from the extra air pressure in the fronts.

    One small note pertaining to this, if, for instance, you increase the fronts by +3#'s the mileage will improve, the handling will improve, probably the tread life will improve BUT the ride almost certainly will have just a touch more hardness (you may or may not notice it.)

    The mileage of mine just keeps on getting better and soon I will be at 19,000+ miles.

    Try the air pressure thing for a tankful and see what you think.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    What shows up on the nav screen with a CD instered is what is on the CD, it there is no info, then you see the track number only.

    If, on the other hand, your CD has text data, you WILL see it displayed (many newer ones have the song titles and the CD title on them); it is NOT a function of the player, but of the data (that is on the disk.)
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I have the pearl green paint and the 18" factory wheels (non SLine.)

    The wheels scratch (curb rash) no easier or less easier than other wheels.

    In Cincinnati we have a chain of car washes that offer unlimited washes for $39.95 per month, exterior only but with a full dry cycle and wheel cleaning.

    Needless to say with a dark color like this I wash my car at least 10 times per month.

    Once in a while I have the car hand treated with rain-x and in ONE year have had one "professional" detailing procedure which in the old days I would have called a polish and wax job.

    The paint is deep sparkly green and beautiful.

    The wheels have some curb rash -- not the fault of the car wash of course.

    The brake dust is kept at a minimum with the car washes too.

    We have lots of road chemicals here in SW Ohio and I have never detected even one issue with the Audi paint systems.

    Wash away, wash away.

    No worries.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    Anyone using a Treo with Audi A6? If so, can you both make and receive hands-free calls? Can you transfer numbers from phone to A6?
  • habuhabu Member Posts: 52
    I have a friend with an '04 A6 S-line. He ran the tires about 5 lbs over recommended. At 16,000 miles he has noticeable wear on the fronts in the middle of the tread. He had hoped for better mileage but seeing the wear lowered the pressure to spec. I always thought his car had a pretty harsh ride but thought it was the suspension. The ride has improved with the lower tire pressure, but my Avant has a softer ride which fits my needs.
    I once owned a big BMW motorcycle and read many reports of the engine feeling much more responsive after 18,000 miles. I'm happy to read the Audi only requires 5.000.
    Reading my manual I found Audi recommends keeping the brake dust off the wheels. Seems the alloy is susceptible to corrosion. I wipe mine down about once every 2 weeks. I also read the oil requirement is very specific and checked Audiusa.com to find what brands are acceptable. Many are listed. I will buy a quart or two for a long trip planned in Sep. since the manual also states the warranty can be ignored by Audi if unapproved oil is used. Looks like keeping receipts will be sop.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Two fluids you should not mess with: oil and "anti-freeze" (aka coolant.)

    Ask the dealer what specific brand(s) they use and what specifically they put in your car at the last change.

    If they claim they use Audi brand coolant, buy some of THAT specific brand even if it costs a buck or three more than the Pep Boys knock off brand.

    If they say Mobil1 or Castrol Full Syn or whatever they say, get a quart of the EXACT stuff at WalMart or where ever and keep both unopened containers of the oil and coolant in your car "just in case."

    They can be very unforgiving if you put the wrong coolant in. They seem to be a bit more forgiving if you put in a full syn oil from the approved list.

    Tire wear in the center can be an indication of overinflation. 3 - 5 pounds AND a f vs r inflation bias should NOT cause this kind of wear.

    HOWEVER, what is not known here is if the 2004 Sline came with the Sline "normal" tires or the A/S tires. During a few year period, sport suspension and Sline equipped versions came with the summer only (read: short tread life) tires that gave of themselves in the pursuit of handling which most folks here in the US "don't appreciate" if it means changing their tires twice per year (from Summer to Winter and back, i.e.)

    The Summer only tires I have had from Audi over the years typically had tread life under 20,000 miles, some under 15,000 miles and ONE set of Pirellis were essentially useless at 9,000 miles.

    Then Audi shifted to HP (rather than UHP) all season tires of somewhat low profile (then over time to lower still profile.) Tread life has increased, stickiness has decreased -- handling, turn in, er, the ability to carve up a road has really decreased, but the cars are selling more than ever. Go figure.

    38 f 35 r in my 2005 A6 3.2 with the standard suspension but with the 18" wheel/tire option seems ideal.

    Were we given the choice, I would be the compromise candidate for UHP A/S tires like the PZero Nero M+S in 245 x 40 x 18" -- treadwear, however, would be a casualty of this choice and with so many 36 month 45K leases, I believe Audi of America is attempting to put rubber on these cars that actually stands a chance of making it at least 2/3rds of the way through the lease.

    I have always wondered if the leases had one set of tires (beyond the OEM's) included in them if there wouldn't be more repeat owners -- perhaps an insurance policy that would provide a new set of tires at 30K miles for $200 total.

    Some folks won't re-lease the same car because they mistake tire wear for other unfavorable attributes.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    I was looking at Mercedes E350, Audi A6, and M35x over the weekend. Saw that, in terms of speed rating, Audi was offering H, Infiniti was offering V, and Mercedes (on the Sport Package, which cures for me the too-soft feel of Mercedes) Y rated tires, which led them to put a warning in the brochure about tread wear, riding over rough roads, and avoiding driving over anything. This mattered to me more than I thought it would. I don't want owning my car to too-much resemble taking care of a special-needs pet. Audi had H-rated tires, even on the SLine A6 and it drove, as they say, like it was on rails.
  • dan339gdan339g Member Posts: 56
    I've been ripping copies of songs from the "store bought" CD's to my computer, and then burning copies to use in the car. I use "Itunes" but there are a number of other sites that will title the songs with text data as you rip them that will then appear on the MMI display from the copied disk. I have yet to come across an original CD that already has this data, but I buy new CD's very infrequently.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    Mark, thanks. That's the most clarifying answer I've gotten. I could tell, yesterday, that Audi salesman was becoming a bit frustrated by his inability to show me what you described by trying store-bought CDs supplied by other salespeople. And I didn't have any of my iTunes created discs with me. Is there anything within the MMI system that has be set up or turned on for the text data to appear on screen?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Buy the new David Gilmour CD -- full text and a great latter day "almost" Blue (Joni Mitchell, Blue, that is) recording.

    If you like some of the Mission Bell type Floyd recordings, you're sure to like this one.

    Most CD's do not have the text, more and more newer ones do, but apparently the types of music we buy (Hearts of Space kind of thing and "Standards" and Classical) doesn't have a lot of text'd releases, at least not the ones we buy.

    Now with Sirius, however, we are buying fewer and fewer CD's.
  • liferulesliferules Member Posts: 531
    Not to shoot down using the CD's, but hopefully in the near future there will be other options...

    Ice Link

    ...that will allow use of MP3's, etc... something that is sorely missed in the current car (one of my only disappointments)...
  • wbwynnwbwynn Member Posts: 246
    I agree...BMW and MB are far ahead in this area....Audi are you listening?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I have yet to find Sirius wanting.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    2007 Audi A6's 4.2 FSI engine, with the aid of direct injection, develops 350 hp, while fuel consumption is 10 percent lower. Also available will be the Audi parking system, with a wide-angle rear-view camera when parking. It first appeared on the Q7. So, it’s plausible that V8 torque will match the 350hp V8 in the Q7 which generates 325 lbs.-ft. @ 3,500 rpm.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,498
    Since I believe you have regular access to both Sirius & XM, I'll ask you a question I posted in the deader-than-dead "Satellite Radio" board on Edmunds:

    What are your opinions of the two sets of channels? Very few people seem to be in a position to do anything resembling an objective comparison -- they have one & like it, have the other one & like it, or are looking for a cheaper deal to cover the recurring fees.

    I drove a rental Impala with XM for a 10-day period in April (over 1800 miles in New England & Quebec in the sun with spring just coming on -- not bad duty), so had an opportunity to fully exercise the service. I really liked it, and if I drove my own car cross-country as much as I do rentals, I'd figure out a way to get it tomorrow.

    As it is, I'll wait till my next car, which is (as always, it seems) 1 - 3 years out. I picked my favorite 12 or so channels & listened to almost no conventional radio for the duration of the journey. Lots of sports coverage that doesn't interest me & no name-brand talk radio, but otherwise I was always able to find something I liked -- often music I hadn't heard in 20+ years.

    So if you could only have one, which would it be?
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • psychdocpsychdoc Member Posts: 147
    From a post I put up over at the Lexus ES350 forum.

    I don't know if this has been covered over here, but I was just wondering if anyone else had this same sense?

    Audi- Very stately, attractive exterior. Elegant looking if not terribly exciting. Interior in a league of its own. Simply gorgeous! Nicely laid out controls and good ergonomics. Very stiff suspension. Decent steering and braking. NO POWER!!!!!!!!!! Especially off the line the car feels like a brick rolling up hill. They call the engine a 3.2 but if you look at the specs it's really a 3.1 liter engine. Whatever it is, it's horribly underpowered for this car. Don't believe the published specs on this car's acceleration. They're not true. I took two for test drives out of different dealerships and they were both identically slow. A Yugo has more power. Oh, and I almost forgot...another Germanic primitive, unusable nav system. Very nicely priced, however. A real bargain in this segment.
  • bargamonbargamon Member Posts: 302
    Quattro will slow a car down.

    AWD in any car will slow it down in its 0-60 times.

    All Audi's (Ok, Most!) have AWD.

    Look at BMW with X drive and without.

    AWD eats more gas.

    New A6 has good economy considering its moving Quattro.
  • dan339gdan339g Member Posts: 56
    I believe there is an option under "setup" when in the "CD" mode that needs to be configured to display the titles.
  • psychdocpsychdoc Member Posts: 147
    ***Quattro will slow a car down***

    Good point but I drove other cars in this class (Infinity M35awd and BMW 530xi) and they were noticably quicker, especially off the line. Once the A6 gets to about 30mph it had decent acceleration (still not great). It also irks me that they lie about their engine displacement. The convention in the automotive world is to round up or down to the nearest tenth. The displacement of the A6 is 3123cc.. It's a 3.1 liter engine and NOT a 3.2. And in view of the way it [doesn't] pull off the line, I'd say it would need to be at least a 3.5 to even play in this league.

    Lies are not becoming and I would have thought Audi was above such shenanigans.

    Here's the whole post from over at the Lexus ES350 forum.

    psychdoc, "Lexus ES 350" #1271, 30 May 2006 3:53 am
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    My wife, in March, 2005 ordered a new BMW X3 WITH Sat Radio.

    BMW, the company, ONLY offers Sirius, even though there is a working XM aftermarket that appears to be factory.

    BMW "pays for" the first one year of Sirius service if you buy.

    ==========

    In April, I ordered a new Infiniti M35x, with the technology package: at the time BOTH sat radio services were offered, no charge difference and 3 months free no matter what choice you made.

    Package deal? You bet. Buy the second car with Sirius and when you sign up you get the "quantity discount."

    I had NO motivation, therefore, to seriously consider XM on a paying basis.

    The BMW came in and we really liked Sirius.

    A couple we know has two cars, one a GM and one a Lexus product. His GM has XM, her Lexus has Sirius (and I believe hers is "aftermarket" and she got hers first.) Since his is a GM product ONLY XM was offered.

    They claim the programming is better on Sirius.

    I have DirecTV which now comes with "a bunch" of XM channels rebroadcast in decent fidelity (compressed, but still decent.)

    I listen to XM often at home and when I finally made the switch back to Audi from the Infiniti I had ordered (at the last minute), I ordered my car with Sirius for the reasons I stated (quantity discount.)

    I have listened once or twice to Howard and he is OK if you like potty mouth humor (which I do in very very very small doses); frankly, I can't remember the last time I listened to Howard -- that was NOT in any way a consideration. It was simply the availability in one and the choice (now no more, since Audi has gone exclusively with Sirius) in the other.

    I know folks carp about the fidelity (dynamic range to be specific) of these services. They are NOT even "normal" CD quality. But, I find them better than virtually anything else that is "broadcast" -- better than AM, AM Stereo and FM (even the "enhanced" FM some stations brag about.)

    Many of the Sirius stations seem compressed (and to clarify this means that soft and loud passages are played at nearly the same effective volume) and don't have the full fidelity (which to me means frequency response, which one would hope is nominally 20Hz to 20kHz, but it rarely is on any system -- the speakers being the main limiting factor) the source recording probably contains.

    Yet, both Sirius and XM offer "surround sound" (described in the June Popular Mechanics "how XM does surround sound" [sic]) which the Audi Bose system decodes with varying quality -- some stations, SPA73 (new age quasi-hearts of space type music), for instance, have great bass extension (i.e., deep, palpable bass), good highs and tremendous midrange. And, stations like SPA73 image well (in stereo there is the impression of a three dimensional aural effect, i.e.) Moreover, when "surround mode" REAR with "surround effect" 75% is selected the sound becomes "as if" you are sitting "in a giant bean bag chair that is made of an acoustic substance that totally is able to engulf you in very impressive sound."

    Is one better than the other?

    Technically someone probably knows -- I do not.

    Programming wise -- this is entirely subjective, I am delighted with Sirius and have nothing negative to say about XM.

    I wonder, sometimes if there is room enough for two carriers at this point.

    I do think, however, that Sat Radio could "kill" FM -- but I do believe the broadcast radio frequencies will find their voice, so to speak. Probably focussing on "local" makes the most sense, since the Sat Carriers simply cannot do local (other than regional traffic and weather.)

    As Sat Radio and GPS become further and further intertwined, there, too, is even greater opportunity for services that right now we can only dream of.

    I am a proponent of Sirius (and XM for that matter) -- somehow once I got Satellite Radio, I lost all interest in having an iPod. My 6 disk changer in the car and my HOME computer's ability to allow me to rip my own CD's is all I need now that I can select Shuffle, Vault, Spa73 or POP's from the bird.

    :shades:
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    When Audi first announced the C6 A6's they proclaimed a 0 - 100KPH capability of 7.1 seconds. Fine, I thought, the 3.2 A6 is the replacement for the 3.0 V6 equipped A6.

    Audi has typically (in the US) had a regular V6 and turbo V6 and since 1999 (MY2000) a V8. The new "3.2" @ 255HP is a bit more potent than the last V6 2.7T (before the SLine Swan Song in 2004 of the 2.7T equipped A6.)

    Then no "middle child" was announced.

    Then the pricing of the A6 3.2 was announced and it was priced like the outgoing A6 2.7T -- which even with it's 5 speed Tiptronic was capable of 0-100KPH in 6.4 seconds.

    The entire world of LPS cars at that time (apparently except the Lexus family) was keenly interested in bragging rights (so it seemed then, and actually so it seems now) about either HP or time to 60MPH (not 100KPH.)

    I wrote (here there and everywhere), "what was Audi thinking?" A 3% lowering of the final drive ratio would certainly shave off the needed .1 second, allowing Audi USA to proclaim the new A6 C6 3.2 able to accelerate to 60MPH NOT in 7.0 seconds but in 6.9 seconds (which from a marketing standpoint is NOT immaterial.)

    No dice.

    The car came to market with a new 6 speed automatic (on the heels of a long cry about tip-lag in the previous gen 5 speed tip.) The car came to market underpowered -- BMW and Lexus of course continuing on in 2005 with even more "iron poor blood."

    But, then the 2006's came out and both BMW and Lexus (in their 6 cylinder models) upped their power. Lexus lagged by 15 and BMW equalled the mighty "HP" number of 255 (which in this crowd was still pretty low, relatively speaking.)

    The Audi A6 is a somewhat heavier car in this class. But, in defense of the car, it should be heavier since it came standard with almost 200 pounds of AWD gear. The 530xi and the M35x and the GS with AWD also weigh more than their 2WD siblings.

    The 3.2 is technically, as has been written, 3.1+ Liters. So what if they round it up (or down, for that matter.)

    It's not the meat its the motion or something like that.

    The V6 FSI "3.2" Audi engine is a strong performer, it is capable of propelling the A6 and 4 people down the highway at 90MPH all the while sipping gas.

    It has a nearly V8 sound at full throttle, too.

    Alas, the state of the world (from the US perspective) means that the A6 C6 "3.2" engine is simply adequate.

    My favorite engines are the Audi 4.2L V8's -- no question.

    However, I am, personally, delighted with the high speed cruising ability, "acceptable" acceleration from a dead stop and miserly fuel sipping ways this "little engine that could" offers.

    I have longed for this engine to be given the Audi Bi-turbo "lite" tuning, for that would certainly crank its HP to 300 and its torque to at least 293 (+50 over the normally aspirated version.) This engine has a lot going for it.

    It may be replaced, though, with the 280HP 3.6L sibling, soon to show up in the Q7 and already offered in the Passat.

    In perspective, this is a great engine -- and despite this praise, I still wonder "what were they thinking" in not giving us a little more beef either under the hood or via the gearing.

    :confuse:
  • jeqqjeqq Member Posts: 221
    When I first got my 3.1.......:) I was not happy with the acceleration. I previously had the 2.7 turbo and complained on various forums about the point you are bringing up. Audi has programed this engine to open up at various stages. At 5,000 miles it starts to clear it throat. At 15,000 even more so. Right now I'm at 20,000 + and it's feels like it's revving at it's full potential. Another 25,000 miles and I'll be leasing a new one. Kind of strange, seems like a waste of 15,000 miles in a car that really does have umph to it. Audi engineers should rethink this. Most people want instant gratification, at least after the 1,000 mile break in.

    Bottom line is it's a great car. Fun to drive after "extended break in" and built solid like a tank. I do a lot of highway miles with my wife and kid in the rear and I don't think there's a safer car on the road, except for a Hummer:)
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "It may be replaced, though, with the 280HP 3.6L sibling, soon to show up in the Q7 and already offered in the Passat."

    Really? Ummm, I thought that the 3.6 liter mill in the Passat was a VR6. If so, isn't that engine too long to fit longitudinally in the A6?

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • psychdocpsychdoc Member Posts: 147
    ***I have longed for this engine to be given the Audi Bi-turbo "lite" tuning, for that would certainly crank its HP to 300 and its torque to at least 293 (+50 over the normally aspirated version.) This engine has a lot going for it.***

    Very good point. Volvo has been using the "lite turbo/full blown turbo model" for years and it's an excellent idea. A number of years ago I owned a Volvo 850 turbo (the full blown version) and it flew. In fairness I must say it also ate up gas like no one's business, but that little 5 cylinder flew. After that I owned the 850gtb (or whatever the heck they called it) which was essentially the "lite turbo" version of this same engine. It was very nice and definitely was able to motivate the car to get going. It had a bit of turbo lag and also burned a bit too much gas for a small displacement engine.

    As Audi has a long and venerable history in doing turbos and doing them right, one does have to wonder why, as a possible alternative to jumping displacement up, they would not add a light turbo to this otherwise anemic engine.

    It's either time for that new 3.6 or a turbo treatment of this thing. In a world where the new Lexus ES350 is coming to market with a 272hp 3.5, this 3.1 Audi engine is pathetically outclassed. Add the weight of the quattro system and you have a real disaster here.

    Time to retire the naturally aspirated 3.1!
  • jeqqjeqq Member Posts: 221
    Like I said before the engine has an extended break in period and were only talking about .5 to 1 second. Mark's point is very true. On the highway the car has plenty of gusto and great mileage to boot. I get 25 MPG's at 70 MPH. To be fair I have not driven the 530x, but I did drive an M35x and an '05 530i. The 530i to me was no racehorse and the M35 was not as refined as the Audi. I looked at the whole picture and chose the 3.111111:)
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Good question.

    As far as I know, though, there is room for the 3.6L -- the HP figure (280) is the same as the Passat's 3.6L and after all Audi and VW share and share alike.

    I certainly could stand to be corrected -- but, from all I have read the 3.6L engine coming soon in the Q7 IS the Passat engine (perhaps tuned for the Q7 application.)

    I love the 3.2 FSI engine and genuinely believe the car has been delivered with about the lowest possible performance this engine can be tuned for.

    The engine, one would imagine, would probably respond to better breathing (pre turboing), better engine management programming and higher quality fuel (which is supposed to allow the FSI to really show its stuff.)

    The FSI with higher quality fuel can be made to be more efficient AND more effective. Somewhere I read that 275HP would not even require the engineers to break into a sweat (plus there would a few more pounds of torque, even before turbo charging.)

    Now that Audi is temporarily out of the turbocharging era, BMW has picked up on it in their 3.0 i6.

    One would imagine the 3.2 liter engine could be bi turbo'd by Audi's engineers with half their brains tied behind their backs and be brought to market at -- what -- 295HP for "marketing reasons?" (i.e., it just wouldn't do having the 3.2 V6 have a HP number that started with a "3" until the 4.2 exceeds 350 -- it rises TO 350 this year with better economy now that it too will come with the FSI treatment.)

    So much of this HAS to be marketing. Audi quietly cranked up the 2.7T's HP AND torque in the swan song A6 C5 2.7T SLine -- and it easily outgunned the more expensive 4.2 A6 C5 version. There was a brief period of time (2 or 3 YEARS) where the published 0-60 time of the A6 2.7T was 6.0 seconds flat -- quicker even than the S6 Avant that was offered to us 'mericans.

    Audi (and BMW, et al) are "playing with us" retarding the outputs of some of these engines for either legal, political, financial or marketing reasons. It is the way it is, the race, so to speak, continues.

    Pull a rabbit out of my hood!

    Gently blow on the "3.2" L engine, offer the DSG 7 speed transmission, improve the f/r weight balance just a smidge, blow the 40/60 f/r torque split horn, wrap it up and put it in an A6 with 19" wheels and tires, oversized brakes and a sport suspension. Call it an AS6 for pity's sake and GLH.

    :blush:
  • wbwynnwbwynn Member Posts: 246
    I recently drove a 2006 530xi and felt the Avant was quicker with a more refined transmission. For the additional money ($6-$8,000) that BMW wanted on a comparably-equipped vehicle, it was no contest. The 3.1+ really shines in the mid-range; Audi may not beat you off the start, but it will beat you around the curve and to the line....that's enough for me. Finally, driving the Avant made me smile.
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    "it’s plausible that V8 torque will match the 350hp V8 in the Q7 which generates 325 lbs.-ft. 3,500 rpm. "

    Hmmm . .
    I'd certainly like to see more than an increase of 15 - and \ or at a lower RPM . .
    Perhaps it will be worth driving one again.
    Thanks,
    - Ray
    Torque addict . .
    2022 X3 M40i
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The Audi "3.2" engine gets an extra dose of power at 5,000 miles and another one at 10,000 -- the subsequent doses are relatively minor but, damn if they aren't discernable by the seat of one's pants (the buttometer.)

    These subjective observations are made again and again by many of us, to the point that I think for our purposes we cannot simply write them off as myth.

    However, the A6 is much better at the 440, 880 yard "dash" than it is the 50 or 100 yard sprint -- you just can't get around it.

    Yet to proclaim the thing has "NO POWER" is a huge misrepresentation unless the spirit of the comment was qualified with several disclaimers.

    It is, based on published figures, often the case that the differences between the cars in the LPS class are generally within 1 second of each other in terms of their accelerative capabilities.

    NONE of this is meant to excuse the A6 or somehow suggest that it is quicker than it really is.

    It is in this regard "adequate." Yet, one person's adequate is another person's ample.

    The V8 du jour (in June 2005) was not quicker enough to justify both the higher acquisition cost and the higher operational costs -- FOR ME. The 4.2 (which I have had in three Audis) did not make me regret the 3.2. Both my speed and accelerative capabilities (here in greater Cincinnati, Ohio) ARE ample -- even though I objectively know and believe the stats to be simply "adequate."

    I had the car up to 80 on the Interstate that encircles Cincinnati today. I could only maintain (safely) that pace for about 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile -- traffic, traffic, traffic. My ability to accelerate from 30 to 80 perhaps was an issue (had I been able to enjoy the rush of the 4.2 engine instead), but heck, I was able to out accelerate (by a wide margin) 75% of the other cars on the road and overall out accelerate by some margin 90% of the cars on the road. And, I was not in a road rage or "playful" drag racing situation, it was just that pulling away from "the clog of cars" was easy (and there were 4 180+ pound men in the car at the time.)

    I want more power.

    I have, often, convinced myself I need more power.

    Then I get on the highway and putt putt along through perpetual construction zones, increasing clog, bone headed cell phone talking drivers (which now regularly exceeds 50% of the cars by my informal count), one accident per 10 miles (or so it seems) and state, county and local highway po-leeece.

    To kind of screw up an analogy: even with the 3.2 A6's powerplant, I, more often than not, feel "all dressed up with no where to go."

    On the other hand I love the gas mileage this thing can crank out on long, high speed, 4 hour jaunts from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh, as I listen to yet another in a seemingly endless stream of Dan Brown's greatest hits (I am going backwards, listening now to "Digital Fortress!")

    Where was I? Oh yea, disk 5 track 3. . ."Translator has a virus, pull the plug!"

    :surprise:
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I would assume the 4.2 FSI V8 that will be in the A6 will improve its stats as you suggest.

    One thing, how much of that 325 lb/ft is available from, say 2000 - 6000 rpm, 90%??? How is the gearing, what is the final drive ratio and how overdriven is 6th?

    And what about the price of lima beans on Tuesday while we're at it.

    It seems as if the Germans (not exclusively of course) are able to pull 5, 10 or more percent out of their engineering hats just about anytime they want. Generally, too, this increase in power is offered up with a bit more torque, and a bit more at a lower RPM AND better gas mileage.

    Makes you wonder why they just don't throw all the cards over at once and crank up the 4.2 to 400HP (normally aspirated) -- you know they've probably done it already and simply are tweaking the HP figures a little at a time in anticipation of what "the market and the other guy want and are doing."

    There is, what?, a coincidence that the BMW i6 cranks out 255HP as does the the Audi A6 V6? Certainly there is a competitive reason to do it, for it could hardly be said to be an engineering "limitation."

    And, despite all the somewhat negative tone here these past few posts about the POWER of the A6 3.2, it is tough to dispute the success of the engine and the cars it has been placed in these past two MY's. Audi is ON A ROLL sales wise (not to suggest anything about any other car mfgr.) -- records were set with the A6 all over the world and sales and profits of the newest gen of Audi cars has buoyed the company to produce the Q7, RS4, S6, S8, announce the Q5 and A5 and of course the S3 even.

    While some of us may think "woe is we" with our wimpy A6 3.2's, they are in Audi's history, setting sales records, breaking them and setting them again.

    Not too shabby for cars with NO POWER, eh? ;)
  • psychdocpsychdoc Member Posts: 147
    Say what you will but from 0-30 this car is the slowest thing on the road.

    Absolutely gorgeous interior and priced to move.

    One other thing. Why can't Audi (and the other German maufacturers) install a decent, up to date nav system with a touch screen?

    Their nav systems are positively primitive! At leat five years behind the times. heck, you can buy infinitely better aftermarket units for $700-1000. If they can't figure out how to do it for themselves why don't they just go to Magellin or Garmin and have them do it?

    Sheesh!

    Essentially unusable as they are.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I agree that they are behind the times.

    However, mine works darn near flawlessly in terms of taking me turn by turn from point a to point b.

    I think the voice command is really limited too, while we're at it -- the Infiniti, seemed "infintely" better.

    The whole package somehow manages, despite its weaknesses, to pull it off.

    - signed

    Pleased with it depsite its obvious flaws.

    :shades:
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Member Posts: 402
    "One thing, how much of that 325 lb/ft is available from, say 2000 - 6000 rpm, 90%??? How is the gearing, what is the final drive ratio and how overdriven is 6th? "

    85 percent of the maximum torque available at 2000 rpm

    Transmission gear ratio (1st) 4.15
    Transmission gear ratio (2nd) 2.37
    Transmission gear ratio (3rd) 1.56
    Transmission gear ratio (4th) 1.16
    Transmission gear ratio (5th) .86
    Transmission gear ratio (6th) .69
    Transmission gear ratio (reverse) 3.39

    As for the lima beans ... really varies ... one index is what insurance will pay farmer in US for certain types of crop failures: The claim price for lima beans is based on the negotiated contract price between the processor and producer, based on the previous year, less the board fees. The maximum reseeding benefit is $125/acre. :)
  • liferulesliferules Member Posts: 531
    I'd have to review those 0-30 time numbers because I recall the the 3.2 was among the TOP. If you look, the peak torque is at lower RPM's compared with the BMW or M35X, thus, you get more power, earlier with less noise or redlining...

    Either way, I personally use my car to DRIVE, not RACE, thus I am happy with it. I find the power to be adequate (if I wanted to race, I'd have opted for the S4 or the 4.2 A6) if not peppy in the "S" mode. I can't think of a day I didn't enjoy getting into it to drive (anywhere)...great interior, stylish and classy exterior...but that's my personal preference and I'm glad everyone doesn't drive them...
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    You and I are of the adequate is ample crowd, perhaps for the same perhaps for dissimilar reasons -- and I have scoured the web for automotive journalists and there are at least 10 quotes (pertaining to the 3.2) that praise both the refinement AND power of the A6 with the 3.2.

    Although the range of accelerative times for the 6 cylinder LPS crowd is up to 1 second, mostly the A6 is able to run with the pack. It rarely wins the hot rod portion of the competitions and comparisons, but it has won several awards.

    My head says adequate but my butt still says no problem in either keeping up with or outgunning most of the cars out there.

    We all may wish for the S4's accelerative urge -- and probably we could opt to pay for the extra grunt. It is the darndest thing, though, it is just increasingly difficult to "punch it" even in our small city.

    I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't like to have the S6 with the V10 -- but the A6 3.2 is, thus far, a joy to drive.

    My personal fave Audi remains my 1995 S6 (even more than my A8) -- and the 2003 allroad was a great car with a potent engine and transmission combination, but this is my best Audi and best car, ever.

    Please note I do differentiate between my favorite car and what I consider to be the best car. The S6 was, at the time, a rush of power and poise. By today's standards it would certainly not be very impressive. OK, how about this, it is my "sentimental" favorite.

    Hey, my buttons would be pushed with the A6 with the 3.0 TDI engine, both quicker and more economical than the 3.2 -- what's NOT to love about that?
  • jeqqjeqq Member Posts: 221
    Now after reading this thread you guys are going to make me go out and test drive some other cars (M35x & 530xi). I want to see if my A6 is realy the tortoise of the group. I'll report back soon.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Just don't test drive the 530xi with the stick shift.

    If you drive the other two with the automatics, you will not feel like pulling your head into your shell.

    The M35x will -- IMO -- feel the most potent off the line of the three if all three are equipped with the auto trans. The Audi will NOT feel seriously under powered, yet it will not be the hot rod.

    I found the 530xi with the step tronic lacking in the aural department -- the Audi made the best sounds.

    The BMW, unless it has the 18" wheels will also not be as "tight" as the Audi (assuming it is shod with the 18" wheels.)

    The Audi, of the three, is the only one that can be had with a true sport suspension and AWD.

    Try an SLine if they have one.

    These are, indeed, three very nice automobiles.

    Styling probably will be more influential for many people (assuming the deals track.)
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    The only test I recall comparing the A4 (not A6) 3.2 automatic to other similar automatics was in MT Sept 2005.

    0 – 30:
    A6 3.2 = 2.3
    BMW 330i = 2.1
    Infiniti G35 = 2.4

    0 – 60:
    7.1
    6.6
    6.5

    0 – 100:
    18.3
    17.4
    17.5

    Quarter:
    15.1
    14.7
    14.7

    My guess is that the A6 would feel less quick. . .

    Note that BMW is strongly rumored to be releasing a 335 (3.0L twin turbocharged, 300 HP) version of the 3 Sedan this Fall. Shortly after the (officially announced) 335 Coupe arrives here with this motor.

    And the BMW 5 ** MAY ** also receive this motor – in early 2007.

    - Ray
    HP \ TQ addict . . .
    2022 X3 M40i
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I think we are mostly all in agreement that the A6 3.2 is generally not as quick as other cars that it might typically be compared with -- either by pulling a single review of an A6 3.2 and a single review of an Acura RL and a single review of a BMW 530xi, etc; or by finding that rare comparison report (if there are any that used the 6 cylinder representatives.)

    We can also verify numbers from mfgr's web sites and other blogs here there and everywhere on the WWW.

    The results of such labors of love of research will generally demonstrate figures similar to the A4 figures you posted. That is, the cars will, from quick, quicker, to quickest be spread somewhere between 0.1 and 1.0 second.

    Not to minimize the differences or say "close enough for jazz," the "times" are not very dissimilar at all.

    Back to back to back test drives from dead stop to 30 or 60 MPH at full throttle are very difficult for most of us to pull off even at the auto malls that dot the landscapes of our cities.

    In the first example to 30MPH, I don't know if I could really feel .1 second with only my trusty backside and visual cues as my guide.

    I'd like to think I could feel and see .5 seconds in the second example above -- but please don't hold me to it, sans instrumentation.

    The BMW 5 series (in the US) outsells the A6 (and just about all the rest of its class) -- that may be because it can be said to be quicker to speed.

    I don't know if someone who can seriously consider a $50K LPS car as their primary street driver, actually does do much stop light racing.

    I do know that a lot of us check out the published specs, though.

    My marketing spidey sense, as I mentioned before, did tingle when Audi announced the new A6 with a 0-60MPH time of 7.0 -- up against most other similar class cars claims of no more than 6.9 seconds.

    Loyal BMW 5 buyers or loyal Lexus GS buyers or even newly loyal Acura RL buyers probably noted these statistics but in the final analysis bought the car they "liked" the most and/or got the best deal on (or better said, best value for their circumstances.)

    My first choice was the A6, my second the M35x, when the deal was right for M, I went to it, when Audi met the deal, I went back. I was aware of the accelerative advantage the M35x could claim.

    It was minimal, not unimportant, but not of sufficient magnitude to outweigh other factors. Now, had it been 2 full seconds, with similar gas mileage, well -- that's a horse(power) of a different color. :shades:
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    Also from MT:

    A6 3.2\530\M35

    Acceleration, sec to mph
    0-30
    mph 2.4 2.3 2.2
    0-40
    mph 3.9 3.6 3.4
    0-50
    mph 5.4 5.2 4.7
    0-60
    mph 7.3 6.8 6.3
    0-70
    mph 9.7 9.1 8.2
    0-80
    mph 12.3 11.8 10.5
    0-90
    mph 15.4 14.8 14.1
    0-100
    mph 19.7 18.5 18.3
    1/4 mile,
    sec @ mph 15.4 @ 91.4 \ 15.2 @ 92.4 \ 14.7 @ 92.8

    Note: The 530 is a 2004 model: 225 HP.
    The others are 2005s . .

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0503_luxury_sport_sedan_specs/inde- - x.html
    2022 X3 M40i
  • jeqqjeqq Member Posts: 221
    Not to regurgitate, but my only gripe is the extended break in. At 20,000 my car finally feels like it reached its full potential. A year and a half is way too long to wait for good umph.

    I'm okay with the fact that my car comes in third.
  • dan339gdan339g Member Posts: 56
    Completely agree about the primitive nature of the navigation system. It does get you there, but pales in comparison to the Japanese versions. For infrequent use, it is certainly functional, but still disappointing in this segment.

    In regard to acceleration/horsepower, I believe Rolls Royce use to describe their cars as "adequate" when referencing performance. I tend to think of the A6 in the same regard...well suited to the driving needs of it's demographic. I'm certainly satisfied, even after switching from a BMW 530i.
  • bargamonbargamon Member Posts: 302
    THe ES 350 is a great car for the money! Comparative to the GS300 even more so! I'll let Lexus worry about that one. I love the look of the GS and did promise my ex mercedes dealer who now works there to at least try one.

    THe ES packs a great deal in that car regarding quiet comfort and a pleasent drive experience.

    At 36k it must be considered!

    My Audi is in to day for them to improve on the botched break job they said needed done (on their dime) and the botched tire rotation. My allroad eats tires by the way. I rotated and now it groans and vibrates. Break application gives me vibration from the back. My dealer was sold last year and everything the new folks touch is garbage. they forget to do things all the time and must be watched on everything. Former was a dreamlike experience of cust. service and profesionalism. They just could not sell enough cars! Especially after the big buck dealership they constructed! They still have the BMW shop and its like this dealer is begging me to switch over!

    Regarding acceleration, the A4 2.0 loaner they gave me is pleanty fast! Very impressive! Ride quality is not like my Allroad and I do like a bit of quiet and comfort but an A4 with Manual tranny and 3.2, er, 3.1998 litre engine might do the trick if the back seat was not so tight!

    If IM gonna do tight, the new BMW 330 coupe might be nice.

    I wish Audi would do its A5 coupe! Or Q5 crossover!

    I don't want to go to the dark side..........
Sign In or Register to comment.