Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Audi A6

1218219221223224226

Comments

  • I am looking at Buying a pre-owned A6. I do not know anyone first hand that has this car. I have a couple of questions:
    1) Roomy in side?
    2) Maintenance on the car high or low?
    3) How is the trunk space?
    4) Good Family car?

    whatever feedback anyone can offer would be great thank you.
  • Hi,

    I've owned from new a 2000 A6 2.7T, 2003 A6 2.7T and currently a 2007 A6 3.2. They have proven to be reliable, fun to drive and IMHO good looking. They have spacious interiors as well as being the benchmark for interior layout and quality for the industry. The trunks are large (15.4 cu. ft.) and the rear seats fold down as well for added capacity. The Quattro all wheel drive system gives added security in poor driving conditions as wheel as feeling "glued to the road". If your looking used make sure car is certified by Audi. Repairs are costly and, frankly, I wouldn't own a complex car like this one without it being warrantied.
  • thank you for you reply. I would only look at a certified one but my question is how often have you needed repairs?
  • very infrequently
  • jim198jim198 Posts: 3
    Hello,
    Is it possible to replace my Xenon bulb in my 1999 A6 myself? The Auto Zone guy said only the dealer should do it. The bulb in question is the round one in the plastic housing. By the the way, the plastic housing has condensation on the inside of it--is this normal or a source of the problem? I'm new to the forum and new to cars but pretty handy so your advice is appreciated!
  • IMHO it will possibly cost MORE to have the replacement done by YOU.

    Since the dealer will replace the bulb for a fixed price, I would not even consider doing this.

    If you make ANY mistakes, you buy the mistake.

    Unless you are familiar with this maintenance item, why even consider doing this yourself. If you risk X dollars which is pretty much a bigger, by far number, why not pay for the thing to be done by folks who have done this routinely, rather than try to do it yourself.

    OTOH, if this is a career move for you, have at it.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Hey Mark, where've you been? Haven't seen your posts around here for a month or two. Welcome back. ;)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,312
    Mark,

    Good to hear from you again. Your posting volume has dropped a lot of late.

    In any event, I'm going to throw in with you. While I spent the first couple of decades of car ownership doing 95% of my own work, I'm learning that the risk/reward equation has changed.

    I just replaced the (very well-built & long-lasting, BTW) shocks in my car, at 125K miles. The job wasn't horrible, I learned much in doing it & saved a few hundred bucks. Plus which, my #3 son & I had some "quality time."

    Either way, compared to my early days of driving, when maintenance of this sort was required at 15 or 30K mile intervals, it's a whole new world. Once you learn (by taking far too long to do it) how to do a job efficiently, you're rewarded with the knowledge that you can do it agin in seven years when the car has 250K miles on it. Well, even in my world, that's beyond stupid. Back in the day, once you learned how to do something, you'd get multiple chances to do it again. Those days are done. Not only do most jobs on cars require tooling or equipment that one is not likely to possess, but those that remain only need to be done once in anything but a marathon ownership experience.

    I guess I still want to retain some of that old-school "fix it yourself" approach, but for many things you're just better off paying the dealer or (better yet) your indi shop to get stuff done.

    Plus, I'm too fat & old to continue crawling under cars for anything much beyond oil changes. Oh well, I still do do those, FWIW.
  • While driving on a highway my Audi lost power within 30 seconds of hearing a loud beep and seeing a large icon on the dashboard. Evidently, this was due to a thermostat that was stuck. When stopped the car steamed or smoked and the engine was melted. Does any one know if there should have been another warning light since there was none that we received.
  • Hello all. I just joined this forum and I wanted to know if anyone knew how to remove the tail light assembly (driver side) on a 2004 A6? Normally I wouldn't think this would be difficult but since there is a sensor of some sort (I received a caution light on dash) I wondered if there was anything special that needed to be done?
  • The least expensive and least "dangerous" way to do this is to go to your Audi dealer.
  • jim198jim198 Posts: 3
    Yes--it's easy. Tail lights are a lot easier than headlights but it's a simple task that will take no more ten minutes (probably less than 5). If I can do--you can do it. Ignore anyone who says take it to the dealer. I think the guy is a dealer! Also, you can google it--key words: Audi A6 2004 tail light replacement. But like I ssaid, you can figure it out on your own. It's the one thing Audi made easy to change on their vehicles!
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,678
    Way back...when I had my 99 I had a rear light burn out and had the dash indicator tell me it was out.

    I went to the dealership, thinking the same as you (it must be complex), and the mechanic came out and changed it in under a minute.

    It was still under warranty
  • I am not a dealer -- I am, er, a klutz and I have "broken" or bent or messed up, my fair share of stuff. I have found it, generally, less risk and lower cost to do what I do well and let the service depts do what they do.

    My thought was, if it is really easy and evidently so, someone might not be asking how to do it. If one of us offers advice and it is subsequently taken and then "something expensive to replace" breaks, well, why take that risk?

    In my case, a friend of mine bought a new plasma TV from a big box retailer and felt it was worth $500 bucks to have it set up (plugged in, essentially.)

    I would have, myself, set up the TV, the surround sound system and the remotes controlling the whole thing.

    I would not even dream of working on my Audi A6 beyond "detailing."

    To each his/her own.

    If you want help with your home theater system, I'm your guy.

    If you want help with your Audi, my advice remains: take it to the dealer and pay a bit more [perhaps] but get peace of mind.

    Oh wait -- I can change the license plates without help, but since the dealer will do this, too, (at no charge), I even let them do that.
  • It really is easy on my 2003, not sure if it is the same as the '04. Open the side compartment and you will see the jack. Remove that. The styrofoam tray lifts out with the jack. Then you can see the rear light assembly. Press the two side black clips and pull the assembly out. The light bulb (one of three) then twists off.

    Hope that helps.

    Bret
  • We live in New England and AWD or better has become a necessity. (Although our parents got along fine with DeSotos and Plymouths with snow tires, a couple of bags of sand in the back and a sense of limits as to when you might go out in a storm and/or what route you would take. Life was also different then. Once you were home from work at 6:00 PM, you usually stayed home and didn't go out at night to Barne & Noble or the mall. ) My understanding is the many AWD systems are outsourced from Haldex or Torsen. They all shut down power to the wheel with no traction and direct it elsewhere. Some use the braking system to do this. Additonally some AWD and 4WD systems also have a posittraction/locking rear end feature.

    Having said this, no manufacturer really claims that their AWD system is any better than the other guy's except Audi. (Again, how could they when they are outsourced?). Hence the question: what makes the current generation Quattro better? Is there a real world difference? If we put a E Class MB with Fourmatic, an S80 with AWD, a BMW 5 Series with the Xi option, and an A6 with Quattro on a hockey rink with the same tires would they have identical traction?
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    Here is video of a AWD comparison on a snow covered hill.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAHPMUkhj5Q
  • Thanks. But a little got lost in the (non) translation.

    Specifically, were they identically shod? Were they all AWD ((at least one vehicle--I couldn't tell which-- didn't spin its front wheels as it got terminally stuck)?

    Please fill us in.
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    They were all AWD. As far as I can tell they all started at the same place on the hill. Obviously the Audi went the furthest.
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 216
    Kgary,

    I'm sorry but your description was inaccurate. Yes, the Audi went the furthest but it didn't stop - it just kept on going;-)
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    I stand corrected. As a matter of fact I just saw it drive past my house and it kept going ;)
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 216
    the video took place somewhere in europe, perhaps the Bavarian Alps. Maybe it is I that stands to be corrected. You meant to say your Bavarian ski chalet.
  • I can't believe what I am about to write, being the Audi maven (bigot, almost) that I am.

    AWD is NOT AWD is NOT AWD, but, from a practical perspective, if you are just talking about daily driving, not going up a hill or driving on a hockey rink, you will find these AWD cars will perform "close enough for jazz."

    If you want to know if there are differences, well, there are. Let's take one example, the A6 (let's take the last generation quattro even) vs the S80. The Audi begins with a 50-50 torque split. The Volvo comes in with a 95-5 torque split.

    The two cars put down power "at rest" differently -- the Audi puts 50% on the f and r; the Volvo 95% f and 5% rear. Newer Audis have shifted to 40 60 f/r.

    BMW's and Mercedes are, likewise rear biased.

    TorSen (torque sensing) is the Audi system -- it is said to be able to, from a practical perspective, again, ANTICIPATE slippage. The other systems, although they are instantaneous, are REACTIVE. Slip must occur BEFORE they shift torque from f to r. TorSen shifts torque "in real time" since it is a mechanical system that "binds" without needing the "lag time" required by the other non "real time" systems. We are, however, talking about FRACTIONS of a FRACTION of a second even with the slowest system.

    Is the TorSen difference important? Of course you can find as many opinions as there are folks -- and some will say yes and 'splain it, and some will say "negatory" and explain their reasons with equal eloquence and verisimilitude.

    Audis have a problem (only one?) -- yes but they're getting better -- uh, the problem is that a new A6 is still heavier in the nose than a 5 series Bimmer (with x drive, to keep the conversation as relevant as possible.)

    Yet, some magic engineering algorithm or design feature must be present in an Audi that makes it somehow more capable than its "fat nose" ought to allow.

    So, do I, Roseanne Rosanna Danna, think the Audi AWD (TorSen) system is better -- yes. But, I also think the differences are PERHAPS not significant enough to sway your buying decision, if, for instance, you think the S80 or whatever is "better looking," or has cooler features or, for whatever reason, just suits you better.

    The uphill drive on the link posted is -- for me -- 'nuff said, but, I already confessed to being an Audi fan so much so that I probably bleed little four-ring corpuscles when cut.

    I am, perhaps, even MORE of an AWD proponent than I am a quattro (TorSen) proponent. I consider it a performance and safety feature. And, I can see the point of view of those who will ONLY submit themselves to RWD cars. I just don't see any reason (and I live in Cincinnati) to even consider a 2WD vehicle.

    I am drawn, currently, to the upcoming A4 3.2 (B8) and it makes me wonder, why even bother with an A6 (at least until the next update comes along in a couple of years.)

    Check it out: Why Bother with an A6? Klikity Klik

    Drive it like you live, just drive it in AWD trim.
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    Mark,

    It is always great to read your posts. Thanks for stopping by. I have missed your particpation.

    Kevin
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Yeah, where the heck have you been?? Great to see you again!
  • I've been launching a new software product and it has consumed lots of time.

    But, to further respond to the "why quattro is different and/or better:"

    According to Wards Auto World:

    Aware that it needs to maintain the top-flight reputation of its quattro all-wheel-drive systems, Audi says it has a highly advanced form of quattro that has already made an appearance and will continue to proliferate throughout the lineup: Quattro w/Torque vectoring.

    Torque vectoring takes all-wheel drive to another level by varying drive torque not just between front and rear axles but also between wheels on the same axle.

    By adjusting torque side-to-side, a higher degree of handling performance is achieved by delivering more torque to the outside wheel in a corner, turning the vehicle more sharply and precisely.

    Torque vectoring also is a way to enhance safety, in effect an "active" form of the brake system-based vehicle stability control systems now common.

    Audis equipped with this will have:

    Rear biased AWD 40 60 f/r
    Better weight distribution (less porky front ends)
    Real Time torque shifting (front to rear and side to side)

    Both the A5 and the new A4 will have better weight distribution and as far as I know they are not better in that regard because of torque vectoring -- but I digress.

    So, couple a less nose heavy Audi design (that will spread across the entire lineup), with rear biased & Torque Vectoring/Torque Sensing AWD, and you would think this is a step forward -- and considering it does it with a real time system (mechanical) rather than a reactionary system, like SH-AWD, and considering that the Acura, speaking of SH AWD, for instance, with SH-AWD is nominally 95% FWD 5% RWD, well that would seem like a competitive edge retained or gained.

    Is quattro the best?

    Beats me -- it is certainly one of the best and it just keeps getting better. :shades:
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    Mark,

    I don't know if quattro is the best, but I like driving it in the snow ;)

    Kevin
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 216
    lat night we had 5" of very wet snow. Saw a guy in a Subaru which handles even better than Audi in the snow, drive like a madman on Rte 208N. He was doing 50 while the rest of us sane folks were going 30. We both got off the same exit and going down a huge hill he ended up in a ditch on the side of the road. I drove by him, slowed down and saw people out of their cars ready to help him. I couldn't resist; I rolled down my window and said to him " BTW you were driving like a madman on the highway before. He just looked at me and stared and I drove off.

    Moral of the story is no matter how good your AWD is you need know your car's limitations in the snow.

    Mark, welcome back. I figured you were cruising the new A4 forums:)
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 216
    cross post - years ago from the chrysler 300 forum.

    I believe Audi's snow video but do you believe Chrysler's? I do not. Here's the link.

    http://www.dcxmediaservices.com/videoptrs/wms/dctv/Mar04/Houghton_Ride_Drive_300- k.wvx
  • I have been, personally, through Audi's winter driving school in Seefeld, Austria four times. I have also been through BMW's X driving school.

    That is the extent of my "cred."

    The RWD cars almost NEVER beat the FWD cars in normal everyday driving under the conditions that were shown in this video without studded tires (on all four corners) and ESP. Perhaps the cars in this test were not shod with the same tires, I do know that the cars from Chrysler did come with ESP, and that would be an edge over the others without ESP.

    At the holy land, Ingolstadt, there is a demonstration of three TT's going up a hill.

    One car has RWD, one is FWD and one is, of course, AWD. The cars go up the hill and the results are, in this order: RWD, FWD, AWD -- the order signifies "how far up the hill. The RWD version, identically equipped to the other two goes the least far up the hill.

    On the test track, in Seefeld, Audi has A4 quattros and A4 REAR wheel driver versions (yes, REAR wheel drive A4's). The first time I took the class we had A4 quattros and BMW 3 series, RWD only to drive to "prove a point."

    The ability of the AWD version cars under icy conditions always exceeded the RWD versions. At that time, no FWD only cars were available for side by side by side comparo's.

    At the X School, we were able to drive an AWD Bimmer and a RWD Bimmer on a slick concrete track that had been flooded with water -- the results were the same, the AWD Bimmers ALWAYS outperformed the RWD Bimmers -- indeed the AWD Bimmers, literally, ran circles around the RWD Bimmers. The AWD Bimmers could lap the RWD Bimmers in fact.

    So, does this mean Chrysler's video is bogus? Beats me.

    It does, however (without some funny biz with the tires and traction mitigation systems -- like the Impala doesn't even offer ESP -- at that time) seem unlikely that given identical circumstances that the RWD 300 would outperform the FWD Impala (and we're NOT talking about racing, we're talking about daily driving, at least that seems to me to be the circumstances that were portrayed in that clip.)

    The car companies, almost all car companies are at least offering AWD versions -- that is, in part, because of the "go anywhere, anytime" capabilities these drive systems imbue the cars they are fitted with.

    Drive a new 535 or A6 or Volvo or, Infiniti or Lexus or, or, or, equipped with AWD and you may get hooked on the increased capability these cars offer, in spades!

    Make my AWD car a 2009 A4 3.2 SLine with torque vectoring quattro in Alpine White with Red Leather Seats.
Sign In or Register to comment.