Howdy, Stranger!

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





Audi A6

1284285287289290338

Comments

  • at least 20-30'. I often walk up a long parking garage ramp to get to my car and it will unlock by remote easily at 20' if not 30' (though it is a straight line without any obstructions...
  • I think I am driving a very similar A6 to what you describe. I called the Audi dealer and they indicate that they have no voice response retrofit for A6's that did not come from the factory with voice response. That said, I have spent a couple of hours studying the owner's manual and at this point (about 10 days of driving) find the MMI easy to use. As it pertains to the climate control, I agree with the other post- I just leave it on auto and manipulate the temperature that I want.

    PS I have driven an Infiniti since 1993. I was really leaning to a M35 which in several ways I would judge as better than an A6 (not to say that the A6 does not have certain advantages over the M35- safety, interior quality, etc. (IMO)). Those reading my previous posts will note that my A6 was actually acquired used (originally delivered 12/04). But, IMO, considering Audi's $4,500 incentive for remaining '05 A6's buying a 2005 A6 over an M35 is a no-brainer. At full MSRP vs. full MSRP I would probably lean to the M35 especially if someone was considering ownership past the warranty period. But, as a long, long time Infiniti owner I find myself in the strange position of saying the M35 is not the best deal right now. The M35 is a great car but it is too hot right now in terms of pricing. Historically Infiniti's traded at a discount to the luxury market. As a long time Infiniti owner I am happy (proud?) that they are really moving toward's parity with other luxury brands. However at this point, 2005 A6's trade at a relative discount so the field has switched. The A6, all things considered IMO is a better deal.
  • I've been a fan of this site for most of the year and have finally joined. I acquired my 2005 Audi A6 in late June, have 3800 mi on it and major problem with the Advance Key which may finally be solved. After my third start switch they "replaced auto start control," a sizeable assembly that seems to be a steering column that must have some electronics in it. They had to reprogram all keys. So far so good after two weeks. Remember, the start switch operation is a two step process. Push once, then push a second time with foot on the brake. Mark's later posts on his switch replacement experience got my attention.

    Meanwhile the car gets fantastic mileage. I averaged 29.0 mpg on a 1600 mi trip from Chicago to Atlanta and return using 89 octane gas with one passenger, A/ C all the way and some local driving. Mileage is not so impressive for around the city without road trips.

    All in all the car is fantastic.
  • My advanced key is a one-step process. Step on the brake and push start. Works every time.

    Sorry you were having problems, but glad it seems to be fixed.

    I agree with the somewhat disappointing mileage. I was hoping for more 17-18 in the city but have been getting more 14-15...
  • "the car gets fantastic mileage. I averaged 29.0 mpg on a 1600 mi trip from Chicago to Atlanta and return using 89 octane gas with one passenger, A/ C all the way and some local driving. Mileage is not so impressive for around the city without road trips. "

    29 mpg. Wow! Haven't had that kind of mileage since I owned a Honda Accord back in the early 1980s. That's great!

    Having just sold my SUV, I am thrilled at the mileage I am getting so far, which is just shy of 17 mpg, a mix of city and highway. The car has only 200 miles on it so with any luck it will get better as the engine breaks in. I do plan on swapping out the 16" tires for 17" tires -- I hope that there will not be much of a mileage penalty.

    As to 89 octane gasoline, I was emphatically told by the Audi service manager that the A6 requires 91 octane, and that using lower octane, such as 87 octane, could literally damage the engine. I asked about using lower octane sometime, for example, if I were on a trip and couldn't get premium fuel, he responded by saying that in that instance get the 89, but never the 87. How does this square with what you guys have read and been told?
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    I would always use at least 91 in the A6. It's not worth saving 15-20 cents a gallon on a 50k car.
  • "Your vehicle may also be operated using unleaded regular gasoline with a minimum octane rating of 87AKI/91 RON. However, using 87AKI/91 RON octane fuel will slightly reduce engine performance" -----2005 Audi A6 Owner's Manual

    Top acceleration capability, is not as important to me (driving 20-25000 mi/year) as is fuel cost. I intend to try for optimum cost considering any difference in mpg by octane rating and total cost to drive say 1000 mi. I realize outside temp, humidity and other can be other variables. Could be interesting. It's my understanding that modern fuel system controls are programmed to to consider octane among other things.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Are you asking if you will save money by using Regular gasoline as opposed to the Premium grade fuel that is recommended by Audi? If so, then my recommendation is that you stay with Premium.

    By using Regular fuel in a car designed to run on Premium (but that has computer controls that are capable of dealing with Regular), you will not only degrade your cars' ability to produce power (for acceleration), but you will also degrade your cars' ability to achieve the optimium miles per every gallon of gasoline you burn.

    In the end, if you want to save money on fuel costs (not to mention maintenance down the road) in your A6, use Premium fuel.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • RE: your using 89 octane gas. I started using 89 in my 2002 A6 2.7T 6-man, on the advice of my service manager. A month ago, I tried the Shell V-Power (93 octane) and found that my mileage on the highway jumped up almost 3 mpg, to around 27 mpg. I have since repeated this on 2 different road trips, and have found that I consistently get better mileage using the 93. [At $3.00/gallon, I save a little over $6.00 for the extra 54 miles to the tank that I travel, which makes up for the $1.80 extra the gas costs.]
  • Thanks Archichris for sharing your results. I am not surprised to hear them.

    Nonetheless, I would like to steer this conversation back to the original question I posed, which was not whether or not you guys use or recommend non-Premium fuel, or are attempting to save money, etc. Rather, I asked what owners had read and heard with respect to what is the proper fuel for the A6 3.2 engine (2005) and whether or not less than 91 octane would damage the engine. I raised this question because the service manager at my Audi dealership emphatically informed me that lower octane fuel (especially 87 octane) would DAMAGE my engine. Not surprisingly, my salesperson gave me a whole speech about how the car could use regular. Naturally, I am inclined to put more stock in the service manager's advice.

    The "damage" to the engine comment is what I would most like to confirm. Yes, I have read the owners manual, and understand that the car can run on on lower octane fuels, but again, other than reduced performance, is their a real risk of damaging the engine? Anyone talked to their Audi mechanic or service advisor about this and gotten any definitive word?

    I wish that I could use 93 or 92 octane, but unfortunately 91 octane is now the highest octane fuel you can buy in Southern California. We used to have 92 out here but as a cost saving measure the refineries stopped making it, presumably in order to offset the cost of the higher fuel standards our state requires.
  • I'd have to look again, but I could have sworn that the gas cap label on my A6 says "use premium fuel, 91 or higher"... or something to that effect. I believe the 91 is acceptable, but JMO...
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,653
    It all depends on your definition of “damage”.

    If you mean a head gasket blowing out…probably not. If you mean black smoke puffing out and the car dieseling after you shut it down…probably not.

    I talked to a relative who’s an engineer (non-Audi) and he said you’ll probably encounter problems “down the road” if you CONTINUALLY used a lower than recommended gasoline grade. So if you’re running out of gas in the Appalachian’s and you hear dueling banjo’s in the distance you can put in the 87 octane and not worry about it.

    If you want to put in 87 for the next couple months when gas is high you probably won’t run into problems; but that goes back to the false economy of the lower octane…which I know is not your direct question.

    My relative said you may have more carbon related issues with the injectors, fuel systems etc…though who knows.

    So…short answer NO the donuts will not blow your diet…unless you eat it all the time :)
  • At 4 payments I am on my third replacement advanced key switch. Grand total of four switches.

    Otherwise the car has been flawless or close enough.
  • What would be the purpose of using lower grade gasoline if, as at least two "reputable" (and no, I don't mean me) people have told me (and explained why) it will actually COST MORE to use the lower grade?

    It seems counter intuitive to use premium in a car that "can't benefit" from the higher octane (and therefore more expensive) AND it likewise seems counter intuitive to use regular in a car that is specifically designed for premium when the results in the pocket book for either behavior are the same: more money out of your pocket for no reward.

    I would imagine that a manufacturer (or at least its selling arm) would rather their cars be sold with the notice "runs optimally on Regular."

    I do not believe Audi markets its cars as requiring premium fuel to make the car more "upscale" in any way, shape, manner form or regard.

    Indeed, if Audi could accomplish "premium" performance on regular, wouldn't they just do it rather than force their customers to buy more expensive fuel?

    :confuse:
  • I read the very easy to understand comments wherein the poster switched to Premium in his Audi and saved a gross $6.00 at a $1.80 cost for a net savings of $4.20.

    Add to this the slight damage ("damage") that using the low grade stuff causes (see above posts on the subject) coupled with the statement that seems almost incredible (something about chintzing out on the gas on a $50K car) and I say we shoot this topic since beating it to death has apparently not been successful.

    Just a thought. :shades:
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Well said Mark. I cannot tell you how many posts I've read from folks who want to put Premium in their car built for Regular, hoping to improve their mileage, as well as the reverse of that from folks who just dumped 50 large on a new car and want to put Regular in their new ride to save money. I really don't understand why so many people attempt to second guess the very skilled engineers who design these modern engines.

    At the risk of repeating myself, "Folks, the combustion process is extremely well understood and has been for many many years. If an engine is designed to perform best on any given grade of fuel, then by deviating from said grade, you will reduce your performance both in terms of acceleration AND economy."

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • Sorry to be so late getting back to you. My owner's manual strongly suggests using 91 octane for performance, but that it is possible to use 87 octane gas [performance will be decreased, due to the engine management system retarding the spark.]

    The only octane grades we have in Houston are 87, 89, and 93. For awhile, I actually filled half of my tank with 89, and half with 93, just to get the right "average" octane. When I spoke to my service advisor about this, he said that going up to the 93 would not help. . . that as our temperatures here are so much hotter, the 93 octane gas tends to vaporize too soon [at leasst in my 2.7 T], and that I would be better off just using 89 octane, which I did for over three years. It was only in the last couple of months that I switched back to the 93 [Shell V-Power]. I don't know whether the benefits I've found would be true outside of our climate here, or with another refiner. Re: using only the 87 octane, my advisor never, ever cautioned me about using it. Given that I seem to be receiving better performance/mileage with the 93 [in spite of what he said], I don't know that I would take his word on this as "gospel."
  • Notwithstanding protestations about the subject having been beaten to death, I would simply want to reiterate what was, and remains, a simple question. Can using lower octane fuel DAMAGE the engine in a 2005 Audi 6 3.2 engine? Yes or no? Don't know?

    I am not interested in the debate of whether it's penny wise and pound foolish, or any of the other tangents that have been launched into recently. I use premium in the car and intend to continue to do so. Nonetheless, I would simply like to hear from other owners as to whether or not they have read anything definitive as how or if lower octane fuel could damage the Audi engine -- corroborating what my Audi service advisor told me. If you don't have an answer that responds to the question, feel free to skip it.
  • As if this is a good answer: I called my Audi service manager (a guy who has several "certs" on the wall, however these certificates do have the tell tale Audi rings on them), he seemed to not fully understand the answer, as his comments had to do with the virtual irrlelevance of the question since he seems convinced that the cost of using regular exceeds any price reductions that may accrue.

    It was almost as if he could not fathom anyone using regular even if it were deemed entirely benign, since doing so would cost MORE money.

    I do see his point.

    Yet the question of "damage" looms -- perhaps large -- for reasons that escape me since most stations seem to run out of the lower grade product first, then mid, then premium.

    I frankly continue to be bewildered by this subject.

    All US Audis require premium fuel for performance and optimum cost. Using less than simply causes a reduction of performance and mileage an increase in costs and the POTENTIAL for engine damage, albeit (apparently) light.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    A quick rule of thumb, the hotter the environment, inside the combustion chamber or out, the greater the need for Premium in an engine designed for such. Given that most folks think that Premium fuel has more power per gallon and many think that Premium is more volatile, I guess it's not too surprising that many think that the higher grade the fuel the faster it will vaporize. I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Fact: There is virtually no difference in the BTU or Calorie count in a gallon of gasoline regardless of which grade of fuel you are talking about.

    Fact: The reason that Premium is called for in higher compression engines (regardless of whether it's mechanical compression as in a high compression ratio, or whether it's a high net compression ratio due to an external blower) is that Premium fuel is the most stable (non-volatile) of the grades and as such it takes LONGER for the flame front to fully develop.

    The ultimate goal for an engine is to smoothly burn the fuel all of the way through as in "Woosh". If your fuel goes "Woosh" for say 95% of the mixture and "bang" for the remaining 5% you have detonation (pinging). Detonation is where a small pocket (or pockets) of "End Gas" (the unburned remnants of the intake charge) spontaneously explodes due to too much heat/pressure in the combustion chamber. A little "bang" is basically harmless, too much "BANG" and things get bent, holed, or otherwise broken. If you have a situation where there is no "Woosh" at all, and only "BANG" instead, your engine will self destruct in a matter of seconds.

    Where was I? Oh yes! The goal of an engine is to ignite the intake charge somewhere before Top Dead Center (TDC) at just the precise moment that the fuel starts to burn in a rapidly accelerating fashion so that the moment of peak pressure coincides with the exact point where the piston/connecting rod/crank throw are positioned for maximum mechanical advantage (approximately 15 degrees after TDC). Kind of nice how that works out, the point of maximum pressure pushing against a piston that can make the most mechanical twist out of said pressure.

    If the fuel is of a grade that is lower that the optimum called for by the designers of the engine, the flame front will develop too fast due to the greater volatility of the lower grades of fuel, and the peak point of pressure will be too early (press all you want on a piston that is exactly at TDC, it ain't goin' nowheres -- that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea). Not only that but since that peak point of pressure occurs in the very confined space of an as yet very small combustion chamber, the pressures and temperatures rise so fast that detonation is likely.

    What modern engines do when their multitude of sensors detect the onset of detonation (indicating either an engine malfunction or more likely lower grade fuel) is that they retard the spark (and valve timing if applicable) so that the flame front starts late enough to realign the peak pressure point with the point of best mechanical advantage. The problem here is that due to the late start that the fuel got on its burn, the combustion temperatures and pressures are lower than what they would be with premium fuel, and as a result, performance and economy both suffer.

    archichris, you mentioned that once you started using 93 octane fuel your mileage went up. As evidenced by my many writings on this subject, that is as I would have predicted. As a matter of fact, I consider it almost criminal that someone from an Audi dealership would counsel you otherwise as blown engines (both Turbocharged and Supercharged) benefit from higher octane fuel far more than any other engine on the road.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
Sign In or Register to comment.