Howdy, Stranger!

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





Audi A6

18485878990226

Comments

  • mpyles1mpyles1 Posts: 90
    Amarchan or Timcar, do you have any idea whether the sport springs in the Audi accessories catalog are the same springs used in the A6 Sport Package? I have ordered a 2002 4.2 with Sport Package, which the brochure says lowers ride height by 1/2", increases spring rate by 30% and damping rate by 40%, and stiffens the anti-roll bars. (I notice some car mags have described the standard A6 as "oversprung and under-damped.") This doesn't sound quite like the Eibach springs you described, Timcar, as lowering the ride height by 1 1/2". Are the Sport Package springs nevertheless Eibachs?

    By the way, I just received the summer wheels I ordered -- SSR Competitions. People have been raving about them on the internet. They use a new proprietary forging technology that reportedly allows extremely light weight. My 17 x 8.5 inchers weigh about 15.5 pounds apiece . . .and they're beautiful to boot. Has anyone had any experience of these wheels on a 2002? (Most of the internet writers have put them on BMW's, Miatas, and some Audi's . . . but not a 2002 A6 with Sport Package that I can find.)
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I believe the standard sport package springs are NOT the same Eibachs sold as an accessory. I seem to remember that Eibachs are more aggressive. Most people seem to prefer the sport package, as an overall package, to just changing springs. Many who have changed springs have chosen to go back and add a thicker anti-sway bar, and sometimes new shocks.
  • amarchanamarchan Posts: 23
    For 2002 all the A6 springs changed to a firmer rate, and if you look in the Audi accessory list on www.audiusa.com you will see that the sport springs are not available for the 2002 model. I suspect that the stock springs are now the sport springs available previously as an option. As I posted before, I had the opportunity to drive an A6 2.7 with the optional springs and I found them to be better than the stock springs in my 2001 A6. Firmer but not harsher. Actually more compliant for the first couple of inches of travel.
    I called Eibach and yes, the Audi sport springs are made by Eibach for Audi, but according to them the Sportline springs they sell as an aftermarket option are firmer than the Audi option springs (Audi parts #4B4071677DSP). Thay also told me that you don't really need to change shocks or sway bars if you put the sport springs in, even their own Sportline springs.
    In your case, the stock 2002 A6 4.2 springs should already be stiffer than the stock 2001 (see post #2577 by timcar). The combination of sports suspension and low profile tires do firm up the ride significantly. However, unless you drive on roads with a lot of potholes you should not find this combination objectionable. Your gas mileage may go down, as you will be driving the car harder any chance you get :). What I did not like in the sport option was the seats, which I found too narrow for me.
  • buddybradbuddybrad Posts: 36
    Stopped in the local Audi dealer this afternoon. They had a beautiful red TT sitting in the show room. It's a new, special Commemorative Edition in honor of a race Audi is sponsoring. It's a orangish/red (sort of like my '99 Prowler), and has a special color interior also. Mighty fine looking!

    Anyway, drove a 2.7T 6-speed with Sport Package. I'm glad folks mentioned the fact about the narrow seat. Both myself and the salesman felt snug in the bottom. The back felt fine, but the sides of the bottom were tight. Other than that, the car ran great and even had one of those electric sun shades in the rear window which I thought was neat. After about 15 minutes with the 6-speed, I decided that the Tiptronic is probably the smart choice to go with here in the Windy City with 7 million people. If it wasn't my daily driver maybe I would consider the stick, but I just can't see fooling around with it everyday in rush hour traffic.

    After that, I drove my first 4.2 and it did not have the sport seats. It was a fine car as well, but I don't think it is all that fast. I think that 2.7T just might embarrass it - and for $5K less. The bigger tires, flared fenders, heated steering wheel, etc. are very nice, but hard for me to justify.

    Also in stock at this dealership, they have a dark blue A6 with the vanilla/blue interior. Has anyone else seen this combo? What is your opinion? I think I liked it, but would worry about keeping those vanilla seats clean.

    Finally, if you skip the Sport Package to avoid the Sport Seats, but want the suspension, tires, and wheels - you have to buy and install it all a la carte'. Guess the good thing is, if you read a BBS like this you can pick out better merchandise than the factory might have given you. Those SSR wheels sound very nice! (Isn't that the name of Chevy's new retractable hardtop pickup truck?)
  • mpyles1mpyles1 Posts: 90
    I, too, find the sport seats a little narrow. But I've had other cars with seats that felt like that new, but they "spread" enough after a few weeks of use to become comfortable (although there were a few episodes of numb thighs in the meantime).

    Your impressions, buddybrad, about the 2.7T being quicker than the 4.2 are apparently accurate. Both Audi and every car mag test I've read show the 2.7T with Tiptronic running a tenth or too quicker. With the manual (which isn't available in the 4.2), the difference becomes more than half a second.

    The 4.2 weighs exactly 100 pounds more than the 2.7T (according to Audi data), but the extra 50 hp and 37 ft/lbs of torque of the 4.2 should FAR offset its extra weight. Either the 4.2 has a different final drive ratio, or it must be because the 2.7T's torque peak comes much earlier than the 4.2's. (And I have seen some high-speed passing tests which the 4.2 wins over the 2.7T that would support this view.) Does anyone know for sure which it is?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    The 2.7T equipped A6 is quicker (not faster) than the 4.2 A6. The torque, while less on the 2.7T comes on "immediately" which in the quickness world, is all the difference in the world.

    In fact, the Audi literature I have says that the 2.7T is quicker than the S6 -- and this is Audi's own literature -- true it is .1 and it is between the manual 2.7T and the Tip S6 -- but at my dealer the S6 stickers at $66,000. Now, I know you get a lot for the difference -- but I would not market a 4.2 and a 2.7T without the 4.2 being able to better -- even if only by .1 second my $6,000 less expensive car. Or in the case of the S6 my $16+K less expensive car.

    The addition of front and rear anti sway bars, sport shock and S springs (plus a set of "plus zero" tires) totally changed my 1997 standard A8 in to an S8 lite. FYI.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    As Mike already pointed out, I've read many posts from those that've gotten the sport seats and found that the lower seat bolsters do indeed loosen up and give you more butt room. I didn't get the sport seats because they're too tight through both my upper and lower back to the extent that my arthritic lower back isn't supported.

    You can beef up a standard suspension to a degree that will exceed the capability of the standard sports suspension. There are lots of aftermarket mods being sold. There are more for the 2.7T than for the 4.2. There are three potential negatives in doing this: First, you may well have a harsher ride than the factory set up, but that may not be an issue for you. Second, it may void the warranty for some other items, depending on your dealer. Third, it will certainly cost you much more for springs, shocks and an anti-roll bar than the factory sport package. However, some have done this incrementally, starting with the thicker anti-roll bar, then springs, and finally shocks. Depending on the individual's preference, many have been satisfied without doing it all.

    As Mark pointed out, the 2.7T makes most of its torque at 1750rpm vs. 3000rpm for the 4.2. AND, the gearing IS different. The 4.2's gearing is much longer than the 2.7T's. (I know that's not the correct term, but I can't remember whether that means the final drive ratio is higher or lower.) So the lower rpm torque peak and different gearing, rather than weight, are the things that account for the difference in performance. And if one lives in the mountains, that difference would become much greater.

    I think the vanilla/royal interior in Ming Blue is the richest color combination offered for the A6. Most people who see it love it. I've got the same interior in my silver car. (This is a combination that fewer people like.) I don't want to have to keep a dark blue car clean. The interior in my car is easy to keep clean, and at almost 19K has shown very little wear. However, my car has different hides than the '02's. The '02's Buffalino may not be as easy to keep clean. I had an '02 loaner with 5K with the beige (?) leather and the driver's seat looked a little worn/dirty. I use Zaino leather cleaner and Zaino leather conditioner. I spray it on, scrub it with a soft brush, and wipe if off with paper towels. When I apply the conditioner, I just use paper towels. Literally takes less than 5 minutes.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    As noted, I upgraded my A8 to an S8 suspension -- using Audi parts shipped to me from Germany via Joe Hoppen motorsports. When the following components were installed, the price including the labor was around $3,000+:

    1. S8 springs and shocks (which was the first thing I did, because I was told that putting the stiffer anti sway bars on first would be problematic -- I don't know why, I just did what I was told)

    2. Upgrade from factory 225 x 50 x 17" Goodyear GSD tires to 245 x 45 x 17" Pirelli PZeros AS (and a Porsche-style on-car wheel/tire balancing)

    3. S8 front and rear anti-sway bars

    2 full all wheel alignments 1,000 miles apart (obviously not covered by the Audi advantage).

    The ride was virtually unchanged -- it got a little more comfortable in my opionion, the handling was transformed from OK to excellent.

    It cost way way more than the "factory" sport suspension option Audi typically offers on its cars. I liked it so it was "worth it" -- yet, even though I feel that way, it was overpriced. I will order my cars with the suspensions and tires I want (assuming such things are on the option list -- hint hint) from the factory.

    As I have noted and as Tim agrees, why not allow the customer to order the sport suspension, wheels and tires "as a set" -- and check off comfort, sport or Recaro seats (in any combination of fabrics and colors one wants) separately. Perhaps they could bundle the sport seats in with the suspension as a special deal and take a few bucks off (like they do with the leather and sun roof on some modles, etc)?

    It seems Audi keeps making previous iterations of its sport suspensions standard and then improves the sport options -- I would see no reason they could not offer standard, sport and "agressive" (and pick an even better name) suspension offerings. And, with each one, why not offer 16 - 19 wheel/tire options and allow (gasp) standard suspensions, up sized wheels and tires and sport seats covered in alcantara? And the crowd cheered!
  • buddybradbuddybrad Posts: 36
    Compared to other manufacturers, Audi has a fairly simple options list. You have your 3 or 4 packages and a few stand-alone options. It would be nice if they became more performance oriented and let you pick and choose speed and handling options while still keeping your warranty. This might be similar to the Lexus L-Tuned program or the Toyota TRD program. Some of that equipment is installed when the car reaches the US port.

    It will probably fall upon the shoulders of the dealers to come up with these offerings, but the problem becomes - what do you do with the equipment that came on the car from the factory? The consumer doesn't want to keep it or pay for it and the dealer can only use so much of it.

    Guess we'll have to hope for the factory to get more imaginative.

    By the way, I appreciate the comments about the sport seats possibly becoming more comfortable after they've been used for a while. I figured they would stay tight forever. The Sport Package may still have hope.

    P.S. I spoke to an old friend of mine in Scottsdale tonight who sells BMW. I asked him what a good deal would be on a 540i. He said, "If you can get $700 off a Tip, consider yourself lucky." Maybe a little more off a 6-speed. He went on to say not to expect any different on a 530i or 330i. I don't think pricing here in Chicago is any different. Damn those things are expensive!
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    At Audi World Steve2.7T wrote:

    "Audi is losing out in the A6 segment and to get more competitive for 2003 they are going to offer us better equipment levels for the same cost and reduce prices.

    The 2.7t will come with sport package as standard! (Suspension/wheels and seats) Hurray! at last you say. But it will not cost any more, base price will stay the same. We are going to lose the passenger memory seat and tip in the steering wheel to help pay for it. Audi reckon that nobody uses the passenger memory seats and that you cannot steer and change gear at the same time. Bi-Xenon's will replace the dip beam only Xenons.

    The A6 4.2 base price will drop from just under $50k to $46,900. They are also fine tuning prices lower down the range on the 3.0 A6 and on the A4's. Including leather as standard on the base A6 with very keen option packages on the A6 and the A4.

    As reported earlier the RS6 will cost $81K. They will be built in two batches, early and mid 2003. Dealers have to commit to 8 cars - and they have to be pre-sold!!!!

    My lease is up early 03 and it looks like I will be able to get into an 03 2.7t with better equipment and some usefull improvements over my '00 for the same price! Not too bad I think."
  • mpyles1mpyles1 Posts: 90
    According to my dealer (New Country Audi in Greenwich, CT), they have taken four orders for RS6's at about $70K each. Given the fact that BMW sells a lot more 540i's . . . at a higher price . . . than Audi sells A6 4.2's, I find it hard to believe Audi would try to compete with the M5 from a higher price point. What was the source for the $81K? Thanks.
  • noshonosho Posts: 119
    If you look up chip vendors, you'll find that dyno results show that the stock 2.7T actually generates 275 lb-ft of torque and the torque "peak" is wider that what Audi states. This helps explain the better performance of the 2.7T in 0-60 runs.

    If you care to risk reliability issues, the 2.7T can be chipped to have some 340+ lb-ft of torque with 0-60 times of ~5.9S for the Tiptronic and ~4.9S for the manual. If you change gears mostly before 2500RPM, there is only a small additional boost so reliability will be the same as un-chipped.
  • icermarkicermark Posts: 1
    Hello, I own a 1988 Coupe GT in excellent condition and a 1999 Passat. I am considering purchasing a preowned A6 quattro between the years 1998 to 2001. There seem to be many recently returned leased vehicles currently available. AutoTrader.com has an extensive number listed on their website. I have read
    Edmund's reports, Consumer Reports and some others, but I have been very impressed with some of the postings here and therefore I would welcome any advice that you experienced A6 owners might be able to provide to me. Thanks!
  • morphiemorphie Posts: 94
    We leased a 1999 2.8; the current vehicles are a 2002 3.0 (Avant) and a 2001 2.7t. Accordingly, I derive my opinions as to your purchase of a 1998-2001 from this experience.

    The 1999 models were a major transition: body style, engine and content. Not surprisingly, there were a number of warranty problems; we experienced some electrical difficulties. There were also several recalls, of varying natures.

    When purchasing any used vehicle, especially a German brand, it is essential to insist upon seeing the maintenance records, including the recall repairs (fuel sensor, etc.). Next, have a mechanic, familiar with Audi's, thoroughly examine the car. Finally, purchase an extended warranty from a reliable (solvent) company.

    I would eliminate the 1998's, for reasons stated, above. Even though the 1999-2001's had their share of problems, a vehicle that has been well maintained should have most, if not all, of its difficulties cured.

    Good luck with your search.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I'd only add that I think Carfax sounds like a useful service. I haven't been in the market for a used car for awhile, but this added information sounds potentially invaluable.
  • datsun2datsun2 Posts: 5
    Check out consumer reports on the reliability of the 98, 99 & 00's. I have a 99 A6Q and have had so many problems.

    Wait...I'll sell you mine, it runs great. Over $8,000 in warranty work already done. It's like a new car.

    Tom
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    Has anyone heard when Audi will incorporate the "multitronic" tranny in the quattro models?

    Thanks-Max
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    I read that it already is a done deal, but that they were "stress testing it."

    I assume they do not want something on the market that has a proclivity to break under the torque some of their new engines put out.

    Perhaps that means ready for some of the 2004 model cars. . .I am guessing.
  • mpyles1mpyles1 Posts: 90
    I read in one of the car mags that the Multitronic (CVT) was 4-5 years away from production for the high-output quattros (I assume that means the 4.2 and possibly the 2.7T).
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    We have, on this forum, discussed the "take it or leave it" all-season vs summer tire "options" presented to us by Audi, among others. Some of us were unaware of the incredibly short life span of most Ultra high and Maximum performance tires (Audi's summer tires that come with the sport suspension and up sized wheel options they offer).

    Others of us (me included) were unaware of some of these very high performance tires proclivity towards high (relative) levels of road noise. My 2001 A6 did come with Pirelli P6000's size 255 x 40 x 17" -- at just about 8,000 miles I gave up tolerating the road roar these babies created and put on a set of so-called "all season" Ultra high performance tires (there are no Maximum performance tires that are all-season listed over at www.tirerack.com) as Cincinnati rarely has more than a day or two of significant snow. I figured that quattro+ESP+ABS+all-season tires would get me through any winter (except 1) that I have ever lived through in my almost 30 years in the Queen City.

    On that last point, I was correct, even though this was an even milder than normal winter. I had lived with the P6000's through December 2000 and Jan - Mar of 2001 without incident, and their replacements -- Yokohama AVS db's -- were even better. The Yok's were virtually silent for about 10,000 miles and I noticed that they were "only" very good in the handling department over the summer of 2001. Now, April 2002 and another 7,000 miles and the noise at low speeds had crept up to relatively high levels (17,000 miles on the tires).

    So, knowing that these tires were $144 each and had 17,000 trouble free miles on them (and remember my expectations on these ultra low profile and Ultra high performance tires were for a maximum of 20,000 miles of useful wear), I decided I would replace this set on my 25,000 mile total car (also knowing I have now 12 months left on the lease). I wanted the last months in this car to "be all that it could be."

    I spoke with my dealer -- I told him I did not want $250+ tires, I did want Z rated tires and I wanted a quiet tire that did not give up too much in the performance department (I did consider another set of the Yok's). Since we are coming to the "best part of the driving year" I elected to go with his suggestion: Falken Azenis ST115 255x40x17" Z rated ($139 each and "free shipping") dealer mounted and balance and a four wheel alignment.

    Now about 300 miles later, the tires I am happy to report seem to be just as quiet as the Yok's were on day one but they do handle better (of course this is subjective, as I am recalling the handling of the "old" tires compared with new ones). They also seem smoother and more forgiving around some of my favorite sharp curves.

    The dealer (the Audi dealer, not the tire dealer) service rep said these are the tires he uses and feels that they are comparable to "mainstream" brand name tires that cost 20% more. I don't know about that -- my favorite tires, to date, are still the Dunlop Sp9000's which came on my 2000 A6 4.2 with wheel upgrade to 17" from Audi.

    Perhaps such "cheap" tires (the Yok's and the Falken's) would not be ideal on the autobahn or in areas where sustained high speeds (over 90mph) and agressive cornering were a regular way of life. Here in our small city, traffic rarely permits such flights of fancy if one wishes to respect other's rights to go slow in the left hand lane, be safe and minimize speeding tickets -- all of which I do try to do.

    With these qualifications, then, I can -- thus far -- endorse these new shoes on my A6. I got them on line a tires.com -- first time user of this site, as I generally buy from tirerack.com, but they don't carry Falken's.

    That's a full report.

    Happy motoring!
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    Mark,
    As always, an excellent report detailing another important tire issue for us Audi enthusiasts! One of the main reasons I didn't purchase the 4.2 was the tire situation. I'm not sure what came stock on the'00 4.2, but I could just tell that the tire tread probably wouldn't last more than 20,000 miles. I just don't want to mess w/ winter/summer tire changeover.
    The 16" Conti's on my '00 2.7T are quiet at all speeds in my opinion, seem to be wearing well @ 30,000 miles. Cornering does leave some room for improvement, I'm sure the summer tires would be much better in that area. I was upset that Audi didn't offer a 17" upgrade in'00 w/o buying the sport package,etc.
    I have heard many complaints about 16" versus the 17" upgrade. Does having 17" tires make that much of a dif in cornering ability?

    Thanks-Max
  • buddybradbuddybrad Posts: 36
    This 16" vs. 17" bugs the heck out of me too. My GS400 came with 17" Bridgestone's and lasted 14K, but they were the best handling tires I ever drove (and noisiest). Then winter came and I bought 4 - 16" wheels from tirerack.com and put Hakkapelliitta's on it. Great all-season tires (or tyres as they spell it). Now I have to fool around with storing a set of wheels and tires and switching them each season. The tire store or dealer will store them for $50/season.

    While car shopping recently, I checked out the Infiniti G35 and noticed if you order the Sport Pkg. you get 17" tires and wheels. But, if you order the Sport Pkg. AND the Cold Weather Pkg. (heated seats, etc.) - they figure you live somewhere that requires an all-season tire and that's what they provide in 17". Probably not a perfect solution for everyone, but I'm all for it!

    As far as the $81K price for the RS6, I saw it in both AutoWeek and Automobile magazine. My local Audi dealer said he has money down on 1.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    You know, I loved having Dunlop SP9000's and Pirelli PZero's and even some other "high buck" brand tires. I kindof have come to expect tread life of less than 20,000 miles and frankly begin to notice some deterioration of these Maximum or Ultra High Performance (summer, aka) tires usually by 15,000 miles, sometimes even less.

    The tires that came on my wife's TT coupe (225 x 45 x 17") made 11,000 miles (Bridgestone's).

    I won't complaign too much about longentivity -- because I know these tires (generally) improve handling significantly. I do not like noisy tires, and with the experience that I have and continue to gain, now know that it is possible to get nearly maximum performance and a quiet tire at the same time.

    I have debated the winter/summer wheel thing, and between storage and general convenience (or lack thereof), I think I would generally accept (for my weather conditions in southern Ohio) Ultra high performance or possibly even high performance all season tires. Why? Well let's see. . .Cincinnati is certainly not a huge city, but like most cities that have suburbs and some urban sprawl we have almost every day clogged "freeways" -- secondary roads as I motor to the north and east of Cincinnati are hardly better.

    After rush hour, on our 8 lane newly repaved I-71, you can "safely" cruise for a minute or two at 80mph. And, it has virtually no curves. Once in a great while the roads are virtually empty of other motorists and the speed police. Therefore, once in a great while (if I am alone in the car) can I punch it up to 100mph -- but this rarely happens and when it does the duration of this action is measured in seconds. The point? I don't actually EVER need nor can I use the performance of these very very high performance tires.

    On the other hand, I CAN tell the difference even between the tires I just ditched and the new ones -- the new ones do handle better even in "normal" driving.

    So, what I guess I am saying is I would like to have some choices when I buy a car -- the Dunlop SP9000s which CAME STANDARD on the 2000 A6 4.2 w/17" wheel option were great, but they are about $1,000 a set and have a fairly short life span and are really not THAT good when the temp drops below 30 degress F and they are certainly NOT a "winter" or even all-season tire. So at 15 - 18k miles new tires are needed -- and when I generally lease a car for 30 months, I find buying tires that are only good for around 9 months of the year a pain in der butt.

    On the issue of 16 vs 17 vs 18 and larger. It is my opinion that there are noticable differences between 16's and 17's and so on due to the larger wheel sizes, lower profiles and wider tread and stiffer sidewalls that generally characterize such tires. The handling generally improves as one increases these attributes -- of course, I would personally like to stay at a 45 or 50 series tire if possible (yes I know, I currently have 40 series) -- due to the dangers to these ultra low profile tires posed by potholes. Strictly on performance, though, the bigger wheels and lower profile tires handle much better.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    for the update on the Yoko's. I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised that they degraded as they added mileage. I've read comments by some users they offered long life, but that might not be the same as maintaining the characteristics that are desirable. Then too, our cars are a little heavier than some, and that could contribute to wear also. The '92 Legend I had came equipped with an early version of ultra performance all-seasons by Michelin. For about the first 10K they offered very fine traction and handling in all conditions, even light snow. After that, they began to degrade rapidly and after about 15K were scrap, and lethal in snow.

    I'm still intrigued by the Yoko's as a replacement for my stock Conti touring tires when they go. But that could be awhile, as at over 19K they show little signs of wear.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    I saw a TV ad today for the Volkswagen Passat 4-Motion with 280hp W8. I haven't seen much in the press about it - haven't been watching really, though I knew it was coming. What has the board seen about the car - price, performance, technology assessment, etc.? I'm impressed enough with the Passat that I was planning to purchase (or lease) a V6 version for my wife this summer. Equipped with a W8, and depending on price, a new 4-Motion Passat might be a great alternative to a two year old A6 with 2.7T or 4.2. This has the potential to seriously dilute the resale value of the A6. I was wondering what the board thought.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    Think it's just south of $40K. Fast, not particularly sporty. Nice, not any more (or less) luxurious than any other nice Passat. A very competent, quick family car. Don't think it matches either a 2.7T or 4.2 in performance.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,093
    Dedicated, hard core (perhaps) Audi drivers -- like me -- look at the Passat W8 as a possible alternative to an Audi A6 3.0 and perhaps even an A4 3.0. But -- speaking for myself -- I find it hard to believe I would equate the W8 with an Audi. But there are some almost compelling reasons to check one out.

    List price (and it would be my belief there will be no discounts) is supposed to be $37,900 or $38,900 -- and basically it "has everything." Bi-xenon lights, AWD, ESP, trimmed to the "Passat maximum" and perhaps then some. VW does have access to lots of "content" from Audi.

    The Passat W8 will be a higher performance near-luxury family touring sedan -- the W8 certainly increases the quickness of the car, but the Passat is often (usually) compared with other fine (often Japanses) family sedans. Nevertheless, the W8 presumably has been re tuned to be a bit tighter (read firmer) in the turns and in its ride after its Eurpean press introduction where journalists carped about excessive body roll/lean. To me, that means the W8 that gets to the US will be a bit more Audi-like. So much so that I'll wager the W8 will take some biz away from Audi. Positioned (size wise) as an almost A5 Audi, the Passat will cost about the same as a well equipped A4 3.0 quattro and it is a bit larger. Compared to an A6 3.0 quattro, the Passat W8 will perform better (at least in a straight line) and be thousands less and some would argue better equipped.

    The warranty -- I read that those dealers who are chosen to market the W8 have to comply with heightened "customer service" standards (which I read to mean "more Audi-like") -- who knows if the warranty and Audi advantage will be carried to the W8, I doubt it.

    First time buyers, looking at the W8 and the approximately priced Audi's and taking 15 minute test drives, may find it difficult to uncover the subtle quantitative and qualitative differences between the W8 Passat and the Audi cousin -- and then when the price plus that supposedly lovely 8 cylinder engine are factored in, may have difficulty "justifying" the price of the Audi.

    I flirted with the possibility of a Passat W8 "avant" -- but have since decided I will order an allroad (but I know the allroad is some $10,000+ more). There will be some who will say the Passat W8 is good enough.

    I do not in any way wish to damn the new Passat W8, I am very pleased that it is coming out, overall. I do think the new directions that VW -- and Audi for that matter -- are taking will cause at least a couple of model year's worth of market confusion while these new directions (VW "classic luxury+value" Audi "advancing the notion of a sports-sedan, etc.") and the dust settle.

    If you can't see the Audi in your driveway, I'll bet you'd be very happy with this new "super cheap" (in a good way) W8 Passat. For the money and the segment, it has virtually no rivals.
  • mbnut1mbnut1 Posts: 403
    I have found Passats to have a more wind noise than Audi's. The salesman a the local VW acknowledged that Audis are quieter. It is the principal reason I haven't bought a Passat yet. While I agree that W8 is a better deal that the A4 3.0 the wind noise would need to be reduced to Audi levels before I could see spending that kind of money on a Passat.
Sign In or Register to comment.