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

Audi A6

13839414344136

Comments

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    3.0 six speed manual, silver, black leather interior, sport package

    I also drive a 2.5TD stick -- and it was even better than the petrol car in terms of torque!

    I could not believe it wasn't a gas engine it was so smooth and quiet and peppy.
  • datadogdatadog Member Posts: 27
    Yes, I drove the 2.5 when I was in Italy last year. Unbelievable. No noise. Great mileage. PLENTY of low end. They sure have come a long way.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Member Posts: 136
    I'm an A6 2.7T owner and subscriber to Consumer Reports. I took out a one year subscription this past winter - after I bought my car. In my research for a new car - which included the Lincoln, Volvo, BMW, etc., I didn't dismiss the previous assessment by CR. I did use this board and other sources to determine that, at least in this instance, CR has taken their subjectivity too far.

    As far as my car goes it has been problem free. 9000+ miles since February and I am very pleased with the dealer, the car, the performance, reliability, etc. I did write an earlier article citing a problem I had with the fuel flow from the pump failing to shut off when the gas tank was full. This happened twice at my regular station in MA and once in NJ. I didn't find anyone anyone else on this board who had a similar experience. In August my regular station manager told me that the nozzle on their pumps were changed and I haven't had the problem since. Perhaps my views of the car will change over time. I'll let you know.

    As far as CR goes - I think it demonstrates their lack of sophistication when they referred to the 6 speed as "clunky." In my opinion they discredit themselves and their article. Like many of us I've been driving for a long time - nearly 40 years in my case. I started out on a '53 Chevy pickup. Don't know what CR said about the truck but I can tell you for sure that the transmission on that truck was definitely clunky. So was the transmission on my first car - '62 Chevy Nova with three on the column. In fact, if the car stalled in 2nd gear I had to crawl underneath and move the linkage by hand. Only way to describe it was clunky.

    The 6 speed in the Audi is very smooth - if you know how to drive it. (We are a manual transmission family - between my myself, my wife, and three kids we have four vehicles with manuals and one automatic - Jeep Grand Cherokee with tow package.) Very few people these days drive cars with manual transmissions and as a consequence the staff at CR tests relatively few. They buy these cars off the lot to demonstrate their objectivity but they discredit themselves by conducting a subjective assessment.

    I personally know some of the employees at CR (not in the automotive staff.) These people, like their magazine, are expert an collecting and organizing empirical data for presentation to the reader: size, weight, power consumption; or in the case or autos: wheelbase, headroom, fuel consumption. And they provide a continuous list of consumer safety and product recall data. That's the limit of their expertise.

    Moreover, CR is located in the NYC metropolitan area. Like most urban areas I expect that the percentage of CR staffers who own and operate autos with manual transmissions is very, very low. People just don't want to deal with it in traffic. If you're not driving a car like this regularly I don't believe you're in a position to make a comprehensive assessment. I have to ask - is the average spender of money - a "consumer" - qualified to provide both a qualitative and quantitative assessment on a class of vehicle that few people can afford and equipped in such a manner that even fewer are interested in buying?

    I have to agree with the board member who described the article as "drivel." I may have used a different word but CR did themselves and Audi owners a disservice. I'm happy with my car. All the Audi owners I know are very satisfied - even the 2.8 folks with auto transmissions.

    I don't know what to attribute CR's love affair with the BMW to. I do know people who desire to own a BMW - viewed in many of these instances as the "ultimate driving machine" and consequently the ultimate automotive status symbol for the upper middle class consumer (or those who want to appear as upper middle class). Some of these people have never driven a BMW. I could have afforded any of the cars that CR tested, with any of the options offered. I don't care about status symbols. I bought this car to keep for the next several years - perhaps six or eight years or even longer. I was looking for a car - like my A6 2.7T - that is a pleasure to drive and won't be in the shop. I am convinced I made the right choice.

    By the way - I plan to let my subscription to CR expire. Next time I need a toaster I'll stop by the library to see what CR has to say.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I have had ONE Audi that had a manual transmission that was just OK -- a 1982 4000.

    All the other Audi's with manual transmissions, that is to say 19 of the 24 Audi's we have owned, were great fun, not clunky and easy to drive. My wife's 6spd 2001 TT coupe has "spoiled" her so much that she actually claims not to be able to feel comfortable behind the wheel of an automatic -- any automatic.

    I don't go that far, but anyone considering or wondering about Audi manual transmissions need only to take a long test drive to be conviced that they are the opposite of clunky. By the same token, until the 6 spd Tiptronic is available across the entire line of Audi cars, the 5spd Tip is "the best automatic" I have ever driven -- but if I had a magic wand, I would personally opt for a manual. We live in suburban Cincinnati, which although is becoming a victim of urban sprawl still provides many opportunities to enjoy shifting.

    I did test drive a 2.7T without sport package and with a manual -- it was really quick and the tachometer needle just zipped around to red line much faster than I could have imagined. Frankly the 2.7T w/manual would, I am confident, win a drag race against my 4.2 V8 anyday.

    My assumption is that a 2002 A6 2.7T with sport and all the goodies and a manual transmission would be a blast and a bargain -- like finding the Batmobile for $600 a month on a closed end lease. As the look of the A6 body style and those way cool tail pipes continues to become more agressive, the 2.7T looks like the most fun car of the line at this moment in history.

    Test drives are free -- try a Merc, a BMW and an Audi -- all wheel drive versions of course. Then price them. Then take your choice and pay your money -- my biased opinion is that the Audi will win a lot of fans.
  • mariobgoodemariobgoode Member Posts: 114
    I think Mark hit the nail on the head in the preceding posting. I also subscribe to CR, but I don't let it dominate my decision about cars, because let's face it - the driving experience is purely subjective. I just read CR, watch out for the warnings, then buy what I like, warts and all.

    I live in NYC but I don't normally drive longer than 10 miles roundtrip in a single day, except at nights and on week-ends, and mostly for leisure. I do drive 100+ miles to the Pocono mountains every other week, so the stick shift is perfect for me and my wife (she wouldn't touch an automatic).

    I had been fortunate enough that like Kirby, I can afford to buy any car CR tests, so I sort of ignore the price tag when I shop for a car. I have looked at and driven equivalent models of Acura, BMW, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, Mercedes, Saab, Volvo, etc. and still find myself going back to Audi. After 16 years of driving Audis, I plan to buy another one, the '02 A6 2.7T soon. Then, the '05 A8. Sure I had problems, but nothing that could not be fixed or endured.

    Largely, I have found the cars to be a great joy to drive. Disclaimer: I don't work for Audi or don't own stocks in the company. I buy what I like and need, and like what I buy. I don't have to validate my purchase, because I don't answer to anyone, just myself when I am behind the wheel. Finally, I am not an expert in cars in any way. I just love to drive, and have found Audis to be the most enjoyable that suits my needs.

    Enjoy the ride.
  • dre_jdre_j Member Posts: 15
    I've recently driven the 2.8, 2.7T Auto, 4.2 and 4.2 w/Sport.

    The 2.8's steering was too boosted for my taste and the handling was not to my liking. So, I moved on to the 2.7T Auto.

    The 2.7T had plenty of Punch once the turbo kicked in but lacked any kick for a few seconds until the turbo engaged. This lack of power from a dead start worried me because I wasn't comfortable with trusting the 2.7T Auto when darting out into traffic quickly. The 2.7T 6-speed manual, most likely, does not show this anomaly. I haven't driven one. My Dealer, once I proved to him what I was talking about, agreed with me. On I went to the 4.2.

    The 4.2 had that quick, no doubt, power from a dead start with no delay and continued throughout the power band. One could get to 60 in two gears easily. I continued to push the 4.2 and it responded with every thing I threw at it. The handling was good. Acceleration was good. This, I felt, was the perfect compromise. I then drove the 4.2 with the sport package and the improvement in cornering and seat comfort moved me up to another level. This is where I want to be, Period.

    So, in response to CR's comment about the engine and tranny not being in sync, I have noticed this "delay" in the foot to floor wait for kick issue with the 2.7T auto.

    This is just one man's opinion with the experience.
    Dre (soon to be a 2002 A6 4.2 owner (no lease))
  • davkingdavking Member Posts: 51
    I think they tested an A6 with the Tiptronic. The mismatch they speak of I figured was because of the turbo lag. Why they chose the A6 with a turbo engine to test in comparison with three cars without turbos is beyond me. It also beyond me why they didn't know or did not think to tell the reader that it was turbo lag.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    My wife and I have owned the following Turbo Audis: 1987 5000CS TQ, 1995 S6 TQ, 2000 180HP TT, 2001 225HP TT. All of our turbos have been manuals. Yesterday, we took a long test drive in an allroad (Tiptronic, 2.7T engine). As mentioned, I test drove a non-sport 2.7T with 6 spd manual and have had the extreme pleasure of being loaned for a day or two an S4 (both with manual and with Tiptronic) while my A6 4.2 was in for new brake rotors. Three of my friends have 2001 A4's with the 170 HP 1.8T and 5 spds -- and I have driven two of these, also.

    Another note, we had the 180HP TT "stage one chipped" to 195HP and according to MTM, the chip mfgr., torque of 236ft lbs. (which is almost a 50% boost in torque).

    My observations: the automatic transmissions "hide" what little turbo lag there is -- but it is noticable with the manual transmissions. Indeed, the turbos (all the above with the exception of the 1987 5 cylinder 2 valve 5000 CS) have "major" torque at low engine speeds.

    For example, the torque on the A6 4.2 is 295 ft lbs (which is a lot) at around 3,200 rpms -- and there is a relatively short but flat torque plateau of something like 1,500 rpms. The turbos, on the other hand have (2.7T for example) 258 ft pounds of torque (which is still, relatively a lot) but it comes on south of 2,000 rpms and this amount of torque has a much longer flat torque plateau when compared to the 4.2 V8. This difference is why the 2.7T in Audi's own literature is quicker (not faster) than the 4.2 V8. It is why I remarked, the 2.7T would win a drag race against my 4.2 anyday (comparably equipped so that weight differences are not the primary reason for the 2.7T's quickness.)

    After an hour on streets, roads and "freeways" yesterday in a demonstrator (it had 3,000 miles on it) allroad (again, with auto transmission) I can tell you that in spite of the turbo, the (I assume) added weight of the allroad body and chassis, there was no hint -- zero -- of turbo lag. I immediately got into my 16,000 miles old 4.2 and noticed, relative to the 2.7T an impression that from say 0 - 20+ mph, that the 4.2 has to "clear its throat" which is consistent with the rise in torque differences between the two engines.

    My wife's two 1.8T engines and my friends 1.8T engines (remember all manuals) have very very little turbo lag, but once you know what to look for, you CAN find it -- this was especially true of the chipped TT.

    I have read that a turbo engine feels virtually imperceptably different from a normally aspirated engine only when it is mated to an automatic -- my personal experience bears this out.

    I personally find, however, the "R U S H" of the turbo spooling up especially in first and second gears on an Audi (manual, of course) to be almost addictive.

    In sum, while I do not disbelieve anyone who writes that they can "feel" a 2.7T turbo lag (even with an automatic), most writings I have seen plus my personal experience lead me to just the opposite conclusion: the 2.7T is especially well suited to the 5 Spd Tiptronic BECAUSE it does so totally mask what little turbo lag there is in this engine.

    Let the debate begin.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    I've been reading CR for a long time. I think I can remember reading it about 35 years ago. I've subscribed for at least 20. Over the last 5-7 years, my perception is the CR has slipped badly. Not just in autos, but other areas as well. Certainly the comparisons of foods, beers, etc, by otherwise unidentified "experts" have been at odds with my personal, and admittedly subjective preferences.

    For me, CR was exampled by its ruthless honesty, keenness of perception, sparkling intellect and helpful well-rounded recommendations. Reading their articles now, give me a different perception: It's that of underpaid, and perhaps downsized, disinterested researchers and writers, who just want to check all the blocks and go home. But that isn't just a CR problem, all you have to do is try and get customer service from many different businesses and you'll find the same attitudes and problems.

    To me, the auto reports reek of these problems, though I happen to agree with their observation about the lack of "seamless" integration between turbo and tip. (More later) My observation concerning their methodology concerns their "reliability" data. While once superlative, I think it can now be misleading. For starters, they used to separate problems into two categories, serious problems that can cause the car to breakdown, and everything else. These are all now lumped together. So a loose handle on your shifter might get lumped with your transmission self-destructing, depending on how the respondent fills out the questionnaire.

    This is exacerbated by a recall; such as happened with a large percentage of Quattro A6's for fuel guage sender sensors. A problem? Sure! Would it cause me to run out of gas and crash? I don't think so! Would it keep me from buying the car? Not hardly! But all CR does is present the numbers, assuming they are representative.

    CR doesn't tell us what size sample they find acceptable to report data on. A6's aren't common cars. Who, upon receiving a CR questionnaire is going to fill it out, the satisfied driver, or one who got a lemon? While this true across all makes and models, will the comparatively small number of A6's allow more easily for skewed data? I think it might.

    CR's observation concerning a lack of seamless integration between the Tip and turbo's is partly correct, at least as evidenced by my '01 2.7T. The 2.7T has twin turbos, a Tip with hundreds of different programs that "learn" your preferences, plus TBW (Throttle By Wire.) And it's the TBW that controls boost, while evidently interacting with the Tip and ECU. It's pretty obvious that the gearing of the 2.7T, it's shift programs, and boost protocols are a balancing act among 0-60 times, EPA gas ratings and drivetrain longevity. There's a big space between 1st and 2nd gear, and unless the TBW is depressed at least 80%, it upshifts (at least in 2000's & '01's) at 3mph at which it's south of it's torque curve. If you've been driving sedately and come to a stop, and then try to accelerate briskly, but short of WOT, all of these factors tend to combine to produce a lurch followed by not too fast acceleration for a second or two. Feels like turbo lag, but it ain't. It's all the intelligence in the car getting together, holding a meeting, a deciding you really want to move. How can I be sure? If I've been driving the car really hard, and do the same thing, there is NO "turbo-lag." The '02's have a new sport mode. I'd be interested in learning how this interacts to reduce or eliminate "turbo-lag."
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I was hoping to cite my source, but I can't find it now -- perhaps the lack of turbo lag I noticed on the allroad yesterday was a combination of two things -- I do generally tend to depress the accelerator pedal a bit more aggressively, which probably keeps the transmission's brain thinking I am interested in accelerating a bit more than it's minimalist shift alorithm and I believe the allroad is "already inclined" to stay in gear a bit longer than perhaps the standard Tip on an A6.

    I am certain I read that the allroad's automatic shifting program was a bit more like the sport mode than the "sedate" mode which, I agree can be "taught" to the Tip if one simply accelerates as slowly as is humanly possible.
  • dre_jdre_j Member Posts: 15
    Turbos, by design, operate on exhaust gases. Turbine won't spin to start the compressor on the air intake until there is enough exhaust gas flow to spool up the turbo.

    The 2.7T's dual turbos have a low RPM requirement, 1700-1800 RPM I believe. This is one of the reasons they use smaller dual turbos. Unfortunately, a WOT start from a dead stop on the automatic is going to show turbo Lag. It will also show during normal driving if your RPMs are lower than the turbo's requirement to spool up. These cars don't run with the turbo going constantly.

    On the 6-speed this can be minimized by down shifting to boost RPM to spool the turbo. For the auto (except a dead start), it can be minimized by going to TIP and downshifting.

    I was hesitant to call it turbo lag in my original post. However, this is what it is.

    Remember, if the RPMs aren't up, the turbo won't spin. This is the basic principle for turbo technology. The goal of the Engineer is to reduce the perception as much as possible.

    Yes, the turbo rush is a nice feeling. The delay to get that rush from an automatic is not acceptable when I can step to the next engine in the lineup.

    These comments, in no way, are a stab at the 2.7T. I'm just stating my experience
    More of my opinion on this issue
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Sorry to be disputative and I'm hardly a turbo expert (Or much of any other sort.) but I have to disagree with dre j's observations. I find it unlikely that the turbo's don't start to move until 1700 to 1800 RPM's. They generate FULL boost at only 1850 RPM. Further, they spin VERY fast. Something on the order of magnitude of 10,000 RPM. I doubt they come to a full stop any time the engine falls below 1700 - 1800 RPM's. When I roll slowly up to, and then into my garage, it still takes the turbo's 3 to 5 seconds to completely spool down. You can hear them. It's quite cool. Driving the 2.7T, you can accelerate in the same way, over the same course, and sometimes there's lag, and sometimes there isn't. If turbo lag were the only cause, why wouldn't it be consistent?
  • mbnut1mbnut1 Member Posts: 403
    I think the fact is that the AUDI turbo engines deliver max TORQUE at 1850 rpm's. What one would need to understand is how that torque was developed / measured. It is possible that it is a steady state value which would occur on a test bench by gradually increasing the load at that rpm at max throttle. This would not necessarily be developed at that same rpm during a low gear WOT acceleration because of the turbo lag.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Yup, it's max torque @ 1850 RPM. Good question concerning how and when that torque is measured. There's also been conjecture that the torque is understated to offer a flat torque curve, and that in fact, max torque is higher. My points are that it seems unlikely that the turbo's don't start to spin until 1700 - 1800 RPM, considering the torque available at 1850, and that the lack of consistency in the lag suggests variables other than, or in addition to the turbo's.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    My wife and I have owned several Audi turbos -- so not to be confused with the enjoyment of merely an hour long test drive -- all the ones we have owned have been manual transmissions. The turbo I test drove at great lenght was an automatic, the turbro A6 I test drove was a manual transmission. Now I know that the "test menhod" includes both power braking and popping the clutch -- I have not personally tried this. So, I maintain that turbo lag is almost completely masked under "normal" driving methods by the automatic.

    I also maintain that the turbo boost is descernable in the manual.

    The points made by the previous posts confuse me. If the turbo's impct upon torque is at factory claimed maximums at under 1900 rpms, it would seem to me that virtually any even moderare agressive acceleration would be under full boost at all times -- therefor mostly completely masking any turbo lag.

    My full days spent with an S4 would bear this out.

    I am certainly not an engineer, but I do not understand what it is we are discussing here.

    My experience with the twin turbo 2.7's is that they have almost invisibile turbor lag only moreso with the automatic.
  • dre_jdre_j Member Posts: 15
    timcar,


    "Remember, if the RPMs aren't up, the turbo won't spin"

    In my haste to explain my limited understanding in this sentence and in general, I omitted the latter (fast enough to create enough boost.) After re reading my post, I can see where you are coming from on the spin issue.


    I can't explain your question at the end of your statement. I could ask the same question of the 4.2's quick shift from first to second gear.


    I'm not one of Audi's engineers so I can't explain how the whole system works. The way it's been explained to me is the delay I've experienced is turbo lag. Doing a brief search for turbo lag in general explains the relationship of the turbine/exhaust gas to compressor/air intake.


    http://www.xmission.com/~dempsey/shelby/turbo101.htm


    http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43841/article.html


    If you hear the turbo's spinning, then they are spinning. I would guess they are on the south side of the torque curve and not spinning fast enough to create the boost needed the instant the throttle is depressed from a dead stop. You and I have both experienced the latter statement.


    All of this being said, the owners of these vehicles are used to the turbo lag and probably know when the boost will come. Having never driven a Turbo before the 2.7T it was an uneasy feeling for me. I'm sure I would get used to it if I owned the car. I would guess CR is talking about this same feeling in not so technical terms.


    mbnut1, I can understand your statement.


    It's interesting how one comment from CR has sparked so much interest.


    I hope this clears up my earlier statements.

  • clifforadclifforad Member Posts: 1
    With the end of summer comes the end of a long and fruitful relationship with my '90 Miata, a victim of expanding family size (and personal girth!). The pain eased significantly after driving and settling on an '02 A6 2.7T with bells and whistles. It's my first Audi and there's one dealer in town. Too late for the sell-off of '01s, can I expect any decent discount off MSRP with a new model year and winter in the Midwest staring me in the face??
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Depending on your priorities, there may still be some '01's left. However, the 02's will have better residuals, and have had numerous enhancements. It usually works best to negotiate from dealer invoice. This can be determined here at Edmunds. I'd think you might have to wait a month or so to let inventory build, but other buyers have been reporting good deals already on new cars, even those they ordered. In past years, a good price was $1000 - $2000 over dealer invoice. A great price was anything less. If you paid more, you probably didn't have to. But this will vary greatly from dealer to dealer, and region to region. This market is soft right now, so it shouldn't be too difficult to get decent pricing. Hint: Volume dealers often offer the best pricing, but examine the whole deal, notably your dealer's service department, loaner policies, etc., if you plan on having the car serviced there.
  • gerry18gerry18 Member Posts: 39
    timcar, yes the turbos do turn very fast, but I believe you accidently dropped a zero (100,000 vs 10,000)
  • mbnut1mbnut1 Member Posts: 403
    Understanding the issue simply comes down to whether the engine pulls more strongly at say above 3000 rpm than below it. If it does pull more strongly above 3K then the transient torque curve can't be as flat as stated by the specs. Which is likely due to turbo lag. If it pulls the same amount from above and below 3k then the transient torque curve is the same as stated in the specs and there is no turbo lag. My experience with my 1.8T suggests that it pulls more strongly above 3K than below despite the spec that says it makes max torque at 1850 RPM. A plausible explaination for this is the turbo is lagging behind. The 2.7T uses two small turbos to minimize the lag but I suspect that even if there was lag with the S4 it makes so much power you couldn't tell anyway.
  • humphreyhumphrey Member Posts: 1
    I got a problem with A6's (2.7T, 2001) auto transmission. I think that's what CR referred to. When the car was slowing down to about 10mph, (transmission shifted from 3rd to 2nd) with lightest throttle you can give, the car still acts like been rear ended. Audiworld.com has many people posted about this problem, not just from Audi owners, but from VW owners as well. I heard that Audi has a fix for that by adding 0.1 second transmission shift delay during acceleration. But my dealer has no idea about what I was telling them.

    I didn't read CR, because I think they are very biased and not knowledgeable enough on certain tests. I am an engineer, I think I can do better than them.
  • mike_e_smithmike_e_smith Member Posts: 20
    I'm an engineer too with a PhD in electrical engineering. It might not make me an expert on cars, but I do have an open mind and a healthy appreciation for comparison testing. If you want to discount the CR review that you disagree with, I guess you have to discount the ones a few years ago that picked the A6 as the best car in its class. I took their opinion with a grain of salt then as I do now. However, I read as many reviews as I can from as many sources as I can. Do I agree with everything Consumer Reports says based on my personal experiences? Do I care about some about the items they report on? Do I think they are biased? No, no, and no. I've seen some posts that acknowledge various points CR made. However, I can't comment on them from personal experience since I don't own the A6 which was reviewed. Nor do I own or drive the 100's of other cars that CR reviews which is one of the reasons I read the magazine. In general, I have found owner experiences as discussed in this forum to be consistent with Consumer Reports reviews. You should read what they say about the many other cars they don't like before you pass judgment just because they state the Audi has a few warts (as do all cars). My remarks are not intended to cause controversy, but just to keep it all in perspective. By the way, I'm getting ready for winter. Last year we had about 200" of snow. We've already had some two weeks ago, but today it was in the 60's. The snowfall usually starts in earnest here around Thanksgiving. It's about time to put on my Michelin Arctic Alpins. Now you know why I have such an interest in Audi's.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    My 4.2 A6 has in 16K miles had this exact same thing happen once or twice. I can never get it to repeat and perhaps "thunk" is more appropriate to describe the sound it makes. If this has been thought to be a turbo issue, exclusively -- I assure you my car is normally aspirated. I thought it was a transmission issue that is caused by the "smart" transmission being given data that it doesn't have an algorithm for.

    But then again there are times when I use the tiptronic, which normally will NOT allow downshifting to first gear, (no matter what you do) when I am downshifting from 4th to 3rd to 2nd and all of a sudden the tach swings almost all the way around because the car has determined that it should go into first gear -- and at a speed that is higher than it would normally allow. Of course when it reaches red line it then upshifts automatically even if I have not touched the tip (which is what it is supposed to do).

    I think it happens mostly when I am on a hill.

    It happens rarely and actually when it happens the car usually takes off like a rabbit!
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Member Posts: 136
    I think Mike is is slightly off the mark when he comments, in #2023 above, that the consumer experiences discussed in this forum reflect the reviews by CR. I think all the Audi owners, and prospective owners, have been candid with their experiences and concerns. As Mike points out Audi does seem to have warts - though my Audi has been problem free. I don't agree, however, that the experiences reflected by Audi owners on this site merit the lowest possible reliability rating. Based on a rating like that I would expect to see Audis littering the road side while they wait for a tow.

    I think it is naive to suggest that CR has maintained the level of objectivity and integrity that they were once known for. After my wife and I were married, and began to furnish our home and prepare for a family, we subscribed to CR and routinely followed their advice. 30 year ago or so there was no more definitive source of consumer advice and an opinion by CR could make or break a product. This isn't the case any longer. The degree to which we now debate the merit of their assessment is evidence enough that CR no longer enjoys a healthy and universal respect. CR has been reduced to a data point.

    Is not the characterization of the 6 speed transmission as "clunky" a clear example of subjectivity? Or is there really a method for measuring clunkiness? I think this will be the last I'll write about CR (you'll be glad to know that, I'm sure). I do enjoy my 2001 Audi A6 (2.7T with 6 speed) and remain extremely happy with it. This afternoon's drive through a beautiful New England fall on winding back roads with leaves blowing and sun shining was great. Beats the heck out of the same ride with the car I had in high school - a '62 Chevy Nova with clunky 3 speed on the column.
  • tkey1tkey1 Member Posts: 1
    Hi all,
    I bought my fist Audi this week. A '02 A6 Turbo. What a great performing car. I traded in a '99 Volvo S80 Turbo. There is no comparison in performance and it's great to say "goodbye torque steer". I didn't realize Audi's were such great performing cars and so much more fun to drive. I look forward to learning and contributing to this board as I get more experience with the car.
  • stheodd1stheodd1 Member Posts: 18
    I request some feedback on an A6 4.2 2001 used. I have been shopping for some time and have owned in the past BMW's and MB's. I have been driving a Land Cruiser the last year and have had it with SUV's. I read throught the pages here and the Audi sounds great. I have driven the 4.2 and am sold on it. I stumbled on a 2001 preowned with sport chassis, premium package,xenon lights, cd, etc. Certainly a nicely equipped car. After some dickering we are at 41k. What are you Audi experts thoughts on this car. I have placed a deposit to hold. Seems like a good deal. Would love to hear your thoughts or questions!!
    Thanks
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Tim, congrats! Here's a URL to whole lot of other folks that love their A6's:


    http://forums.audiworld.com/a6/


    Stan, the '01 4.2 is a great car, and without research, $41K doesn't sound bad if it's low mileage. I understand that Edmunds has a used car valuator section, and I'd check it out. My only concern would be why someone dumped such a new car. Dealers usually aren't candid about these things.

  • tilegaltilegal Member Posts: 1
    Would like to hear any advise or feedback from owners of '95 A6. Am considering a purchase at about $8900 (moonroof, leather, power everything etc)which seem to be a pretty good price after review at edmunds and other websites. But because of the year haven't been able to get much "concrete" info, CR lists insufficient data prior to '99. Really concerned with reliability of this model/year as it's for a college student. Also this car has 120,000 miles. While I wouldn't dare buy most American cars with this kind of mileage I know that often the foreign vehicles can continue easily to 200,000 without significant problems. Unrealistic to expect? Does anybody have any feedback for me on an older Audi like this, or any warnings pertaining to a particularly troublesome (important)feature like transmission? Will welcome any advise before we "jump in".
  • stheodd1stheodd1 Member Posts: 18
    Thanks Timcar. I have tried to check the used value here at edmunds but used does not apply to 2001 as yet. It is only as recent as 2000. The car has 6000 miles on it and the dealer claims it was an executive car out of Audi and they use them for few miles. Sounds reasonable but you never know.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    With only 6k miles on it, my only "caution" is based on my assumption that it has sport tires 255 x 40 x 17's -- personally I would replace them for two reasons, uh make that three -- #1 not at all good in anything other than Summer weather, #2 very short tread life (I got 8,000 miles out of mine before, see three) #3 the noise factor drove me to distraction -- high performance low profile tires are generally louder than other tires to begin with -- the 40 series and the 2001 A6 sound deadening make a lot of road noise (exception, the Dunlop SP 9000's which come with this car with the 17" wheel/tire can be OK in this regard). So, for about $650, you can get 4 new Yokohama AVS db's which are ultra high performance all season tires, which in PA+quattro should be good virtually all through the winter.

    Go for it!

    I'd go for it, even with my assumption that you'll need "new shoes" from the get go -- sounds like a really good deal.
  • morphiemorphie Member Posts: 95
    While I agree with 99 and 44/100 th's of what Mark says, I admit to being paranoid about snow and ice, particularly when my wife and daughter are driving. That was the initial reason I purchased my wife's first Audi (she now has a 2002 A6 Avant 3.0). Accordingly, come Thanksgiving, four (4) Michelin Arctic Alpins or Blizzaks go on. The difference is noticeable and dramatic. Further, while I live in Connecticut, I spent about six (6) years in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania. While you could get by with quattro and "normal" tires, my personal preference would be dedicated snows. All-wheel drive and paranoia yield traction.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Have driven even RWD with all seasons, and they WILL allow you to get by. Quattro and all the other niceties of an A6 make those all seasons just that much more effective. But real winter tires certainly are safest and most effective, particularly if you want to do any spirited driving in serious snow. One thing's for sure; summer tires won't cut it in the snow.
  • gs4rx3gs4rx3 Member Posts: 25
    I purchased my 2000 A6 4.2 from the Audi executive driven program at around the same time you're purchasing yours (the 2001s had just come out). While I was outraged at the 5 or 6 minor blemishes and scratches the careless executive had allowed his car to incur (I had zero dings, marks or scratches on my 3 year old Lexus GS400 when I bought the Audi), I have found over the past 12 months that the car has had zero problems. One thing I had to do was have my dealer include an additional 2-year warranty on the car so that with the 3-year warranty the 2000s came with I'd still have at least 4 years in total when I bought the car (which is what the new ones come with now). My purchase price for the car that had everything yours has, but also the navigation package and a 6 disc cd-changer, was $43K, so I think $41K is a great price.

    As for Mark's winter weather comment, I agree. I live in Chicago and good all-season tires offer plenty of traction for the quattro. I will say that I miss the sportier traction in the summer, but I have Pirelli P-Zero sport tires on another car, so I can push that one to the limit and use the Audi for an all-around luxury sedan.
  • theanimalatheanimala Member Posts: 4
    GS4RX3, just curious what you thought about the differences between your GS400 and A6 4.2. The reason I ask is that I have a 98 GS400, and just this past weekend we got my wife a 98 A6 (only a 2.8 obviously).

    I have to say, although I only drove in it a little bit I am very impressed. I can only imagine that the 4.2 would be so much better, and much closer to what I love about my GS400.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I used to think that electronic stuff on cars was kind of like sound fields on home theater equipment -- hmm, hall, jazz, dance, nite club, church, rock, classical, etc -- seemed like just echo and delay and phasing -- first time I drove a car with "traction control" I thought, what a joke. I have come to believe fully in ABS, and ABS + quattro even more so. Add a dose of ESP -- probably just limits the power or does something in a gross fashion to limit torque which in turn would limit wheelspin, etc. This I thought remembering back to traction control.

    Now, on a "mere 2001 Audi A6 4.2" -- you get quattro, ABS + ESP -- granted you are missing "brake assist" (now on the 2002's) -- but you have an incredible combination of analog and digital assistants that can HELP get you out of trouble and keep you out of trouble. These electronics are no substitute for prudence and information (fed to a "reasonable driver") but put a reasonable driver behind the wheel of an ABS+ESP quattro on snow and drive. Then do the same on virtually any other car with either front or rear drive and ABS or ESP or both or quattro without ABS or ESP or both -- in other words in any combination or permutation, quattro + ABS + ESP is superior in winter (even with summer tires). Now, add all season or winter tires to this formula and you have a combination that -- to repeat myself -- can either keep you out of trouble or get you out of trouble.

    I'm sure there are some new technologies that will even help this combination -- perhaps active suspensions and electric brakes (both of these are coming to Audi's, BTW) -- but in the mean time, for affordable passenger cars, quattro+ABS+ESP is exceeded by nothing I can think of.

    Now, in all fairness, I believe you can get a Subaru with their version of All Wheel Drive, ABS and their electronic stability program -- and I assume it too provides a very very safe drivetrain, as does (I assume) the Volvo and VW and Mercedes and BMW versions.

    This is more of advocacy for the combination of technologies than a specific rave for Audi -- although, I don't think any of the other guys, except VW (and to date they have not offered ESP in the USA) even come close.

    Das treibende Vergnugen (the driving pleasure).
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    I agree on everything except the summer tire part. True summer tires turn into cement blocks with almost zero traction at the temperatures required for snow and ice.

    I don't care what you have, if there's no traction, it won't help you.

    Personally, I have all-seasons and they're fine in the white stuff. Not as good as snows, but still pretty good.
  • gs4rx3gs4rx3 Member Posts: 25
    I owned a GS400 from January 1998 until January 2001 and switched to the A6 4.2. I was very hesitant to make the switch, since I had very few problems with the GS400 and the level of service at Lexus was outstanding. However, I felt that the GS400 insulated the driver from the road too much. I also felt that the handling and lean into and out of curves/turns was too soft. Plus, the rear wheel drive combined with the strong engine slipped while accelerating on wet roads, which I found annoying.

    So, I read every post on this and the previous A6 sites and found every one of timcar's post 1838 issues and problems. But once I drove the 2.7t and 4.2, the ride, driver comfort, sporty suspension and all wheel drive made the decision fairly easy. I chose the 4.2 because I wanted the bigger engine for smoother highway driving, found it almost as fast off the line as the 2.7t, and think it looks materially better than the 2.7t. Yes, I miss the Nakamichi stereo (vs. the Bose) and the 5.7 zero to 60 mph speed of the Lexus GS400, but the Audi is so much more enjoyable to drive, those are minor sacrifices to make. Fortunately, I have had zero problems in my 1 year of ownership.

    However, don't fool yourself - Audi service will NEVER be in the same class as Lexus service. And I think the fit and finish of the A6 is not as tight as that of the GS400. But the enjoyment you will get from the German engineering and feeling at one with the road and the car will be so rewarding the few annoyances you will have to deal with will be easily overlooked.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    At the risk of piling on, I have to "me too" what Mike said. High performance summer tires are LETHAL in cold slippery conditions, I.e., snow, slush and ice. 4 X 0 = 0. Quattro and alphabet soup not withstanding, (Oh, and don't forget EDL.) high performance summer tires will grossly under perform ANY other type of tire in ANY other drivetrain configuration. Reports on AW of new Quattro owners with high performance summer tires trying to ascend inclines in snow and losing control, while their neighbors sail right up with FWD and all seasons.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    My comments regarding the summer tires in post 2031 were meant to convey my strong opinions that for those of us in "moderate to heavy" winter climates -- we must have either all weather or snow tires.

    My further comments regarding the ABS, ESP, now EDL M.O.U.S.E. were to support an earlier post regarding "why quattro is safer in winter."

    If my posts led anyone to believe that I felt it is OK to go through winter on Summer tires exclusively, I apologize. Here in Cincinnati, I have tried weathering the winter on Summer tires and in our "moderate" snowfall winters, I have been able to "hang in there." But I agree -- Summer Maximum performance tires even with the AWD and ESP, etc. -- can be less than "inspiring."

    Those of you that have been on the board for a time know that I have replaced my Pirelli P6000's which came with the A6 4.2 sport pkg with Yokohama AVS db's which are All season tires. But remember Cincinnati is about as far south as you can get and still be considered in "the north." We rarely have much snowfall anymore -- what with global warming and all.

    Please do not attempt to navigate winter with Audi's selection of "sport tires."
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    They seem like an excellent choice for your situation, and I really like just about all their attributes. But being in NW NJ, we sometimes get truly snowy winters, unlike those you describe. However, I usually have the freedom to avoid driving when it's really bad, and exercise it. That being the case, I wonder if the db's would suffice for my application. If I remember, you got them in the spring. If so, I'd love to learn how they do over the winter. They'd probably work for me since, as you point out, the Quattro A6 is superlative in slippery conditions, and the stock Conti's have worked well.
  • dre_jdre_j Member Posts: 15
    Talking about winter tires has me wondering. My 2002 A6 4.2 is not expected until late November. I have no idea what tires will be on the car. I prefer the conti sport to the P6000 because of the road noise. I'm wondering if the conti sport is a softer tire that can get you through a "mild" winter? (The kind of weather Mark describes)

    Otherwise, I'll have an immediate investment to make for new Tires/Rims before January.
  • blehrlichblehrlich Member Posts: 92
    I also replaced the stock Pirellis with the Yoko AVS dBs. I have had great luck with them in the rain, but I'm going to use Dunlop Winter M2 tires for the winter. I go up into the NH mountains and this should give me piece of mind.
  • morphiemorphie Member Posts: 95
    The winter tire discussion is almost as zesty as the CR dialogue, but a bit more civil.

    My understanding of the difference in "performance", "all season" and "winter" ( I am not a tire engineer) is as follows:

    High performance rubber is designed to work within a defined set of parameters, i. e. dry and wet conditions. Their rubber compounds and tread patterns do not encompass characteristics which allow them to be optimized for low temperature or ice/snow conditions. These variables are simply not part of the original design specs. Give them a dry or wet road, within their optimum temperature range, and they are happy campers.

    "All Season" tires are an interesting compromise. My understanding is that in order to "qualify" for this appellation, the tread design must merely have the requisite open area, thus making them perform a bit better in snow or slush. While some all season tires may be designed to perform somewhat better in winter conditions, as compared to others of their class, I am not competent to address that issue.

    True "winter" tires (with the mountain/snow flake emblem) are every bit as much the specialist as their high performance "summer" cousins. This is not merely a result of tread design; the chemical composition of the rubber allows the tire to remain flexible at extremely low temperatures, thus permitting the tire to retain a greater percentage of its traction. In some cases, certain "Blizzaks" for example, an initial percentage of the tread is more sacrificial than is normally the case, again allowing the tire to maintain a significant degree of traction. The bottom line is: if you wish a tire that will give you the greatest traction, in the most adverse conditions, a "specialist" is the only choice. That is not to say that a particular all season tire cannot give good performance in the right climate (Cincinnati, maybe?). You simply cannot mimic this performance by searching for an all season or performance tire which has a "softer" compound.

    A word on "quattro" and traction. All wheel drive does not yield additional traction; it apportions what you have. If you have none, you go no where. Given the right circumstances, an Audi will have just as much trouble getting up a hill as a rwd.

    One of the most fascinating articles I have read was the Car and Driver or Road & Track (sorry, I do not remember which), wherein a fwd Audi was compared to a quattro, along with a Mercedes, with and without all wheel drive (4 matic). The test was conducted with and without snows. The single biggest difference was the addition of dedicated snow tires. In a combination of tests: braking, cornering, acceleration, etc., the fwd or rwd with snows was superior to either the quattro or 4 matic. By a small, but noticeable margin, the all wheel drive vehicles, with snows, had the best results.

    My advice is: if you deal with ice or snow to any significant degree, purchase four (4) snow tires. If your climate is moderate, the choice is much less clear cut.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    Mike's very detailed and excellent post expands upon my understanding. The only point I would phrase differently concerns different drivetrains ability to deal with low traction. As Mike points out, zero traction is the same for any configuration, but if all are given the same tires, and some traction, AWD will provide more motive force than RWD or FWD. But for sure, tires are the biggest single determinant.

    Concerning Conti's vs. Pirelli's, my understanding is that AoA puts what they want on them. These are both summer high performance tires that only come with the sport package. Unless you're in the Deep South, I wouldn't want these tires on my car. Though Mark correctly pointed out that in most case it's possible to drive the car, I personally would find the window of safety reduced in the winter to an unacceptable level.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Even with quattro -- the AoA sport tire selections are best in winter when sung to the tune, "Slip Slidin' Away." If I lived north of Cincinnati, I would probably go the winter tire route and summer tire route -- the all seasons in Cincinnati, so far, seem to be a very good compromise -- but remember the Yok's are Ultra High Performance all seasons which according to TireRack appears to be different than just "normal" all season tires. I suspect they will not be as good as normal all season tires.

    Now to comment by sharing what I saw at the Audi museum in Ingolstadt.

    Audi has set up a display of three model TT's -- one is RWD, one is FWD and one is, you guessed it, quattro.

    The three TT's are on an incline that visually appears to be identical -- as if it is the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle. To show the traction capabilities you push a button which immediately starts the TT's "up the hill" -- about one fourth of the way up the hill the first car stops and the rear wheels spin on the "road" (this is the RWD TT); then about one third the way up the hill the second car stops and the front wheels begin to spin on the road; then well over half way up the road the quattro stops and all four wheels begin to spin. The explanation given as I recall is that pushing is not as good as pulling but that both pushing and pulling is the best.

    The text indicates that there is not "more" traction -- as everything about the cars and the hill and the road is identical (except which wheels are driven) -- but that when the total available traction (motive force) is distributed over the four wheels, the car can "go further up the hill."

    The point, without regard to its true everyday applicability is powerful -- under identical circumstances the quattro can keep on going much further than either rear or front wheel drive.

    I have, with Summer Tires (fool that I was), driven up a hill in Cincinnati (the seven hills of Cincinnati) after a fresh snow fall and passed both front and rear wheel drive cars in my quattro (a 1995 S6 at the time). The only other vehicles that would go up the hill were SUV's.

    The incident that finally convinced me to switch tires was, to my embarassment, when I got stuck in my own FLAT driveway after a particularly heavy (and rare) Cincinnati snowstorm. Perhaps all seasons would not have helped either, who knows?

    Now that I have used all season tires I will --- based on where I live --- not even attempt to go through winter on summer tires.
  • mbnut1mbnut1 Member Posts: 403
    I also live in Cincinnati and my '98 A4 quattro has never had anything but the Dunlop sport suspension tires. I think some people get into trouble with the quattro cars because they fail to recognize that when it gets slippery out you need to slow down.
    The only time I had a problem was in Pittsburgh during an ice storm and everyone else was doing periouttes as well. The interesting thing was I was having trouble getting the car to stop going down hill and I managed to get it to do a 180 and went right up the hill.
    Having shared my experience I agree with advice that in climates where you spend more time in bad weather conditions it is advisable even with quattro to switch away from the high performance sport tires to something more winter oriented.
  • blehrlichblehrlich Member Posts: 92
    I just had the Audi oem front and rear stabilizer bars installed on my non-sport 2001 A6 4.2. I didn't get the sport package originally because I would need the jaws of life to get out of those sport seats. While ride quality has remained the same (obviously softer than the sport ride), the handling improvement, especially when changing lanes or cornering, is incredible. This was an easy, relatively affordable improvement that is invisible from the outside.
  • wbreauxwbreaux Member Posts: 33
    I was just in an Audi showroom today and saw a car with a 2.4Quattro designation. The wheels and tires looked like a 4.2. We asked the salesperson and he said it was a 4.2, and shrugged when we pointed right to it and told him it said 2.4. Could the numbers have been put on backwards or is there some other explanation? I thought I saw a comment of a similar nature on this or another chatroom a while back but can't remember the answer.

    BTW, the dealership still had '01 2.7Ts on their lot.
  • timcartimcar Member Posts: 363
    I think there may be a 2.4 TDI that isn't sold in this country. But I don' think it has the 4.2 body treatment. My best guess is that the numbers were reversed. Strange the Germans would ship it that way. Wonder if anyone messed with it at the port?
  • datadogdatadog Member Posts: 27
    Here we go - I've been negotiating for an '02 2.7 loaded with everything but nav system. They are basically at $2,000 over invoice. I have offered $1,500 over invoice. There are some considerable obfuscating factors like my trade-in ('98 A4 2.8Q loaded with 5-speed and 81K at $13,500), a customer loyalty incentive, and $800 worth of shipping from NJ to VA. But what do you think?
Sign In or Register to comment.