Howdy, Stranger!

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





Audi A6

1131132134136137226

Comments

  • I "sort of" like the look of the new Audis -- the change from the previous look to the current one was fairly radical too.

    Styling is subjective -- while I am hardly smitten with the new design, it would not make me leave Audi.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I'd been looking for some spy shots of the new A6. I copied your link for anyone else who wants to find it easily.

    http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autowe- - - ek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=02394112&Search_Type- - - =STD&Search_ID=1856748&record=4

    The new grill being discussed has been reported via quotes of Audi AG folks as the new corporately mandated grill for ALL new Audi's. The just introduced A8 has been redesigned with it too. I've seen pix of the new W12 A8 with it.

    My reaction is pretty much the same; What, has Audi been selling too many cars? But the new grill really isn't. It's supposed to establish a strong corporate look (Mercedes envy?) by incorporating the grill from Audi's 1930's record setting Auto's and race cars. I first saw it in full vigor on the new Pike's Peak. My reaction? Yikes!!!

    But since I've seen various sneak/spy/guesses that incorporate it, my strong initial negative reaction has mellowed. As I was looking at the Audi AG official photos of the new A8 W12, I realized that the new grill has actually been with us at least since our current generation A6 was introduced. Guess what? If you incorporate the area between the upper and lower old grills, which is part of the front bumper, into the grill, you've got the new grill! And since there will still be a division in the massive new grill for what will have to be a front bumper, and it will have to house a license plate in most places, I don't know if the new grill is really all that radical.

    I don't know if I'll ever come love it, but I might just learn not to hate it. I kinda liked some Acura designs until the new corporate grill was introduced about 10 years ago. Horrors! Then I saw the latest Acura, the TL, and thought, YUK! After seeing it in the flesh, it surprised me as looking pretty good. Maybe even better than pretty good. The Audi grill may come to grow on us.

    I have a bit more skepticism concerning Autoweek's spy shots. I would not only be disappointed if these pix are of the new A6, but also very surprised. I may be wrong, but I think they are Photoshopped. I've been looking at spy/sneak/artist renderings of the new A6 for about a year. These are among the LEAST radical I've seen. In fact, except for new front and rear ends, it looks to me to be IDENTICAL to the existing A6. Look at the greenhouse! This isn't a new design; it's exactly our present A6's with a new front and rear end slapped on. If this is what the new A6 actually turns out to look like, I will know for sure the Dr. P has it in for Audi and has sent all of it's former design talent to Lamborghini and Bentley!
  • Hello all. Some feedback please on purchasing an 2001 A6 2.8Q with 25,266 miles certified by dealer for $25K flat. What makes it interesting to me is the ext. warranty and basicaly free money AOA is offering on 60 month financing @ 2.9%.

    thanks
  • Today, I received an email from Audi touting the A6 S-line. I eagerly opened it and clicked through at the appropriate places.

    The S-line A6 2.7T with 265HP (and I assume MORE than 258 pound feet of torque) is now the "top o the line" [performer] A6 and it is .4 seconds less quick than the outgoing non-S-line A6 250hp (6speed manual).

    So this new -- swan song -- 2.7T A6 is brought to the market with "more performance" orientation, bigger whhels, more powerful engine, more aggressive "intentions." And it comes with the lag ridden tiptronic as the ONLY transmission.

    ?

    I have to check the BMW web site and see if they have eliminated the manual transmissions from the 5 series (perhaps they have).

    If you want a high performance Audi, your current choices are the old A6 2.7T with a stick shift or the new S4. This S-line is a very nice car and a reasonable value and I am certain is not a bad car at all. But if you want the higher performance that the S-line suggests, you will be disappointed.

    Try to find a new 2004 2.7T A6 6spd [non-S-line] with as many of the sporting bits as were avail on the option sheet. You will have higher performance than the new S-line 2.7T.

    Once again, I must ask: what are they thinking to bring out a lower performance vehicle and tout it as their "higher performance" version?

    From a certain point of view their statements are accurate -- it DOES offer higher engine performance (on a test bench), but lower "automobile" (as in the whole car) performance than a car that is, in effect, no longer current -- the 2004 A6 2.7T 6spd manual.

    Use small words to explain this to me -- I must be dense.

    P.S. this S-line widens, even more (via perception, [non-permissible content removed] for tat), the performance distance between itself and the A6 4.2. The outgoing 250HP 2.7T was rated at 6.6 seconds to 100kph with a tip, the new one is 6.4 seconds and the 4.2 is 6.7 seconds -- and the old 2.7T A6 was 6.0 with a non lag ridden 6spd manual.

    In English: when you pay more for a car because it has the "big" engine under the hood, because it has the big hp numbers (300 on up) and it is beaten by a significantly less costly virtually identical car, it doesn't make sense.

    Note: I had two A6 4.2's and I did test drive the A6 2.7T before I purhcased the second 4.2 -- the 4.2 did have a different "feel" to it, as if it were cut from a block of solid aluminum (or steel or whatever your alloy of choice is); and I appreciated the sound of the V8 and the more aggressive fenders and "running boards." Now, I have lived with a 6spd 2.7T allroad for 16 months and much as I like all the A6 4.2's "stuff," it just galls me to think that I could move up the pecking order and take a drop in performance, yet have to endure a rather large increase in price.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    The 545i 6-Speed still exists, and God willing and the creeks don't rise, it will for quite some time yet. Better still is that if you can get past the new E60's looks (I cannot and WAS looking to the A6 2.7t 6-Speed as my current E39 5er's replacement), the new car no longer is subject to the Gas Guzzler tax. :-/

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • Yet NO Audi 4.2 V8 equpped car (other than the S4) is available with a manual transmission? -- no matter how high the stack of $100 bills.

    Something ain't right, it just ain't right!

    I had so hoped for an S6 (4.2 340 hp) with a 6spd.

    The tip versions don't do it for me. And, I would actually pay more for a stick -- yet they price things just the opposite or there is no price difference.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "And, I would actually pay more for a stick..."

    Yeah, me too. :-/

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • We keep reading these interviews with VW and Audi execs in which they tell us that Audi is to become the sporting brand. The first, defining element of a sport car is a manual transmission. Then they don't supply that element, at least to the NA market. My 40 hp. 1956 Morris Minor 1000 was more sporting than what Audi is offering in the A6 line, with the exception of the S6. I, too, don't understand.
  • In response to dwongsong's email, I completely agree. The incoming "fish mouth" look is just too much to take - very BMWesque in its execution (i.e., "look at me" styling - IMHO). Where do you go with the retro-styling that seems to be envogue? With the new - or 70's - Mustang, what does Ford do in 5 years? Build a car based on the '86 'stang GT? What a great car that was.

    If the new A6/S4/etc are anything like the new "Audi corporate" look that's permeated recent spy pics, I'm out - and I'm running out of German car makes! BMW? Ugh!! Porsche 996? Terrible (and resale proves it - a '99 996 goes for less than the last of the real Porsches - the 993), MB? Not looking so bad at this point. I'm hoping to get the AMG version of the AMG version of the E-class. Suddenly very un-exclusive.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I usually wait until the final pictures to say anything, but every picture so far has been just the current car with the new-look grille and a Saturn LS looking rear end.

    I hope Audi is just warming over the current car. I was looking for something shocking and stunning with the new grille and all. This car in the spy shots looks more like a "facelift" than a redesign.

    M
  • I just had '01 A6 2.8 serviced and it was recommended by my dealer that I add a Fuel Additive.

    Any recommendations?

    Thanks.
  • The dealer sells fuel additive but it is the same stuff that is at Chevron.

    Empty tank, add "big jug" fuel additive, fill up with super premium. Rinse lather repeat -- 1 time.

    Change oil and filter, early as doing the above will turn your oil blacker than a trapped coal miner.

    Then, afterwards use "small jug" of fuel additive perhaps one out of every four or five tankfulls.

    Depending on the milage of your car, changing the spark plugs, oil+air filter and oil all at the same time (see above) may contribute to better gas milage and if things are really bad right now, perhaps even smoother and more power.

    Techrylene? Heck, it is something like that.
  • noshonosho Posts: 119
    While I'm not yet in the market to replace my 2000 A6-2.7T. I am starting to look and I am disappointed to see that a manual won't be available from Audi. I will be taking a close look at the Cadillac CTS-V - 400HP with a stick (but not AWD, but with LSD).
  • I stopped by my dealership on Friday for an oil change. Only one 2.7T with 6-speed left. I think it was the Audi USA site that had the "base" 2.7T no longer available after 1/1/04. Replaced by the S-line with automatic only. The salesman didn't have much of an idea where Audi is headed with all this. I have to say, though, that it is a sad day to see the manual cut from the list of choices. I had been considering trading my '01 2.7T w/6-speed in the spring. On hold now, at least for the short term. I think my fall-back position will be to go with the 4.2 if I have to go automatic. (There were a couple RS6s there - $88K is pretty steep.)
  • The Audis that come to the US are, IMO, likely to come with 6spd tips, CVT's if they ever get them to be quattro and high torque friendly and/or DSGs.

    The thought process, he said as if he knew for sure rather than just speculating, must be that the automatics with 6 forward speeds and a variety of technologies can -- technically -- equal or better the stick shift in power/performance/control and fuel economy. From my vantage point, the 5spd tip has been a fair transmission -- some people like them. AT this price point, though, you would think you would want better than a "fair" transmission. Does anyone have a good 5spd manu matic?

    I find them vague but passable. Given a choice (which I was when I bought my current allroad a 2003 2.7T) at this point in time, I would go with the 6spd manual. The DSG, CVT and 6ormore spd tips may change my mind.

    I am not opposed to having my mind changed.

    I am just doubtful -- espcially with the numerous tiptronic related complaints ALL over the Internet about the tip as it is currently rendered in Audi and VW's!

    I have had 4 tips -- I loved the fact that 3 of them were connected to Audi V8's -- but the transmissions did rob a lot of power and a fair amount of "real time" responsiveness from an otherwise awesome drive train.

    I keep swearing I will test a 6spd tip -- for I am 90% certain that the new A6's will ONLY come with that option or if not this new A6, next year, for sure.

    The DSG is supposed to be THE one to have, BTW.

    What are they thinking?!?

    Will the 5 series BIMMERS still have manual as an option? And, is the rumor about the BMW's offering AWD across the line fur real, fur sure?!?
  • bretaabretaa Posts: 130
    Criticize BMW's recent styling, but it appears everyone is getting in the act on the front light "eyebrow," Audi looking like it has a lower one and Scion (in the recently introduced coupe) has an upper one...

    - Bret
  • caslincaslin Posts: 16
    AOA site still claims 258# torque? Why(& how) boost hp 15 and not move torque even "1"? At one time I was mad at my dealer for not telling me about the new S-line when I ordered my A6 2.7T w\ 6 manual in Sept. By the time I picked it up (11\22\03) I was aware of the auto only on the S-line and also found myself scratching my head and forgiving my dealer. I obviously didn't get the last manual, but I never dreamed how close to that I was. Considering myself lucky, my first Audi and the last of the best at the same time (excluding auto only RS6). Separate issue-Has anyone had any experiences with "short-shift" kits? Looking at one from Stratmosphere. Worth the trouble? Any Audi warranty issues? Appreciate input on other brands too!! 4500 miles and still smiling-nare a problem.
  • caslincaslin Posts: 16
    Just double checked AOA site, have now updated site to show 280 ft\lb torgue. 15 ponies and 22 ft\lbs and all they got was .2 on the 0-60mph? That Tip is a power hog indeed!
  • . . .could read "robust power, not just ground effects, now at 265 strong horses is just one of the hallmarks of the new for 2004 A6 S-line [sic]" -- now the A6 2.7T S line, the only one available from such and such a point forward is .4 seconds less quick than its standard line predecessor.

    I have the Audi brochure -- which clearly states the 0-100kph time for the Audi A6 2.7T is 6.0 seconds flat. Indeed, the Audi A6 2.7T sport for 2004 was, with the exception of the S4, the quickest Audi in the US -- quicker than an S6, quicker than an A8, quicker than an A6 4.2 and quicker than a 225HP or 250HP TT.

    Why not boost -- ever so slightly -- the HP and torque, put the ground effects and uprated wheels and tires on the A6 2.7T and leave it alone -- my gut says that it would then be 0-100kph at 5.7+ seconds -- darn close to the S4 and a lot more comffortable to boot.

    It seems exactly backwards to push the performance envelope of a car higher and effectively lower one of the Key Performance Indicators (acceleration) by a factor of ~ a half second.

    Of course they could've improved the performance even more and kept pushing the S line (with a Tip) to 6.0 seconds -- but then that would REALLY kill the 4.2's sales, which is rated at 6.7 seconds.

    I loved my 4.2 A6, it felt strong, muscular and powerful -- like The Hulk! -- and nothing could be finer than the sound of that V8.

    But a year and a half with a 2.7T 6spd (in an allroad, no less) has given me an appreciation for the "right now" power of the 2.7T (when mated with the manual transmission).

    My 2.7T Audi (stick shift) makes me yearn for a drive in a factory modified 2.7T equipped car -- sadly the only way to get the S Line is equipped with an "on line, big time and NOT real time" tiptronic transmission.

    I could just scream.
  • caslincaslin Posts: 16
    Just double checked AOA site, have now updated site to show 280 ft\lb torgue. 15 ponies and 22 ft\lbs and all they got was .2 on the 0-60mph? That Tip is a power hog indeed!
  • . . .is that the new version is now .4 less quick than the outgoing version (in 6spd trim).
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,305
    I feel your pain.

    The people who built the car I drive have given up on the manual, and I've alienated any number of the faithful (who also drive it) by harping on the subject.

    I keep myself somewhat calmer by contemplating my potential next car: G35, CTS, BMW 5, Audi A6, or whatever else may come down the pike that meets my requirements. Having even one from the pool (especially the one with the nicest interior and the wonderful memories from three business trips and a European vacation) drop out is disheartening.

    In 1 - 5 years (how reliable is my Lincoln LS, really?) I'll need a new car. It will have a manual. It will be rear-wheel or all-wheel drive. It will handle well, have a decent interior and an upgraded audio system.

    I'm guessing Cadillac, Nissan and BMW will still be in my game, but one never knows.

    It's becoming sadly apparent that Audi will not.
  • . . .the 3.2L engine will crank out 250HP, same as the outgoing 2.7T used to put out. Moreover, the 3.2 probably has a few tricks up its sleeve (perhaps without turbocharging or without any heroic mods by Audi the power can be upped to 275). Turbo charging the 3.2, which has been rumored (by the VW Passat crowd) may come; and, I have seen power predictions for the 3.2 of between 250 and 320 HP in various possible and logical configurations.

    . . .the 4.2L engine will never crank out less than 310HP and probably will, from this point forward produce numbers north of that.

    [A6]. . .improved weight distribution and chassis/body/frame "stiffness" will certainly move in the right direction too. Even Audi engineers are talking about a more balanced power delivery (which never actually says "rear wheel drive" biased, but sort of sounds like it might be leaning that way -- or maybe it is just that the weight distribution will shift a bit from front to rear, which ought to decrease understeer and improve cornering).

    Audi has brought 3 notable transmissions to market, a 6spd tiptronic, a CVT (which has been "threatened" to be made quattro compliant) and the award winning 6spd DSG. Both the CVT and the DSG offer performance that gives up nothing to a manual transmission. I can't speak to the tiptronic except to say I hope that the "lag" associated with the 5spd models has once and for all been expunged from the future and current 6spd versions.

    So what? Well, there are times when almost anyone would want the car to be able to shift for itself -- IF there is no penalty in performance, control, safety or milage. "Apparently" both the CVT and DSG can offer "the best of both worlds."

    There is, of course, at this point of inflection, so to speak, only DSG in the TT and only CVT in the FWD models. The jury is "hung" as far as I know with respect to the 6spd tip -- yet in the S4 there apparently is at least ONE positive effect: no gas guzzler designation with the 6spd tip but one with the 6spd manual. Go figure.

    So we will have 2 A6 sedans from which to choose: a 3.2L model and a 4.2L model.

    What do you think will happen, perhaps not in '05, but no later than '07, I'll wager? Greater power for both engines (achieved either naturally or "forced" -- but achieved nevertheless). Improved chassis dynamics and probably at least two transmission choices: my guess -- 6spd tip and DSG or 6spd tip and CVT (once the latter transmissions can be made to withstand higher torque and, in the case of the CVT, configurered for quattro.)

    I have given up, so to speak, on the 5spd tip. If that is all there is -- and the gremlins have not been driven out -- well, I am not in the market for an Audi of any ilk so equipped (exception: RS 6, but not for $85K).

    If during the second half of the model year 2005 (which will start in January 2005) there is an A6 that can be equipped with an "ambitious" sport package, a lag-less autotrans (6spds forward) and a spunky and strong V6 or V8 (turbo on not), well, I will probably be in line for yet another Audi.

    In the mean time, an S4 certainly looks like it could win my heart and dollars -- and I predict for the forseeable future that the S4 will be offered with a stick shift!

    Don't give up on Audi just because they apparently have decided to eschew the "row your own" transmission. The new technology may actually be an improvement over the old.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Okay Mark, you have me intrigued, a little. I really like rowing my own, and I really like engines that have been breathed on, preferably by an exhaust driven turbo.

    My concern with Audi's move to eliminate the third pedal in the entire A6 lineup in favor of a CVT or DSG unit is that while they might well be able to equal or even surpass the conventional manual transmission in a balls to the wall driving environment, I really don't see how they can dynamically and smoothly change into 'Tooling around mode' in the bat of an eyelash. The beauty of a manual is that you can ease into a gear, ease the clutch into full engagement, mash the throttle and drive hell bent for leather and then go back to tooling around mode as fast and as often as you want. Until a CVT, DSG, Step, Tip, SMG or whatever can see the curve, corner or other obstacle in front of you and read your mind as to proper gear selection AND speed of engagement, I just cannot see them truly replacing a car with three pedals.

    Regarding the new 3.2 V6 replacing the blown 2.7, even though it has similar power specs, I have always loved the "Go anywhere, climb anything, pass everything" capabilities of turbocharged engines at altitude, and while I now live on the East Coast and haven't gotten to the Rockies or the Sierras since I've lived here (although I have had the pleasure of driving the Alps a couple three times), I would still choose a blown 250 hp mill over a normally aspirated 250 hp mill any day.

    Regarding Audi's new found attention to a cars' balance (both in power delivery and weight distribution), I can only applaud them.

    So, what would I REALLY like to drive next? Hmmm, how about the new A6 with as near to a 50/50 weight and power distribution as possible equipped with a twin turbo 350 hp 3.2 liter V6 connected to the drive train via a 6-Speed manual transmission. Ohhh, not quite Nirvana, but good enough. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • . . .but I must say, I agree. First the phrase there's no replacement for displacement has been for my money effectively amended with the less catchy suffix -- "except for volumetric improvement."

    A 2.9T engine -- in lab only form -- presumably was created about the time the 2.8 was replaced with the 3.0. There was a problem, of course -- the 2.9T engine "blew away" (I crack myself up) the 4.2L V8. Completely detuned, a 2.9T easily produced 295HP and blew through 300 foot pounds of torque at just south of 2000 rpm's. The performance of an A6 with a 2.9T so tuned smoked even the high zoot 4.2L (@ 340HP) due to the early on torque.

    The current 2.7T vs the current 4.2L -- both mated to tiptronics -- produces a clear winner in the acceleration department: the 2.7T (this was even true before the modest, some would say almost non-existent S-line boost). Of course the recent 2.7T when coupled to a 6spd was .7 seconds quicker to speed.

    Now, there were/are many reasons to lust for the A6 4.2 beyond stoplight acceleration, but the point is the state of the Audi engineering capability with respect to turbo charging has made virtually ANY thing Audi produces with 6 cylinders (when blown) outperform significantly more expensive V8 variants.

    So, apparently there will be NO 2.9T, apparently (for the time being) no Audi 3.2 (or would it be 3.1) "T" either. Imagine, the conservative Audi engineers adding the bi-turbo to the 3.2 engine and finding out that even mild blowing raises the horsepower by 20% -- and WHAM, there you are with a 3.2T rated "easily" @ 300HP when the S4 "souped up" version has but 340 and barely crosses the 300 foot pounds of torque point (at 3500 rpm, to boot?)

    The ante of easily obtainable power and torque is upped quickly, efficiently and with the latest designs even CLEANLY -- all with two tiny turbos.

    Reliability issues -- especially compared to the 2.7T which has had some knotty problems reliability-wise -- have all but been banished with improved engineering and manufacturing methods. Yet the issues IMO are NOT engineering and manufacturing related. Nor are they cost related (well, OK, maybe a little), warranty related or pollution related (OK, again, maybe a little) -- nope, nope, and nope. The issues are MARKETING related.

    I suspect that Audi will NOT abandon turbo charging, but I also suspect that only the highest buck versions will be turbo charged (exhibit #1: the RS 6, exhibit #2 the RS 4). Perhaps the 1.8T will soldier on -- but even here, again IMO, the 1.8T is probably likely to be discontinued in favor of the 2.0 with the new ultra high pressure fuel injection technology and sans blower.

    Perhaps there has been a perception that turbo charging was "cheating" or perhaps that turbo charging was being added to improve performance instead of improving performance by engineering improved engines. BMW, Audi's claimed target, produces [non-permissible content removed]-for-tat cars to go up against Audi -- (yet pick a line 3,5, or 7) and note that the Bimmers generally out accelerate the Audi's -- and there have been no turbo'd BMW's.

    The A4 3.0 put against the BMW 3.0 -- BMW has the bragging rights. The A6 3.0 or 4.2 against a similarly equipped BMW model -- the BMW takes the drag strip honors again (the 2.7T, did better the 5 series with the 3.0 engine -- and for lower dollars.) Yet, somehow, the BMW "appeared" in every category to produce a clear differentiating characteristic when advertised and/or tested: 0-60 times that beat the "supposedly comparable Audi."

    My friend and I bought matching year cars, forgive me if I get the "L" wrong, the spirit of what I will say is correct. The year was 2000, my friend bought a 528 and I an A6. We paid the same (MSRP). I got an A6 4.2, however -- not an A6 2.8 or 3.0 V6. My AWD V8 equipped Audi could blow-away his 6 cylinder (straight 6) equipped car; and, for what it's worth it was a "4 seasons" car, while his became virtually useless in winter (so much so that he garaged it in winter and drove a Jeep).

    Yet the comparison, at the time was often the minimum equipped Audi A6 with the BMW 5 series (and in that configuration, without mention of price, the BMW did indeed "best" the A6.) At the price point, the Audi clearly was a winner, equipped "similarly" the Audi was far less money. Somehow these points did not come across -- the Audi was presented "as if" the comparison was apples and apples, which of course it was not -- when I saw my friend's BMW 528's MSRP and it was within a couple hundred bucks of my 4.2L V8 A6 quattro, I knew that "marketing" had won again. This was not lost on Audi.

    My other friend, "the sensible one," drove the 6 cylinder 5 series and the 2.7T A6 -- the 2.7T was even quicker than the V8 Audi and was thousands less than either the V8 Audi or the straight 6 BMW.

    The point of all this is to suggest that even with such "clear and logical (there's the problem)" differentiation, the Audi was not able to end up favorably compared.

    It must've occurred to Audi that what they needed was to abandon the "unfavorable" image of the turbo engines (among other things) and produce cars that relied on the "there's no replacement for displacement" phrase rather than volumetric efficiency.

    Marketing was winning.

    Now, simultaneously, Audi was desirous of producing a PRODUCTION "supercar" (perhaps to demonstrate that they could produce a rival to the M5). They didn't have any engine -- unblown -- that could do the job. So, marketing to the rescue. Somehow the bolting on of a bi-turbo to the 4.2 has been made to be seen (or at least represented) as something reserved for the most expensive and exoctic cars ever to wear the 4 interlocking rings.

    So, those mere mortals (who think $50,000 is enough to pay for a car) will probably have to deal with bigger engines, normally asipirated. The "instant tang" of the 2.7T is the last we'll see in the non-super-car price range.

    And, the truth of the matter is that the stick shifts -- for whatever reason -- don't sell. Which came first "no or low stick shift inventory" or no or low customer demand.

    I have my opinions, and I'm sure they do not jive with Audi's. Frankly, I am probably wrong, too -- for I know of only and ever shrinking population of folks who will (or can) drive a stick shift.

    I am 52 -- the folks I work with are in their 30's -- most of them are now having children and when the kids come the stick shifts go. The "fleet" of Audi A4's is traded for mini-vans, pick-ups, SUV's and "sedans" -- and with them come automatics (even if the brands they buy offer sticks, most choose the automatics because they do not wish to special order the stick shift versions).

    The CVT and DSG probably cannot do what you suggest -- and they are almost certainly less fun, lower in "performance" (other than straight line acceleration where they claim to be equal) and lower in absolute control and safety, whaddya gonna do?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    ...so I'm not very creative. I can live with that. ;-) I still like my cars to have three pedals and a blower, and for that matter, I like my airplanes to have two pedals and a blower as well. ;-)

    Regarding the on-going Audi vs. BMW debate; prior to my first BMW in 1999, I had driven two VW's and three Audi's and considered myself an "Audi guy". Unfortunately it was the issue of the stick shift that drove me to even consider BMW in the first place. In 1995, my first child was on the verge of needing a new car seat, a forward facing one this time, and for the first time in my driving career, I NEEDED a sedan. As fortune would have it, VW released the new for 1995 Passat GLX and I was hooked. I turned in my leased car (which I leased one day before I found out that my wife, then girl friend, was pregnant) early (taking a bath in the process) and got a fully loaded VR6 Passat GLX 5-Speed. That is unless you consider a car not "Fully Loaded" unless it has an automatic.

    Four years and over 85,000 miles later, I was in the market for a car when much to my chagrin, VWoA decided to cancel the 5-Speed version of the 1999 Passat GLX (the one with all of the power goodies that I wanted) and force me to look further a field. In the end, the A4 2.8 and the 328i were my two finalists, and two things tipped the decision in BMW's favor:

    1) Rear seat leg room. While neither of these two cars could even come close to the leg room of my 1995 Passat, the 328i had an inch or two more than the A4, and with both of my children buckled into their car seats right on the showroom floor, the 328i won.

    2) Lease price. I lease for business purposes, and the 328i was considerably less expensive than a comparably equipped A4 2.8. So much so that the 328i was only $10 per month more than my business partners' Dodge Intrepid!

    Now that Mr. Bangle has absolutely destroyed the BMW product line, I was hoping to be able to return to the Audi fold, but alas, I'm not sure that I can convince myself to drive a car sans stick.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
Sign In or Register to comment.