Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
1) Roomy in side?
2) Maintenance on the car high or low?
3) How is the trunk space?
4) Good Family car?
whatever feedback anyone can offer would be great thank you.
I've owned from new a 2000 A6 2.7T, 2003 A6 2.7T and currently a 2007 A6 3.2. They have proven to be reliable, fun to drive and IMHO good looking. They have spacious interiors as well as being the benchmark for interior layout and quality for the industry. The trunks are large (15.4 cu. ft.) and the rear seats fold down as well for added capacity. The Quattro all wheel drive system gives added security in poor driving conditions as wheel as feeling "glued to the road". If your looking used make sure car is certified by Audi. Repairs are costly and, frankly, I wouldn't own a complex car like this one without it being warrantied.
Is it possible to replace my Xenon bulb in my 1999 A6 myself? The Auto Zone guy said only the dealer should do it. The bulb in question is the round one in the plastic housing. By the the way, the plastic housing has condensation on the inside of it--is this normal or a source of the problem? I'm new to the forum and new to cars but pretty handy so your advice is appreciated!
Since the dealer will replace the bulb for a fixed price, I would not even consider doing this.
If you make ANY mistakes, you buy the mistake.
Unless you are familiar with this maintenance item, why even consider doing this yourself. If you risk X dollars which is pretty much a bigger, by far number, why not pay for the thing to be done by folks who have done this routinely, rather than try to do it yourself.
OTOH, if this is a career move for you, have at it.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Good to hear from you again. Your posting volume has dropped a lot of late.
In any event, I'm going to throw in with you. While I spent the first couple of decades of car ownership doing 95% of my own work, I'm learning that the risk/reward equation has changed.
I just replaced the (very well-built & long-lasting, BTW) shocks in my car, at 125K miles. The job wasn't horrible, I learned much in doing it & saved a few hundred bucks. Plus which, my #3 son & I had some "quality time."
Either way, compared to my early days of driving, when maintenance of this sort was required at 15 or 30K mile intervals, it's a whole new world. Once you learn (by taking far too long to do it) how to do a job efficiently, you're rewarded with the knowledge that you can do it agin in seven years when the car has 250K miles on it. Well, even in my world, that's beyond stupid. Back in the day, once you learned how to do something, you'd get multiple chances to do it again. Those days are done. Not only do most jobs on cars require tooling or equipment that one is not likely to possess, but those that remain only need to be done once in anything but a marathon ownership experience.
I guess I still want to retain some of that old-school "fix it yourself" approach, but for many things you're just better off paying the dealer or (better yet) your indi shop to get stuff done.
Plus, I'm too fat & old to continue crawling under cars for anything much beyond oil changes. Oh well, I still do do those, FWIW.
I went to the dealership, thinking the same as you (it must be complex), and the mechanic came out and changed it in under a minute.
It was still under warranty
My thought was, if it is really easy and evidently so, someone might not be asking how to do it. If one of us offers advice and it is subsequently taken and then "something expensive to replace" breaks, well, why take that risk?
In my case, a friend of mine bought a new plasma TV from a big box retailer and felt it was worth $500 bucks to have it set up (plugged in, essentially.)
I would have, myself, set up the TV, the surround sound system and the remotes controlling the whole thing.
I would not even dream of working on my Audi A6 beyond "detailing."
To each his/her own.
If you want help with your home theater system, I'm your guy.
If you want help with your Audi, my advice remains: take it to the dealer and pay a bit more [perhaps] but get peace of mind.
Oh wait -- I can change the license plates without help, but since the dealer will do this, too, (at no charge), I even let them do that.
Hope that helps.
Bret
Having said this, no manufacturer really claims that their AWD system is any better than the other guy's except Audi. (Again, how could they when they are outsourced?). Hence the question: what makes the current generation Quattro better? Is there a real world difference? If we put a E Class MB with Fourmatic, an S80 with AWD, a BMW 5 Series with the Xi option, and an A6 with Quattro on a hockey rink with the same tires would they have identical traction?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAHPMUkhj5Q
Specifically, were they identically shod? Were they all AWD ((at least one vehicle--I couldn't tell which-- didn't spin its front wheels as it got terminally stuck)?
Please fill us in.
I'm sorry but your description was inaccurate. Yes, the Audi went the furthest but it didn't stop - it just kept on going;-)
AWD is NOT AWD is NOT AWD, but, from a practical perspective, if you are just talking about daily driving, not going up a hill or driving on a hockey rink, you will find these AWD cars will perform "close enough for jazz."
If you want to know if there are differences, well, there are. Let's take one example, the A6 (let's take the last generation quattro even) vs the S80. The Audi begins with a 50-50 torque split. The Volvo comes in with a 95-5 torque split.
The two cars put down power "at rest" differently -- the Audi puts 50% on the f and r; the Volvo 95% f and 5% rear. Newer Audis have shifted to 40 60 f/r.
BMW's and Mercedes are, likewise rear biased.
TorSen (torque sensing) is the Audi system -- it is said to be able to, from a practical perspective, again, ANTICIPATE slippage. The other systems, although they are instantaneous, are REACTIVE. Slip must occur BEFORE they shift torque from f to r. TorSen shifts torque "in real time" since it is a mechanical system that "binds" without needing the "lag time" required by the other non "real time" systems. We are, however, talking about FRACTIONS of a FRACTION of a second even with the slowest system.
Is the TorSen difference important? Of course you can find as many opinions as there are folks -- and some will say yes and 'splain it, and some will say "negatory" and explain their reasons with equal eloquence and verisimilitude.
Audis have a problem (only one?) -- yes but they're getting better -- uh, the problem is that a new A6 is still heavier in the nose than a 5 series Bimmer (with x drive, to keep the conversation as relevant as possible.)
Yet, some magic engineering algorithm or design feature must be present in an Audi that makes it somehow more capable than its "fat nose" ought to allow.
So, do I, Roseanne Rosanna Danna, think the Audi AWD (TorSen) system is better -- yes. But, I also think the differences are PERHAPS not significant enough to sway your buying decision, if, for instance, you think the S80 or whatever is "better looking," or has cooler features or, for whatever reason, just suits you better.
The uphill drive on the link posted is -- for me -- 'nuff said, but, I already confessed to being an Audi fan so much so that I probably bleed little four-ring corpuscles when cut.
I am, perhaps, even MORE of an AWD proponent than I am a quattro (TorSen) proponent. I consider it a performance and safety feature. And, I can see the point of view of those who will ONLY submit themselves to RWD cars. I just don't see any reason (and I live in Cincinnati) to even consider a 2WD vehicle.
I am drawn, currently, to the upcoming A4 3.2 (B8) and it makes me wonder, why even bother with an A6 (at least until the next update comes along in a couple of years.)
Check it out: Why Bother with an A6? Klikity Klik
Drive it like you live, just drive it in AWD trim.
It is always great to read your posts. Thanks for stopping by. I have missed your particpation.
Kevin
But, to further respond to the "why quattro is different and/or better:"
According to Wards Auto World:
Aware that it needs to maintain the top-flight reputation of its quattro all-wheel-drive systems, Audi says it has a highly advanced form of quattro that has already made an appearance and will continue to proliferate throughout the lineup: Quattro w/Torque vectoring.
Torque vectoring takes all-wheel drive to another level by varying drive torque not just between front and rear axles but also between wheels on the same axle.
By adjusting torque side-to-side, a higher degree of handling performance is achieved by delivering more torque to the outside wheel in a corner, turning the vehicle more sharply and precisely.
Torque vectoring also is a way to enhance safety, in effect an "active" form of the brake system-based vehicle stability control systems now common.
Audis equipped with this will have:
Rear biased AWD 40 60 f/r
Better weight distribution (less porky front ends)
Real Time torque shifting (front to rear and side to side)
Both the A5 and the new A4 will have better weight distribution and as far as I know they are not better in that regard because of torque vectoring -- but I digress.
So, couple a less nose heavy Audi design (that will spread across the entire lineup), with rear biased & Torque Vectoring/Torque Sensing AWD, and you would think this is a step forward -- and considering it does it with a real time system (mechanical) rather than a reactionary system, like SH-AWD, and considering that the Acura, speaking of SH AWD, for instance, with SH-AWD is nominally 95% FWD 5% RWD, well that would seem like a competitive edge retained or gained.
Is quattro the best?
Beats me -- it is certainly one of the best and it just keeps getting better. :shades:
I don't know if quattro is the best, but I like driving it in the snow
Kevin
Moral of the story is no matter how good your AWD is you need know your car's limitations in the snow.
Mark, welcome back. I figured you were cruising the new A4 forums:)
I believe Audi's snow video but do you believe Chrysler's? I do not. Here's the link.
http://www.dcxmediaservices.com/videoptrs/wms/dctv/Mar04/Houghton_Ride_Drive_300- k.wvx
That is the extent of my "cred."
The RWD cars almost NEVER beat the FWD cars in normal everyday driving under the conditions that were shown in this video without studded tires (on all four corners) and ESP. Perhaps the cars in this test were not shod with the same tires, I do know that the cars from Chrysler did come with ESP, and that would be an edge over the others without ESP.
At the holy land, Ingolstadt, there is a demonstration of three TT's going up a hill.
One car has RWD, one is FWD and one is, of course, AWD. The cars go up the hill and the results are, in this order: RWD, FWD, AWD -- the order signifies "how far up the hill. The RWD version, identically equipped to the other two goes the least far up the hill.
On the test track, in Seefeld, Audi has A4 quattros and A4 REAR wheel driver versions (yes, REAR wheel drive A4's). The first time I took the class we had A4 quattros and BMW 3 series, RWD only to drive to "prove a point."
The ability of the AWD version cars under icy conditions always exceeded the RWD versions. At that time, no FWD only cars were available for side by side by side comparo's.
At the X School, we were able to drive an AWD Bimmer and a RWD Bimmer on a slick concrete track that had been flooded with water -- the results were the same, the AWD Bimmers ALWAYS outperformed the RWD Bimmers -- indeed the AWD Bimmers, literally, ran circles around the RWD Bimmers. The AWD Bimmers could lap the RWD Bimmers in fact.
So, does this mean Chrysler's video is bogus? Beats me.
It does, however (without some funny biz with the tires and traction mitigation systems -- like the Impala doesn't even offer ESP -- at that time) seem unlikely that given identical circumstances that the RWD 300 would outperform the FWD Impala (and we're NOT talking about racing, we're talking about daily driving, at least that seems to me to be the circumstances that were portrayed in that clip.)
The car companies, almost all car companies are at least offering AWD versions -- that is, in part, because of the "go anywhere, anytime" capabilities these drive systems imbue the cars they are fitted with.
Drive a new 535 or A6 or Volvo or, Infiniti or Lexus or, or, or, equipped with AWD and you may get hooked on the increased capability these cars offer, in spades!
Make my AWD car a 2009 A4 3.2 SLine with torque vectoring quattro in Alpine White with Red Leather Seats.
BTW, I drove an S5 with red leather interior and it was drop dead gorgeous.
1) Tires. I can easily imagine that FWD car with Blizzaks (or similar) would be far superior to an AWD with all season or summer and especially an optional "Sport Package" type 18" or 19" tire as say on a Jag XK or a Bimmer 5 series AWD
2) I'm not sure how much difference in final traction it really in AWD cars, if one car starts out sitting at 95%/5% Front to Rear power and the other is say, 45%/55% because the traction adjustment is very quick. I can say though that my wife's Volvo XC with 95/5 front to rear power scrubs on corners and is boring to drive.
My Cayenne while similar to a Toureg has much more "dry" power sent to the rear wheels.
3) Finally, I think if I ever buy a 911 it will be with AWD not because it would be any faster (it wouldn't be on dry pavement) but it the AWD would keep the front end hooked up on a rain/snow swept road. I also think that the ideal 911 daily driver for a northeastern guy wouldn't have big 19" boots to avoid hydroplanning.
My wife, after MONTHS of shopping and test driving (a lot of fun actually) re upped for another X3, a 2008 (which has mucho more power.) This time she went with the SAV package which omits the harsher sport suspension, but still gives the larger wheels and tires, Servotronic, etc.
I would not have any issue with either set up.
The quattro I currently drive, but not for long, is a 50 50 torque split version. I understand the new A4, which I hope to get, is 40 60 and also employes torque vectoring (side to side torque shifting capabilities.)
Again, I drive on the highways in and around Cincinnati -- I do not take my car on the track. For all such purposes, any of these AWD systems will work fine. Now, with respect to boring or not boring, etc -- there are other design characteristics that will affect the drive. Weight balance is one, suspension set up is another.
Not sure if 4 doors is a requirement, but I'd definitely take out an A5/S5. The A5 (S-Line) is surprisingly nimble and responsive; the S5 is addictive. As others have stated, the photos do not do it justice.
Have you drove an S5? I did and you'll be shocked to hear I did not like the feel of the manual transmission. I'm happier driving a Tip.
When?
My understanding is that we will not see a 3.2 manual A4 in the states. However, you can order an A5 3.2 manual.
The 2.0T That is going back to chain drive is getting a big torque boost and is much smother than the current belt driven 2.0T. [so I'm told]
The 3.2 in the A5 is a different beast than the current 3.2 in the A6/A4. With valve lift, it feels like a turbo, and pulls harder all the way to redline.
I don't think we'll see torque vectoring on the A4 for a few more years. I do think we'll see it on the next generation S4 that is going back to a 3.0 TT set up.
There are Audi reps meeting in my dealership right now, not 15 yards away, but they are giving no 411.
The A6 needs closer to 300hp in V6 form to keep up with the competition. 265hp is not bad in the 3.2 A6, but it still falls short a bit.
The engine, apparently, will power the B8 S4 -- initially. One (me) wonders why Audi would not IMMEDIATELY put this engine into the A6, if for no other reason than to catch up to and pass the BMW 535xi. Of course, here is the rub -- if the V6 3.0T comes in at over 330 HP (even though we love torque, we seem always to quote the HP #), the V8 -- which is much more costly -- will become a "why bother?" choice, for it will be only slightly more potent with respect to HP and it would likely be less quick from 0-100kph due to the very early torque offered by the V6 turbo.
An Audi A6 S-Line 3.0T would, unless the 4.2 V8 motor gets a similar upgrade, kill sales of the A6 S-Line 4.2. The Cadillac STS V6 DI makes the STS V8 seem darn near irrelevant and I would think the same situation would face Audi.
Marketing trumps engineering, apparently.
Green footnote: the artificially aspirated engines, like the 3.0T use less fuel and continue with each generation to enjoy reduced turbo lag and better and better mileage and pollution statistics.
Give us choices!
In 2005 Audi sold approximately 18,000 A6s in the US, with 2,301 being 4.2s (12%)
In 2006 Audi sold approximately 16,500 A6s in the US, with 2,204 being 4.2s (13%)
In 2007 Audi sold approximately 12,000 A6s in the US, and I am guessing that about 1,500 were 4.2s.
Despite their being approximately 6,000 C6 4.2s in the US, I have only seen approximately 10 in the last three years, not including the one I park in my driveway. :P
I guess with 48 million new cars purchased in the US during those same three years, the 6,000 4.2s get lost in the jungle (.012%). I guess I have to look at 10,000 cars to find another C6 4.2. It is a shame that more people do not get to enjoy the pleasure of driving a 4.2.
I think the next evolution/generation for the A6 will be two engines - a turbo diesel and a turbo petrol. The petrol being the quicker one - zero to sixty. When the A6 3.0 TDI arrives in North America, it will be a huge seller for Audi.
Did Audi not go backwards with the phase out of the 2.7t and the introduction of the 3.2? I don't think you can always trust Audi to make a rational move but this time I think they will. BTW, Bmw also made a mistake with their underpowered 528xi.
The S6 will be the image IMHO.
Bottom line is I don't have a crystal ball - so it's all conjecture
I have had three 4.2's -- and my current 3.2 in vitually every way, makes me wonder why I would spend the extra bucks on the gas and the acquisition price -- and the 3.2 with a little bit of turbo-pressure would all but render the 4.2 completely off my list. The A6 with the 3.0T V6 at 333HP and 300+ pound feet of torque -- ahhhh Bach! (M*A*S*H)
Yet, it is still about IMAGE and Audi will NOT let their cars be without the "availability" of a V8 or V10 or even W12 despite low demand.
I remain, "often wrong, never uncertain. . ."
I agree... when I went to look at the C6's when they 1st came out, they only had 3.2's available. My options were to buy a 3.2 at the time, or get on a list for a 4.2 and maybe get it in 6 months.... I would have taken a 4.2 if it were available (now I would not feel as strongly...).
Radar was a romeo. Do you think he drives an A6 in Otomwa? I am guessing that neither one of us is 20 years old. Hell, I am guessing that neither one of us is 30 or 40 years old either.