Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Audi A6



  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    Mark, How do rate xDrive compared to quattro? I've only driven xDrive in dry conditions but never in rain or snow. IIRC you own an X3. I'm curious to hear your opinion.

    BTW, I drove an S5 with red leather interior and it was drop dead gorgeous.
  • Mark, thank you for your thoughtful posts. I'll defer to you on all your points but raise three issues:

    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.
  • For all practical purposes, I cannot tell any difference in the drive as it relates to AWD between the X and quattro. The BMW is better balanced, and of course it tends to understeer later because of that.

    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.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    new A4, which I hope to get...

    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.
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    I was this close to leasing a 535xi. The negative side crash test results was one of my main deciding factor. The other was the deal I got on a 4.2 lease, less than the BMW. Plus after driving the 535 a few more times I started to feel I preferred the A6.

    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.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 3,028
    "new A4, which I hope to get"

    2016 BMW 340i
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    Mark has owned over 1,000 A6s over the last 4,000 years. Despite his efforts to break free, I am betting that he gets another A6. I watch him at all of the AA meetings (Audi Anonymous) and he always stands up and says my name is Mark and I have a problem with A6s. I don't think he can kick the habit so quickly. I am guessing that he will talk Germany into providing him with a 4.2 bi-turbo with a MT. ;)
  • on the 2009 A4 is late this year [september,october] we'll see the 3.2 automatic.

    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.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    The 3.2 V6 w/ 265hp and the new valvelift technology is a nice upgrade. It pulls very stong in the A5 and should work quite nice in the new 09 A4.

    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.
  • agreed
  • The 3.2 has been morphed into a strong engine with the addition of turbocharging; and, in that guise is called a 3.0T. Horsepower and torque take a huge leap and the big number everyone talks about -- horsepower -- climbs well above 300.

    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! :cry:
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    So they will phase out the 4.2 in the A6. Based upon my recent query of dealers in the NY - NJ area, they hardly ever sell 4.2's. They even discourage potential 4.2 buyers, offering them 3.2's instead. I don't know the 4.2 versus 3.2 sales numbers, maybe you have access to them.
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    My 4.2 continued to open up for quite some time. I notice a big difference around 10,00 miles and another smaller improvement around 20,000 miles.
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    I had sent an e-mail to Audi about a year ago regarding the rarity of the 4.2 in the US and was provided with 4.2 sales for MY 2005 and 2006.

    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.
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    I kind of thought those would be the numbers. The $5000 difference is one reason and the fact that Audi does not have many 4.2 engines in their inventory is the other. I lucked out when my lease was over and got a good deal on the 4.2. I admit, I paid more for the it but the pleasure was worth it for me. My car has less than 2,000 miles on it and the engine is still opening up. There were times I felt the need for more umph with my former 3.2 . With the 4.2 I'm pretty much well covered.

    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.
  • There is NO WAY the 4.2 or whatever the V8 or v10 is du jour, be phased out -- not gonna happen, and I did not mean to suggest that is would be. The avail of a V8 is critical to the IMAGE.
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    I'm not so sure. Price wise a 3.0 turbo petrol / diesel will narrow the gap with the 4.2 so as you said above why would you bother to buy a 4.2? This also makes sense with the new A4 3.2 versus an A6 3.0 turbo. Although size does matter:)

    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 agree, "why bother" -- well almost. The availability of them, however, even if they are rare, will continue at the risk of raising the ire of the automotive press and the IMAGE of the vehicle. The same is true of the Bimmer 5 series these days -- why bother with the 550 when the 535 "git's it done" for less money.

    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. . ." ;)
  • They even discourage potential 4.2 buyers, offering them 3.2's instead.

    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...).
  • kgarykgary Posts: 180
    ahhhh Bach! (M*A*S*H)

    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.
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
    Well here goes - 54.

    Old farts lookin for fast cars and loose women or loose cars and fast woman.

    Mark, the $ difference is there but the power is there too. The gas - on the highway is as good if not better. The decibel level is much lower. The 8 purrs on the highway the 6 is throaty. I have to tell you I'm liking the lack of noise. Come on don't you wish you had a V8;-)
  • Sure I'd like to have the V8 if the $ premium wasn't so steep.

    My power lust would be, I'm sure, completely satisfied with a 3.0T at 333HP and about 300+ pound feet of torque from 1900 RPM's on up.

    Regarding gas milage, my issue, my circumstances is that I don't get on the freeway that much so I would be using more gas on the roads I drive on.

    If Audi offered me a new 4.2 equipped car with barely a premium price over the V6, I'd probably bite.

    BTW I am 56.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    The gas mileage on my 06 4.2 is quite good considering it's almost 100 more hp. And I don't have FSI on the 06 model

    The problem with the 3.2 is having to use sport mode and really having to get on the pedal when you need to drive aggressive. That always sucks more gas.

    The 4.2 is so smooth and refined with the extra power on tap, it doesn't take much effort when you need to be more aggressive.

    If you do mostly in-town miles, you're not going to get much more than 19/20 in-town on the 3.2. I average 18 or so on my 4.2 around town. Easy 24-25 hwy.

    It might cost me $35-50 or so extra a month in gas for the 4.2, and I don't think that's too much of a penalty for the awesome performace and driving experience.
  • carnaughtcarnaught Desert SWPosts: 2,772
    It might cost me $35-50 or so extra a month in gas for the 4.2, and I don't think that's too much of a penalty for the awesome performace and driving experience.

    Until we're at $4/gallon, that is.........
  • jeqqjeqq Posts: 221
  • It is $7.50 in much of Europe already. We've only about 100 years worth of energy left in our land (in the US). Of couse this assumes we use ONLY our own reserves (which are triple the proven reserves of the Middle East) and no one elses.

    The truth of the matter,studies say, that we have enough US owned reserves for 400 years at present rates of consumption if we only have to supply 25% of our own oil.

    That ought to be enough time to figure out an alternative.

    We may all enjoy V8 power -- supply is not exactly the problem.

    In the meantime, I'll pass on the V8, for I am convinced much higer gas prices are coming.

    Now, back to Audis, already in progress.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    If I drive 1000 miles month

    @ 3.00 Gallon 20 mpg in city vs 17 mpg.

    20 mpg is $150
    17 mpg is $176

    $26 difference

    @ 4.00 Gallon 20 mpg in city vs 17 mpg.

    20 mpg is $200
    17 mpg is $235

    $35 difference

    @ 5.00 Gallon 20 mpg in city vs 17 mpg.

    20 mpg is $250
    17 mpg is $294

    Even @ $5 gallon, that's $44 month more.

    Not a huge difference in driving a 3.2 vs 4.2 A6
  • Mark-

    Have you found much difference in gas mileage over time by manipulating tire pressures in your 3.2 Audi?
  • carnaughtcarnaught Desert SWPosts: 2,772
    It is $7.50 in much of Europe already.

    And that's because of their high tax on gasoline.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    Front pressure = 39

    Rear pressure = 36

    I have never compared or contrasted, knowingly, the impact of manipulating the pressures.

    I was "advised" to improve the handling of the car by the above pressures.

    With respect to the V8, the Audi V8 is one of the best engines you can have, period.

    The 3.2 V6 is also a very good engine -- but the V8 would be my choice were it not for the combination of the acquisition cost and the mileage.

    Now, speaking ONLY for my own habits -- with the V8's (and I have had three Audi 4.2's and loved them) I found myself frequently "getting into the throttle" and consuming more fuel than would be normal if I didn't "punch it" -- but that is MY problem.

    I actually enjoyed going from three V8's in a row to an Audi V6 2.7T connected to a 6 speed manual.

    I suspect my upcoming fave engine will be the rumored 3.0T (333HP V6).

    I love the instant torque of the Audi turbos.
Sign In or Register to comment.