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!

Audi A6



  • dtwleungnycdtwleungnyc Posts: 188
    I have a 2002 3.0 Avant, and no, my car doesn't sound like yours.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Is it alright if I drop you and email in the near future? I'm going to need your expertise.

  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334

    Did you write that you drove a CVT Audi on a test drive? If so, what was your impression of the new transmission?

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    My e-dress is posted. Feel free -- love to chat 'bout Audis!
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    I do not recall ever having actually drvien a CVT equipped car. It has been a long time since I drove a NON-quattro Audi.
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    I was talking w/ an Audi service advisor and he says that synthetic oil will be "highly encouraged" but not required in '03 models and then will be mandatory in'04 Audis similar to the current Porsche oil requirement.
    Audi will be moving toward higher revving engines producing more heat thus requiring synthetic oils to prolong engine life. Any thoughts about the use of synthetic versus mineral oils?
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    I was researching the W-8 on Edmunds and was somewhat puzzled by the performance data:

    270 hp ~ 272 pound ft. of torque
    0 to 60 mph in 6.5 sec.

    2.7 T -- 250 hp~ 258 pound ft. of torque
    0 to 60 mph in 6.6 sec. (tip)model

    These figures are so close considering the HP and torque gap!

    I personally don't like the outside profile of the W-8. I feel the Audi has a nicer interior. I don't like the wheels on the W-8.
    The W-8 doesn't have the full-fold down rear seats which has been critical for me.
    Of course, the W-8 lists about $38,000 vs. $42,000 for the Audi(depending on options).
    I thought the W-8 might crush Audi sales in that price range, upon closer examination the 2 cars are still quite different!
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    Max, does this mean my dealer is going to stop doing changes with BC 20W40 dinosludge? Yup, that's what they said they used for changes when my wife inquired a couple years ago. I've used Mobil 1 0W-30 since the first change at 5K in my '01 2.7T. Didn't burn oil when new, doesn't now. My wife's 1.8T gets the same thing, and HAS burned quite a bit of oil until recently with about 30K on the engine. I've used Mobil 1 in all my cars for about 30 years. No problems.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    The 2.7T achieves its torque at a very low RPM -- so the "pick up" comes sooner than with the W8 -- the 2.7T is .1 second quicker than the 4.2 which currently is rated in an A6 at 295 lb ft -- but again the 4.2 torque comes on -- relatively speaking -- much later than the 2.7T torque.

    No magic, really.
  • nofeernofeer Posts: 381
    Red with beige interior. my wife wanted something other than an suv (i think she is ahead of the market curve). sporty, getting to know the buttons i feel the 3.0 has plenty of power ( she compared this to her ml320 which this a6 replaces) she is happy with the power. has a bit more "jiggle" in the ride, i told her it's a more sporty suspension, and of course not as smooth as my ls430, also took about 10-12 lbs of air out of the tires--typical delivered overinflated to prevent flat spots. very nice square usable trunk, and it's sharp. she followed me home from the dealer to see how it looks. for the first time in 3 years she is actually "excited" about driving her new car. she loves all the luxo stuff and tech stuff. and she finally gets a built in garage door opener.
    she finds it hard to believe that this has awd (she says 4wheel drive) and will get her out of most situations of snow, wet, slick, dust, sand, etc.
    so now we must go over the features with the owners manual. if this experience is good, maybe i will get an audi, when my ls430 lease is up, unless lexus gets an awd sedan (gs or ls)

    ???what kind of mileage should i expect city/hwy
    thanks for all the info.
  • dtwleungnycdtwleungnyc Posts: 188
    Well, I have a 02 A6 3.0 Avant, my best mileage in mix city/hwy is 14.7, worse is 13.3. But I only have around 1100 miles on the engine, mixed with heavy AC use.
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    I'm sure the dealer will keep using "dinosludge" on the older Audi's. They said you can bring your own Mobil 1 and I'm assuming you do that- you would have to rob a bank to buy the synthetic from the Audi dealer.
    Mark- maybe 60 to 100 mph testing should also be included in the specs when comparing these cars.BTW- my wife hates the VW logo on the front grill and on the steering wheel. It is amazing how the smallest detail can nix an otherwise perfectly good automobile purchase!
  • 4apexs4apexs Posts: 36
    My wife's '02 A6 Q has 700 miles. It now sounds like it is low on oil somewhere at cold start. 3-6 taps then normal. Shift into top gear drops rpm by 800, like driving an old Olds V6 rental with that HIGHway gear. Have you been to dealer for adjustment, explaination? Will post after our visit.
  • morphiemorphie Posts: 95
    I have followed the discussion on lubricants; I especially like the term "dinosludge".

    Any debate on the relative merits of synthetic oil has long since been settled. There is simply no comparison. I got to observe this, first hand, when serving as a student chemistry lab assistant, over twenty years ago. The University was engaged to do testing for a major oil company. I have tried to keep current with the literature; my sense is that the performance difference is even greater now (synthetic vs. traditional), than a few decades ago.

    It may be of interest that all synthetics, of which I am aware, start life as a high quality mineral oil; the modifications and additives create the "synthetic" properties. I guess it is then best termed: "synthetic dinosludge".

    Our 2002 3.0 Avant (we also have a 2002 2.7t) has just experienced an intriguing problem: the switch/sensor for the electric cooling fan failed; this caused some over heating. Further, the air conditioning compressor will not operate under those conditions. The repair is a simple replacement. The part should be available in one (1) day.

    By the way: If one leases a vehicle, I am not suggesting that you pay extra for synthetic oil; that it a personal decision, influenced, to some extent, by whether or not you are going to purchase the car.
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    Audi's factory oil change interval on my'00 2.7T is 8,000 miles on standard oil. I believe on the '01 and '02 it has been upped to 10,000 miles.
    How far do you feel synthetic oil can go before the protective qualities break down?
    Obviously Audi thinks that regular oil can go that many miles.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    I'm always a little suspicious of manufacturers' recommend service intervals - especially oil changes. Why? They want to sell cars and in order for that to happen cars have to wear out. I suspect there's point at which the car's serviceability and customer satisfaction intersect. Auto manufacturers know this, and along with planned product upgrades, model the utility of the car the new car buying public. Add this to leasing - all the rage in past several years - and manufacturers can get away with 10,000 mile service intervals. Same thing is true with the BS about no tune up for 100,000 miles. My guess is most cars go through at least two or three owners by that point.

    The logic is simple - the company pays for the first few - no point in making it every 5,000 miles. Any excessive wear in the first 50,000 miles will be minimal - I suspect there's an exponential increase in the impact of wear over time.

    I don't think this is unique to Audi. I would bet there's great discussion (and perhaps a few chuckles) at industry conferences. I'm not a mechanic but my experience tells me if you're buying a car (any car) and plan to hang on to it for some time you should consider service intervals more frequent than those recommend by the manufacturer.
  • morphiemorphie Posts: 95
    Recommended oil change intervals have been a source of much debate; this is especially true where a manufacturer pays for scheduled maintenance.

    Our 2002 Audi's are now on the 10K schedule. While it is possible for a vehicle to successfully survive 10K, or longer, intervals, there are many factors to be considered: driving conditions; clean vs. dusty environment; is the oil kept at the proper level? Further, one of the most over looked components is the oil filter. Few are capable of surviving extended drain intervals.

    It is highly probable that Audi, and other manufacturers, perform a cost benefit analysis: what will the incidence of warranty claims be with longer intervals for servicing? Sad to say, but even a lazy, neglectful owner could get away with two or three oil changes in the first 50,000 miles. Catastrophic damage, due to friction wear, would not show up, in most cases, until well after the warranty expired. At that point, the new owner, oblivious to impending doom, would suffer the economic consequences.

    One bit of trivia, which may even be relevant: Years ago, the SAE tests were the benchmark for lubricant evaluations and standards. They are still used. The primary test, when I was involved, utilized an American V8 of, I believe, 400cid. Oil was run in this engine, for various durations (3K, 6K, etc.). It was then drained and tested for viscosity, additive break down, among other factors. The engine was also torn down and examined for damage and wear. The initial tests on synthetics were most interesting. After 25,000 simulated miles, the synthetic would out perform the best, fresh out of the can, mineral stock. While this is impressive performance, remember that it was over twenty years ago; quality, traditional lubricants have greatly improved. However, so have synthetics. In addition, there is still about a 5 to 1 price differential.

    What does this all mean? First, since I am composing this on a Saturday night, at about 10, I am obviously waiting for my teenage daughter to come home from a party. Second, I would not purchase a vehicle (used) that had only five oil changes in its first 50,000 miles (using traditional oil). Finally, even if synthetic was employed, did the owner keep the oil level topped up? (you would be shocked to know how fast oil breaks down if it is run a quart or more low) Also, was the filter changed at more frequent intervals?

    The essence of this diatribe is simply this: those auto enthusiasts who care about their cars must take an active role in determining proper maintenance, and resist slavish obedience to manufacturer's "recommendations".
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    Pertaining to Morphie and Kirby's comments, am I to suspect a sinister "conspiracy" hatched by Audi and other brands to "dictate" 10,000 mile oil changes to the "gullible" and "stupid" car-buying public so the Audi they paid $40,000+ is all worn out in, say, 75000 miles after keeping up with factory specs?
    I have had endless dialogues with the service reps at the dealer about this issue, they claim Audi has spent millions doing carefully controlled tests about recommended oil changes and the 10,000 mile spec is the result of those tests. However, I 've never spoken to any of the Audi mechanics at the dealerships- maybe they have a better idea about this matter than the service writers?
  • jgranatajgranata Posts: 70
    regarding the purchase of a 2001 a6's got 27k miles, standard options such as sunroof and concern is any known problem areas, such as the tiptronic or the 2.8 motor. all responses welcome...thanks in advance...jackg
  • morphiemorphie Posts: 95
    Why would one ever wonder if sinister motives could influence corporate decisions. That would be analogous to a President ordering the pilfering of a rival party's headquarters. Surely, such things cannot happen (I know, drop the "Shirley" jokes).

    Seriously, no one is asserting that corporate minions conspire to defraud (at least not in this context). However, cost/benefit analysis is a time honored practice in the manufacturing world. Such was the case with the late, unlamented Ford Pinto; a less than twenty (20) dollar fix would have dramatically reduced the incidence of fire, subsequent to a rear end collision. Does that mean that the statistical analysis performed by Ford accepted the possibility of dire consequences for the occupants? Most likely not. However, the cost per vehicle was certainly weighed, and evaluated.

    Audi/VW has, no doubt, performed the same type of calculation: what are the savings if a vehicle is serviced at 10K intervals, as opposed to 7.5K? Other manufacturers have been a bit more conservative: various Mercedes and BMW models calculate the oil change timing based upon factors such as driving conditions; Given the "right" set of conditions, I have heard of oil changes being done at 13K, or more.

    While I am certainly no expert, allow me to offer this opinion: based upon my limited experience, an engine which is treated to an oil and filter change every 5,000 miles will show less wear than one serviced at 10,000 mile intervals (all other factors being equal). No engineer will dispute this. The relevant question : is the difference meaningful, i.e. will the degradation result in any significant diminution in reliability or performance?

    My only comment is that I, for one, would err on the side of caution. In other words, I shall continue to conspire against mechanical wear and tear; albeit in a non-conspiratorial manner.
  • kirby2010kirby2010 Posts: 136
    Morphie - thanks for the support. I couldn't have said it better myself.

    I was going respond to marleybarr - in fact I wrote a few notes but came back and deleted it. I think it's enough to say that if one were to substitute "sound business decision" for "sinister conspiracy" in the posting above (#2918) - the answer would be a resounding YES. To think anything else is naive at best.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    1. Do Carfax then get the Avant checked out by a competent Audi mechanic. If it passes, and you like it, buy it and a long-term warranty. '01 was 4th model year for the car, and it was largely debugged. Fuel gauge sender sensor recall and carbon fouling of the 2.8 if not driven under autobahn-like conditions occasionally, are about the only common problems I know of. The tip tranny isn't particularly problematic, but would set you back about $10K to replace! Figure on having to replace the timing belt, and possibly the water pump somewhere between about 60K and 80K.

    2. In Europe, Audi doesn't pay for anything beyond the one-year warranty. Not for oil changes, and they recommend even longer service intervals along with many other European manufacturers. I suspect that changing it every 10K with a good synthetic and dropping the filter at the same time is more than adequate. Would 5K be better? Don't know. Is it likely to make a real-world difference? I think it's doubtful.
  • hintzhintz FloridaPosts: 67
    Trying to decide what kind of vehicle to get?? The new infiniti g35/A4/A6? With all the problems people have with audis I'm a little concerned! They are currently selling all Audis here in Naples at factory invoice which seems to be quite attractive. Any advice? Please help
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I've got an '01 2.7T and have looked over but not driven the G35. The G35 is a nice small car with a very weird and unattractive tail light design. Inside it's smaller than the A4, and much smaller than the A6. The trunk is for day trips only. The quality of the interior is very poor when compared to either the A4 or the A6. The car really isn't in the same league even though it does have impressive specs. It's also not in the same price range, being less than the A4 and much less than the A6. Knock-on-wood, my A6 has about 25K and has not been problematic. I think Audi's problems have been exaggerated, and its reputation is still tarnished from when all of VW/Audi was very different from what the cars are today. If they're selling at dealer invoice, that's one HECK of deal! I'd suggest you drive all the cars you're considering, and get the one that makes you smile most.
  • I'm curious about an appropriate price for a new 2.7T, 2001 model year. Has most options; question is this: What discount should be offered from a comparable 2002?

    Thanks for your thoughts.
  • dfwhalldfwhall Posts: 11
    I have an '02 A6 3.0 CVT that was purchased May 4th. Since then, I have 7800 miles on the car and can say that I truly like this car. Just returned from a two week road trip from Dallas down to Sarasota, over to Orlando, up to Raleigh and back to Dallas through Atlanta. Accumulated 3800 miles on this trip and saw gas mileage of 25 - 27 MPG with air on and going 75-85 MPH. Once you get used to the initial "vagueness" of the transmission upon acceleration, its a blast. This motor seems to be breaking in now as it seems to have more "punch".
    As to the discussion of 10,000 mile oil changes, I replaced my oil and filter at 3,00 miles and plan to change in between the 10,000 "gratis" oil changes.
    This is my first Audi and I am amused by the reaction I get from current Audi owners when they realize that this car is not a quattro. Might get one next time but so far have been happy. A little torque steer is evident if you have the wheel turned at all when you accelerate hard, but nothing like GM cars!!
  • jgranatajgranata Posts: 70
    for the advice...actually it's an audi assured a6.
    somewhat off the subject, but pertaining to audi
    quality. the a6 is actually for my wife. when she
    went to the dealer, she initially was interested in an a4 avant. she had an 1989 audi 80 that she absolutely loved. when she looked at the interior of the a4, the first thing she noticed was the inferior quality of the materials compared to her
    80...i had looked at an a4 a couple of years ago and had felt the same way; the overall quality of the fabrics and the vinyl were just not as good as
    the 80..the interior reminded me of a 3 series...not necessarily cheap, but defintely not as nice as they were back when audi was trying harder...she did say that she felt that the interior pieces of the a6 were up to the quality that she expected from an's what she's getting...just my .02 cents...jackg
  • metro4154metro4154 Posts: 1
    i have a 2001 2.8 a6. i have 15,000 miles on it. i don't drive my a6 hard. last week the front brakes started to squeak. i took it in to the dealer and they polished the pads, but they still squeak, especially in the morning when i first start the car. can anybody offer any advice?
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    If it were me I would take it back and let them have another go at it - maybe the pads need replacing. The dealer should be able to resolve this to your complete satisfaction - the brakes should not squeak.
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Posts: 334
    It sounds like Dfwhall is satisfied with the CVT tranny. I'm not sure what the car writers problem w/ the CVT was, they sure had a negative reaction to the new transmission.
    Almost nobody buys the Front-TRak models here in snow-country(St.Paul,MN.)USA, so I'm waiting for the quattro-cvt models to come out, I'm sure within a year or so.
    You are smart to go w/ 3,000-5,000 mile oil changes, especially if you have heavy stop and go city driving!
  • cbagshawcbagshaw Posts: 7
    In a pickle as to which model to choose... Good special lease deal on the 3.0 quattro right now ... 2500 down with 399.00/month (before tax) payments for 39 months 10k/year. Financing on the lease is 1.9% on the 3.0 and 2.6% on the 2.7T. The 2.7T ends up being about 40-45 bucks more a month (39 month lease). I've driven both and like the 2.7T because of the power and torque. Problem is, it's going to be the wife's car with me occasionaly driving it. She seems to think the 3.0 is "fine" although she didn't get to drive the 2.7T. I remember my old '92 Audi 100 seeming like a dog after about a year of driving it and I don't want to make that mistake again. Any thoughts ?
  • dtwleungnycdtwleungnyc Posts: 188
    When in doubt, go for more horsepower. You can always slow down and take it easy on the go pedal. But when you want more horsepower, you just can't swap out for a bigger engine.

    BTW, I have the 3.0 Avant. Even though the engine is not as powerful as the 2.7T, it still has plenty of power and torque with 5 adults and things in the cargo area.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,098
    Has anyone out there bought a used luxury car such as Audi, Cadillac or Lexus recently?
    If so, and if you're willing to talk about it with a major daily newspaper, please send your vehicle and contact info to [email protected] no later than Friday, July 31. Thanks!


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I'd make a point of letting your wife drive the 2.7T and 3.0 back-to-back. If she still wants the 3.0, I think she should get it. Even though I've got an '01 2.7T, I don't think the 3.0 I drove as a loaner was a dog. Certainly not the same can-barely-get-off-the-line feeling as a '98 2.8 I drove. Other than the power, the other major advantage of the 2.7T/4.2 is the availability of a sport suspension, and a 6 speed in the 2.7T. My 2.7T doesn't have the sport suspension, but even though they firmed the base suspension for '02, the sport suspension makes it much more of a sports sedan, IMHO.
  • nofeernofeer Posts: 381
    same pickle, my wife's car, her ride, it's her decision. She finds the 3.0 more than adequate, better mileage, she tried the 2.7. but at 39 x 45 $ that's a lot of weekend trips and flowers and romancing, i'd bet she'd go for the $$$$ time, and romancing. get what she wants and it reinforces self confidence. it did in my case. i didn't even drive the a6 till the day we signed, i didn't need to, i trusted her decision, for her ride. also, when i chose my car it's my ride, my $ and my majority decision. cast your bread upon the water.... don't sabotage her decision making process.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    I agree with the posts pertaining to the A6 3.0 quattro (which I have driven extensively). It should get the nod for "most improved" Audi -- wow what a difference in every way the move from the 2.8 to the 3.0 has made.

    Now, I don't know if there would be many takers, but I would think an A6 3.0 quattro with the option (from the factory) of a sport package would be a very impressive (not that the current one is not) and very high value car. I know that they (AoA) tried a manual transmission in the A6 2.8 a couple of years back and it failed (here in Shiftless land) but I bet that the availability of:
    1. sport suspension, tires and wheels (make the sport seats optional -- for timcar and others);

    2. a 6spd manual option and/or a CVT that works with quattro (or a 6spd tiptronic) would make this car even more of a hands down winner over a BMW 530 (and knowing Audi it would cost less too)!

    And on the topic of who makes the decisions -- I say once the financial matter is decided, the primary driver should make the decision -- my wife loves TT's -- and even though I find them both fun and (for me) impractical -- it is her decision 100%! Alcantara steering wheel and 18" sport wheels and everything!

    Oh my aching back. . .
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Stamford, CTPosts: 14,120
    you forgot to mention that the steering boost should be left to a minimum when coupled with the sport suspension.

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2017 Pilot Touring AWD, 2019 Tacoma TRD Sport 4WD

  • bjbird2bjbird2 Posts: 647
    Timcar, I don't know where you got your information, but the G-35 has more interior space than the A-4 or A-6, except for rear legroom which the A-6 has more. The G-35 also has better acceleration, shorter braking distance, and more trunk space than the A-4, not to mention a much better $$.

    Interior Infiniti G35 Audi A4 Audi A6
    Front Headroom 40.1 in. 38.4 in. 39.3 in.
    Rear Headroom 37.9 in. 37.2 in. 37.9 in.
    Front Shoulder Room 56.4 in. 55.1 in. 56.2 in.
    Rear Shoulder Room 56.2 in. 53.4 in. 55.7 in.
    Front Hip Room 54.3 in. NA NA
    Rear Hip Room 53 in. NA NA
    Front Leg Room 43.9 in. 41.3 in. 41.3 in.
    Rear Leg Room 36.2 in. 34.3 in. 37.3 in.
    **Maximum Luggage Capacity 14.5 cu.ft. 13.4 cu.ft. 17.2 cu.ft.
    Maximum Seating 5 5 5
  • cncarlsoncncarlson Posts: 26
    Numbers do not begin to tell the entire story. The A6 is signifigantly larger than the G35 in every way. I almost bought the G35, you're right it is an absolute kick in the pants driving car, but I needed more space for passengers and the A6 has it in spades. I am 6'1" and in the Audi I can sit behind myself with plent of room, I could not do that in the G35. I will say that the G35 is bigger than the A4. The A4 was my last car and it was definitely too small for my growing family. Although my wife thinks she wants a Suburban next, so I am thinking then we only need one big car and I'm getting the A4 convertible!!
  • dtwleungnycdtwleungnyc Posts: 188
    I also test drove the G35 before deciding on the A6. If just base on the performance alone, no doubt the G35 is the top choice. But, if you factor in interior room, comfort, quality of materials, fit and finish and design. The A6 is ahead of the G35 by a wide margin, IMHO. The A6 interior is definitely the more comfortable environment to be in. But I need to add this though, the G35 is an extremely good first try.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    My goodness, Richard, welcome back! Missed the Audi bashing. Buy that new car yet?

    I guess Japanese cars must have smaller horses and inches than Audi's. Where do I get my information? From experience. Every day I drive my '01 2.7T. (Amazing! It actually runs EVERY day!) I've spent a day with the NEW A4 3.0. Being a large-ish fellow, I can tell you it's much more comfortable for me to sit in than my wife's '01 A4. The seemingly nominal increase in dimension has translated to a substantially roomier car.

    I've visited the nice Infiniti dealer a few times to investigate the G35. After I stopped laughing at it's rear-end, (Soon to be totally over-shadowed in mirth production by the mid '70's retro M45.) I spent perhaps a half-hour trying to bond with G35's interior. Tacky plastic aside, it's a snug fit. My space test doesn't involve rulers; I simply adjust the driver's seat to its most comfortable position for me, and then open the rear door and sit behind it. I found the real-world space in the G35 to be a little less than the A4. But admittedly, not much less. Then I opened it's trunk and heard Peggy Lee singing, Is That all There Is?

    Any comparisons of any aspect of space between the G35 and the A6 would have to be for purposes of humor. I'm only 5'10", but have an exceptionally long torso. I have proportionately short arms and legs and am somewhere north of 240. Built sorta like a tick! (For any NY Giant fans, think Ron Dayne about 30 years from now!) Applying my test in the A6, I've got about 3 inches between my head and the head liner, a couple of inches between my left shoulder and the door, and my butt isn't pressed into the transmission tunnel. In the G35 I've got about 1" of headspace, my left shoulder is wedged against the door as tightly as my right thigh is pressing against the tranny tunnel. Only Billy Barty (R.I.P.) would be able to occupy the seat behind me comfortably. Conversely, real American adults can travel in comfort and luxury for any length of time in the rear seat of my 2.7T, which holds luggage for two for a week and half. Whereas the trunk of the G35 is strictly for day trips only.

    I obtained one car, a Lexus ES300, by comparison shopping car magazines and brochures. I will not make that mistake again. Car magazines are not free of advertisers' effect on editorial content. My real world experience with Acura and Lexus suggests that at least these two manufacturers tend to overstate performance claims compared to Audi.

    Infiniti has sold some very good cars. And while interior packaging has improved from dreadful to not as bad, inches don't begin to tell the story. However, as Chris and David have reported, I've heard little but very positive impressions of the G35's performance from those who've actually driven it. Nissan makes fine engines and can make fine suspensions. I have no reason to believe this isn't true of the G35. Can it get from 0-60 in less time than my 2.7T? Maybe, maybe not. I don't care! It's the WHOLE package that interests me. And while the G35 is a very nice, fine performing car for what it is, it isn't in the same league as the A6, and at least as concerns fit and finish as the A4.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 4,852
    how the G35 and A6 compare after the owner has put 150K miles on each of them is of no interest to anyone. . .at least on this board.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    Whenever I see words regarding very high milage on a car, I wonder what the point is that is trying to be made? The car is reliable? The owner collects them and neve gets rid of them? The owner is wealthly and can afford the parts replacement+labor of ANY modern car?

    Someone left a voice mail on my mail box yesterday. The somebody was the service technician at a local Toyota dealer. The message was very lengthy but the net of it was that the person who was supposed to get the message had a late model Camry that apparenly needed a bunch of stuff done to it -- one of the things was a new window lift $93.75, labor $142.50, a master cylinder which would be covered by the extended warranty the person bought (less a $50 deduct). The list of stuff continued for about 4 minutes and doing the numbers in my head (I was listening to this on my Audi speaker-phone while I was driving) the repairs were a low four figure number.

    My thoughts were of this town hall -- all the Audi bashing, how unreliable, how expensive, how overpriced (from some posters).

    Those of you that have been on this board know that my last two Audi's have had a "young fortune" of brake rotors and pads put on them -- thankfully nothing cost me any out of pocket, and whenever the cars were worked on I ALWAYS got a loaner, often a 2002 A4 or A6 -- once an S4, but it had an automatic so it was a bit of a let down.

    Anyway, the stories we tell on this board are generally based on first-hand experience, not "large statistical samples." Most people that participate on this board genuinely love Audis -- even with some of the reliability issues that we have shared. My voice mail message was a classic -- and it has now made me think that Toyotas (some not all) must be very expensive to repair.

    We have seen the writings of folks on this board who have had virtually no repairs (other than sched maint) on their Audis -- and you have seen my repeated brake problems.

    As you know my wife and I have two more Audi's on order. None of our problems has made us even the smallest amount less Audi Fans.

    The joy of driving these things is the reason most of us support and rave-on positively about the brand.

    We all wish our cars were more reliable -- the problems I have had, while admittedly annoying, have in no way dampened my enthusiasm for Audis.

    If you do not like them or like those of us that do, please quit beating up on us -- find the board that is full of "friends" of your favorite brand and let us enjoy our "conversations."

    I haven't driven a G35, so I can't comment on them, I have never kept any car to 150K (and do not plan to) so that is not of much interest either. I like new Audis, plan to keep buying them until I don't, and don't plan on keeping them out of warranty.

    That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Posts: 647
    Hey Tim,

    Just responding to your G-35 bashing and
    mis-information. Don't want the folks on this site to get the wrong facts. Actually I bought 2 cars, one for my wife and one for my son. I'm holding out for the G-35 coupe which is coming out in November. I've also been sitting in a lot of cars, and the A4 is noticeably smaller than the G35. The A6 is bigger in the back, but the front is a very close. I can justify the differences in the interior with the better performance and $$ value of the G-35.

    Better get used to the G35 rear end, that's probably what your going to see most of the time.
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    Three people who drive A6's daily have told you that the G35, which they have driven or sat in, is much less roomy. Guess you'll have to believe what you want. I didn't bash the G35. I said I think it's a very nice car for what it is. And despite its ugly a**, if I were in that market, I'd probably consider it.

    On the pictures I've seen of coupe, the design theme seems to work much better than on the sedan. It has a similar tail treatment, but it looks as if it works. However, I recall the coupe's interior being even smaller, but room may not be important to you.

    What cars are you currently enjoying that you'll be replacing with a G35?

    My post contains no misinformation, just a literal description of my experience. How that could be misinformation is beyond me. No, if I wanted to bash the G35, I'd troll on over to a G35 or Infiniti board and make annoying remarks based on ignorance.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 4,852
    the longest response to the shortest post.

    Touchy, aren't we?

    Yes, those who can afford to treat cars as disposable don't understand the appeal of an elegant mechanical design. In my never humble opinion, the fun car that lasts a long time wins over the fun car that doesn't.

    Forgive me.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 4,852
    I joined this board about a year ago because I was impressed (big-time) by a couple of Audi rentals I enjoyed in Europe on business.

    I absolutely, positively enjoy Audis, especially as they're presented in the Fatherland. I'd own one now, if I thought it wouldn't break me, long-term.

    However, I BUY cars because they're cheaper that way, assuming they're kept for 5-8 years. Cheaper yet if they're bought used.

    Has anyone here read "The Millionaire Next Door?" Not that I'm anywhere close, but acquiring vehicles that require little or no maintenance over hundreds of thousands of miles isn't a bad thing, is it?

    Perhaps it is.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • mbnut1mbnut1 Posts: 403
    Just to let you know you are not alone in your automotive purchasing perspective.

    I too find the disposable car mindset difficult to adjust to, given the purchase price of the cars under discussion. I guess from a renters perspective it makes sense.

    The concern then becomes, who is AUDI developing their cars for, the renters or the owners?
  • timcartimcar Posts: 363
    I think I understand cdnpinhead's perspective and admire it, though I don't happen to share it. I don't doubt that purchasing new, or better used, and keeping it for quite awhile will likely yield the lowest cost per mile. There's an old New England proverb that goes:

    Buy it new,
    Wear it out.
    Make it do,
    Then do without.

    The elegance of beautifully conceived and produced components of an automobile that work in concert to create an enduring pleasure is undeniably attractive. Unfortunately, I think these ideas are also at odds with current business thought.

    My interests and expectations for an auto are different. I love the beauty, and the pleasure of driving an automobile. Those are my primary criteria. I also love the evolution of technology that's incorporated into them to make them handle better, go faster, be quieter and more comfortable. I don't see these qualities as being at odds, but rather seek a blend of them in a car. Since technological innovation can be significant between one generation of car and the next, a more frequent replacement schedule is desirable from my perspective. But these are simply my personal criteria. I don't think they are any more or less valid than others I've heard expressed.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    When you said ". . .I also love the evolution of technology that's incorporated into them to make them handle better, go faster, be quieter and more comfortable. I don't see these qualities as being at odds, but rather seek a blend of them in a car. Since technological innovation can be significant between one generation of car and the next, a more frequent replacement schedule is desirable from my perspective."

    A new car (for me an Audi) every 24 to 36 months IS FUN, is safe, is rewarding, etc. And, like Tim, that is my perspective. Unless we are talking about collector's item type cars, and unless you can acquire one of these "normal" cars in cash or with 0.0% financing, how is it possible to account that owning is less expensive than leasing? And this question is not meant to be asked about Audis or Infinitys or Volvos or Subarus or even Yugos -- it is meant to be very general and only "exclude" exotics or other cars that appreciate instead of depreciate.

    Perhaps you will say since I have "owned" (leased technically) approximately 2 dozen Audis since 1978, my experiences and opinions are due to the fact that Audis always break (early or earlier) and therefore I never keep them long enough for them to be of any REAL ($) problem to me -- you have a point. I have no clue what owning 24 Infinitys or Toyotas or Chrysler products or GM or Ford cars is like.

    It seems to me, however, that all cars have issues, performance issues, repair and reliability issues, safety and emissions issues, styling and comfort issues -- and so on. It is probably true that each new generation of car at least attempts to improve on its predecessor in some or all of those issue areas.

    We all come up with rationalizations why we do things -- the emotional probably trumps the practical or empirical.

    My "logic" tells me that cars have relatively short shelf lives in terms of improvements and advancements (in the above mentioned issue areas).

    Likewise my logic tells me that cars increase in their upkeep costs the older they get.

    I do not think Audi (or any other car company) brings its cars to the market for renters (unless perhaps they are fleet cars) or for buyers specifically.

    Emotionally, on the other hand, I enjoy having the most advanced (which I am sometimes not able to get since it doesn't always work out) car that I can afford -- thus far it generally means a new car every other model year (or two) and a car that always is in full warranty.

    For me -- perhaps not you -- I find it more expensive to "buy" (or lease or whatever) a car and keep it 5 - 8 years. As I turned 50 in 2001, I decided I would always have all wheel drive (assuming it was available) no matter what, I assumed I would always have ESP (or whatever electro mechanical evolution happens), high performance suspension, tires, brakes (don't get me started) etc.

    I enjoy power operated windows, seats,locks, etc., climate controls -- and stick shifts (again don't get me started). The "next" thing is what I want to have (and so far can afford -- or in my twisted logic [rationalization] -- I can NOT afford NOT to have).

    Now, if someone could make a car "upgradable" -- like my home theater system surround sound processor is upgradable -- this might be attractive (but of course then there would still be the styling issue).

    I am not dissing any car you like (or at least not intentionally), nor am I dissing your preference to keep a car for 5 - 8 years or 150,000 miles or whatever. I just can't make either the numbers or the emotion work.

    Car payments are, to me, like utility bills -- as long as I want gas and electricity delivered to my house I have to make a monthly payment. I want to keep new cars -- I have to make payments to enjoy this "mode" of motoring.

    If you can make the numbers and the "fun factor" -- which is incredibly broad in its scope -- work for you and get a new or used car every 5 - 8 years -- well, go for it. But, don't make me try it, please.

Sign In or Register to comment.