Last post on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM
You are in the Audi A6
What is this discussion about?
Audi A6, Sedan
#1419 of 6921 Audiphiles- 17" wheels? by rambo7 Response
Jul 15, 2001 (7:16 am)
I had a 1997 A8, purchased new with the 17" option. Tires were 225 x 55 x 17 Goodyear GSD.
At 18,000+ miles, the treadwear indicators started poking through -- at that exact moment in time no GSD tire (which other than the miles, I liked) was available.) New A8's started coming in with Goodyear LS tires (same size); they were about $100/each -- so I bought four of them. Mistake -- like riding on oatmeal. A couple of months later, I bought 4 Pirelli PZero Asymetrico's size 245 x 50 x 17" ($250 ea) -- the ride, road noise and handling IMPROVED.
Then I ordered an A6 4.2 with 17" wheels -- it came with 255 x 40 x 17" tires, I thought the car would be rough riding. Not so, again an improvement in ride, road noise and peroformance (this with Dunlop Sp 9000's.) Seventeen months later ordered another A6 4.2, this time with sport package (therefore it automatically came with the 255 x 40 x 17's). Car came in with Pirelli P6000's -- car had much more road noise and a stiffer ride (the sport suspension, perhaps?). At 8,000 miles the road noise, two flat tires (screws in the sidewall from a construction site) and tread wear indicators now "visible," I started my research for new tires. Ended up with Yokohama AVS db (decible) 255 x 40 x 17" ultra high performance all - season tires. Better ride, virtually no road noise and no degradation in performance.
The "mix" of suspension, tires, wheels (perhaps), even the seats is the key, IMO. The tires alone are significant but are NOT THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor -- I would go with the "big wheels & tires" -- on Audi's at least. And, I would stop growing my wheel size (say from 17 to 18's) if the tread width did not increase. For example, the plus size for my A6 4.2 is 255 x 35 x 18" -- I would not spend any money on this, as I would think that the lower profile tire with no increase in width would be just that much more likely to be a pot hole magnent -- and I use my car on everyday roads and highways, so what little benefit I would get from the lower profile would be offset by the increased risk and with no accompanying increase in foot print.
Jul 15, 2001 (4:09 pm)
Mark, I agree with you about plus sizing these fine cars, especially with large wheels already.
I found out that the '02 2.7T sport package has 235x45x17" tires. I drove over to meet Ralph
and saw the Amulet Red, which is OK, but a little darker than I like (but I'll try to suffer thru it!!).
I added the rear sunshade, but just didn't think I would appreciate the NAV in its' current configuration. Another thing I learned was that the rear parktronic which I would like to have is now in the premium package, separate from NAV. Heated seats are a separate option, and include rear as well as front.
I just hope the tires are a good choice, as I hate to drive something for several thousand miles while waiting for a 'good' one to come along.
I've never tried the Zaino's that timcar suggests, but what I read makes me believe their products are quite good.
#1421 of 6921 Tire footprint
Jul 15, 2001 (5:42 pm)
The footprint of a tire is not affected by the width of the tire, but by the pressure. Take the weight of your car in pounds, devide by four, and then devide by the pressure in pounds per sq. inch. This will give you quite a good approximation of your footprint.
What will change with wider tires, is the shape of the footprint. The wider the tire, the wider (and therefore shorter) the oval. A shorter oval means less bending of the sides of the tire, less contact time (ie. less heat gets generated) and more contact-free time (ie. more time to cool down).
#1422 of 6921 Cincinnati
Jul 15, 2001 (5:46 pm)
Mark, as you seem to be the resident Cinty expert (and Ralph Winter's secret sales weapon), I hope you can help me with this...
Do you think it is safe to park an Audi A6 on a downtown parkinglot (Pike & 3rd) during the day?
Jul 16, 2001 (6:43 am)
I have lived in Cincinnati since 1975. Until April of this year my answer to your question allart would have been yes with no qualifications. My wife, who works in Norhtern KY and who must drive into downtown Cinti on a regular basis on business says that she has been advised to park in "garages" on or above the second floor.
She has been advised to do this by at least two of her "business" partner companies in the downtown area.
Additionally, I own a building in Blue Ash (northern suburb of Cinti) which I am trying to rent -- our realtors said that later this year we will see "flight" from downtown to areas such as Blue Ash as leases in downtown properties come up for renewal.
Based on the above data, I would say I like downtown Cincinnati -- quite a lot actually -- but that I would probably park either in an above ground garage or even underground in the Fountain Square "public parking," rather than in an open air area where anyone can walk up to the car (and possibly do mischief). On the other hand, if the parking lot is supervised, I would park there without hesitation -- my only reservation is the totally unattended lots where you just put your money in a slot.
Now nighttime is another matter entirely (at least in the Over the Rhine area).
I don't know about being Ralph's secret weapon, he is just a really good person, high integrity, etc. who happens to sell a great product. He makes the business of car shopping and ownership a joy -- my only problem with him is his age, I am concerned that he might consider retirement (I assume he is over 65). Having someone who sells cars (and between my wife, my company and me, we have purchased over two dozen cars from the same dealership) that you trust and actually like is, IMO, a rare and precious "experience."
I do endorse Ralph completely and with out reservation, nevertheless.
Jul 16, 2001 (6:52 am)
JK -- so you met Ralph, have I steered you wrong? Does he live up to my "billing" of him?
Allart -- on tires: the plus sizing I mentioned for my A6 4.2 (standard tires 255 x 40 x 17) to 255x35x18, based on your explanation (thanks BTW), provides no greater or better "footprint" -- correct? I came to the conclusion that a wider tire, all other things "being equal" (which they rarely are) is generally a good thing (example my A8 going from 225 x 55 x 17 to a 245 x 50 x 17). Based on your more technical knowlege of tires, aspect ratios and footprints, two questions: was the "Plus zero sizing on the A8 really a good thing as I think it was and is it really not a good thing to "Plus one size" the A6 since the tread width remains 255, even though the aspect ratio goes from 40 to 35 (which I assumed means somewhat greater risk of road hazard issues, e.g. potholes?)
Thanks for your answers JK and allart.
#1425 of 6921 Leather care - Joel and Tim
Jul 16, 2001 (9:36 am)
Thanks guys for the tips on Lexol and Zaino. Now that that's taken care of, what do you use on the dashboard? The only thing I have in my car cleaning cupboard for interiors (not for the leather) is Armorall, which I attempted to use and it was very streaky. I stopped and just wiped it down with a damp cloth instead. Any suggestions there?
Thanks in advance!
#1426 of 6921 Dashboard Cleaner/Protectorant
Jul 16, 2001 (9:54 am)
There is an Armorall cleaner and low luster protectant (2 products) that I have used in the past. I haven't used it for a couple of years, perhaps there are better products now -- do not use this stuff on seats, however -- and it is not the same stuff as you put on your tires either. FYI
Jul 16, 2001 (10:33 am)
I would like to hear opinions regarding the 1998 A6. I test drove 2 over the weekend (one w/ 27,000 miles and one w/ 37,000 - both Audi Certified). Both were priced at $28,000. I have not owned an Audi before. The 37,000 mile car had "every option" as far as I could tell. The 27,000 mile car did not have the Bose stereo or CD changer.
As I don't live near an Audi dealer (only one in the Portland, OR area) - I am hopeful that I would not have to visit them frequently. Please advise me on the reliability of the 1998 model as well as any areas of concern or great joy that this car entails.
Final decision - go w/ dark green (metallic) w/ 27,000 miles and no Bose or CD or dark red w/ 37,000 miles loaded?????
The other car that I am considering is a 2002 Acura TL-S. I have also played with the idea of a used A8 (saw a great price on a 1999 A8 w/ 18,000 miles - but the price was quite a bit higher than what I have been considering). Any personal experiences or opinions regarding these vehicles would be greatly appreciated as well!
#1428 of 6921 Audi A6's - 2002 and Beyond
Jul 16, 2001 (10:59 am)
I read a review of the 2002 A6's yesterday -- and in the article was a "pre-announcement" of the "all-new" A6 that is coming in 2003 (as a 2003 or 2004 the article did not say). After reading the article, I am getting a bit of a case of Audi Envy for those few of you on this forum who have placed orders for 2002's (especially 2.7T's with the sport package). The handling and ride equation on these new A6's is apparently a significant step forward over the current model A6's (especially the 2.8's). The new 3.0 engine was also lauded as was the TD engines offered in other (non-North American) markets.
On a related note:
Ralph at Northland told me that while Audi chose NOT to go to a DVD nav system that all nav (2002) customers will get ALL available CD/Maps rather than just one (as my wife and I received as part of our 2001 sat/nav options). While not as good as one DVD, this is a big cost item that, even if you would not use it much, you don't have to pay any upcharge for. Also, the Audi Telematics (not available on the first US shipments) sounds like a pretty cool fun and safety feature -- based on GM's ON*STAR and integrated with an available "factory" phone with voice command, the GPS and the entertainment system (apparently available in base and deluxe form -- base being like GM's advertised On Star offering). Upgraded and uprated brakes, standard ESP+brake assist across the entire line, lower unsprung weight on the front end, all moving the A6 a step closer to (but still not as good as) the coveted BMW chassis dynamics.
What is this, you concede the BMW is better balanced? You bet, but that one area of superiority does not mean I think the Bimmer (5 series) trumps the Audi (A6 series) -- especially the 2.7T and 4.2 models (dollar for dollar, feature for feature, performace (overall) vs performance (overall) -- the Audi still remains my choice and for many of us in this forum, the best choice).
And, the new new A6 (2003 calendar year) will, supposedly, move the chassis dynamics meter even more toward that coveted "balanced" rating that Bimmer-files love to shove in our faces.
Competition keeps imrpoving these things -- my "tired" old (11,000 miles) 2001 A6 4.2 is starting to have a (as in one) crow's foot. So many Audi's, so little time (and money). . . .
What a world, what a world.