Last post on Dec 26, 2012 at 7:05 AM
You are in the Audi A6
What is this discussion about?
Audi A6, Sedan
#1963 of 6920 Saturn/Audi.....no diffference?
Oct 06, 2001 (9:54 am)
Our previous car was a Saturn...it died at 75,000 miles. We have just been informed that our 1998 Audi A6 needs a new transmission at 75,000 miles!!! Shouldn't a car that cost more than twice the price be more reliable? Or is an Audi just a Saturn with leather seats???
We have serviced this car exactly as specified at the dealership. The dealership wants us to pay half the cost ($5,000 plus $1,000 labor!!) for a new tranny. We say either the car is a lemon (it has needed numerous repairs too many to mention here) or the dealership (New York City) has not been properly servicing this car, although it has charged us an arm and a leg for service. We drive a lot, but it is mostly highway driving back and forth the New York city from Westchester.
Any help on strategy when we meet with the service rep from Audi this week would be most appreciated!
Should we dump the car or buy a new one...NOT an Audi, of course...any suggestions for cars with comparable all wheel drive...winter is on the way!And if we pay thousands for a new transmission...what's gonna go next? Is it worth it?
Many, many thanks from a brand new board member.
#1964 of 6920 transmission woes....
Oct 06, 2001 (3:34 pm)
While there is no question that an expensive transmission repair is not an event one greets with eager anticipation, this does occur with all brands. To condemn Audi, Mercedes, Chevrolet, etc. on the basis of this repair, is a rather aggressive use of a priori logic. It would be just as inaccurate to take an Audi with a perfect record of reliability and conclude that it was representative of the brand.
To your question: assuming that your service records are well documented, i. e. you have maintained the vehicle as specified and recommended, you are are not entitled to anything other than "goodwill". I suggest that you may wish to review your rhetoric prior to approaching either your dealer or Audi. Apparently, they are willing to share part of the cost, even though they are under no obligation to do so. Perhaps, they will do more.
It would seem that your potentially strongest argument would be a recurrent problem that had been documented when the vehicle was under warranty. The key here is "documentation". If you reported a malfunction, and it was not cured during the first 50,000 miles, you might have a debating point. The owner's reporting of a defect is what triggers warranty coverage.
Oct 07, 2001 (8:32 pm)
Too many times my friends and associates decide a car that they loved when they bought it and continued to love for 10's of thousands of miles is a lemon long after the warranty is over. Then they cease being customers of that brand and move on to another -- and the process repeats.
My friend bought a Saab -- at 60,000 miles the troubles began -- of course they paid through the nose and did nothing to try to be a good customer (in Saab's eyes). Then, they went to Volvo -- so the Volvo was leased for 36 months and it was fine for the lease period -- so fine in fact that they sold it to a relative. About a year and half later -- the mighty Volvo broke -- big time. Of course both the original purchaser and the relative now think all Volvos and of course all Saabs are crap.
Another friend, similar story -- Jeep Grand Cherokee -- opted for the 3 year 36,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty -- at about 58,000 miles -- major major expensive repairs.
Yet another friend, a BMW -- which of course stands for "it takes Beauty Money and Wealth to keep one of them going." And my friend with the Dodge Intrepid did nore fare any better.
My friend who leases a new Cadillac every 24 months is happy -- so happy that when his 2000 DeVille was replaced with a 2001 free of charge with an apology from Cadillac, he decided to buy an Oldsmobile -- he has his "free" Cadillac and his Olds -- he drives the Olds to work and lets his wife drive the Cadillac which after all has On*Star just in case it breaks.
My next friend leased a Chrylser convertible -- and, against my soft protests, bought it at the end of the 36 month lease. He says it now costs the car payment plus $1,000 a month to keep it running.
Most who know me think that getting a new car with warranty every 24 - 30 months is expensive -- in fact, I got my 2001 Audi A6 4.2 only 17 months after my 2000 A6 4.2. My wife;s 2000 TT was traded in on a 2001 TT after 7 months (luckly with no $$$ penalty).
We "pay as we go" and we love our cars (Audi's) -- my friends who go for the long term, rarely buy the same brand of car twice alleging that it's because the cars are no good.
Here's a clue -- using the logic I have seen my associates, neighbors and friends use -- there are no good cars period (other than the ones that are legendary -- whatever that means). You pay now or you pay later. When you pay later you seem to pay when it is inconvenient and expensive.
My advice -- get an extended warranty, if you plan to keep the car more than the factory allowed warranty -- no matter what brand. If "the dealer or manufacturer" is willing to pay 50% of the cost of a repair after the warranty has expired -- and they are NOT required to do so -- I would say that this is a company who really wants my repeat business.
The warranty on an Audi can be "easily and relatively inexpensively" extended to 75,000 and for a bit more taken to 100,000 miles. Given all the stories I have heard about many different brands of cars -- I see nothing in the story above that would deter me from yet another Audi. Now, if the car was not performing to your satisfaction when it was not broken, well that's a good reason to not buy another one.
How many things that we can purchase OUTLIVE the warranty by 50% and we think they have been reliable. Cars and TV's routinely last at least 50% longer than their warranties -- yet we tend to think that a TV with a 2 year warranty that poops out at even 4 years is bad.
Our tolerance for cars is such that if a car with a warranty of 50,000 miles has a repair need at 75,000 miles that it was a bad car. It doesn't matter if it was a Saturn or and Audi -- I am confident that they both have examples of 150,000 mile owners with minor repairs and owners with 51,000 miles who have had expensive repairs.
It seems to me, that a 50% payment as a start is not an indication of a bad company. Now, if you are loyal to them, they may meet you another 20% or so -- and hopefully you will consider that they actually had to do nothing and if you buy another one they will continue to treat you as a valued customer and then some.
!#$ happens to all cars -- my experience with Audis's is not perfect, but owning their cars has been, for the most part, delightful.
If you must keep ANY car beyond its warranty, I would urge you to consider an aftermarket warranty or a savings account "just in case." My belief is that with very few exceptions you will end up with money in the savings account (no matter what brand you ultimately choose to go with). Cars, for me at least, are not expected to be perfect. And, a deal is a deal. It seems you are getting treated above and beyond what is required.
You will get more positive responses if you are positive in your demeanor.
#1966 of 6920 A6 2.7T vs. Volvo S80 T6
Oct 08, 2001 (6:15 am)
I'm about to buy either an Audi A6 2.7T or the Volvo S80 T6. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the pros/cons of the Audi. Also, any info re: lease deals would be great. I'm looking at a lease deal in the $550 range - is that a good deal or not?
Oct 08, 2001 (6:52 am)
IMO they are apples and oranges -- buy the one you like or the one with the best "deal" if they are comparable in your mind.
According to what I read and what my friends tell me -- they are both very good cars.
They are, to repeat, differentiated by many things -- some overt some very subtle.
I doubt you will go wrong with either one of them.
Of course here in Audi message board land -- we mostly tout Audi's.
#1968 of 6920 A6 2.7T vs. Volvo T6
Oct 08, 2001 (8:07 am)
Thanks for the feedback.
From my test drives, it seems the difference comes down to handling. The A6 seems to handle its hp better than the Volvo T6 - I don't know if its weight ratios or AWD. Also how's the A6 in the snow - noticeable difference vs other cars in its class that you've heard about that are FWD and RWD?
#1969 of 6920 The new 3.0 A6....
Oct 08, 2001 (8:30 am)
We picked up my wife's 2002 A6 3.0 this Saturday (10/6/2001); there are some very nice improvements. Since most of you know the detail changes, I will not dwell on those. The engine, however, is worth a few syllables.
Her previous car was a 1999 A6 Avant (2.8); the new 3.0 is dramatically different. Off the line, it is noticeably quicker; a genuine pleasure to operate. My sense is that there are alterations in the transmission/torque converter, which also contribute to the experience. To put this in perspective: the 3.0 feels like a quality V6, with good torque; the 2.7T, to my way of thinking, has the aura of a high performance small V8, even though it is a "6"; While I have only driven the 4.2 once, it has a genuine V8 feel: smooth and effortless. Are not quality choices nice?
After 100 miles, all is well.
#1970 of 6920 Audi Volvo FWD quattro, etc.
Oct 08, 2001 (8:40 am)
Audi quattro's are excellent on dry pavement and fantastic on slick pavement of any kind.
One "caution" I have read on this board and else where is that they don't stop any differently on "snow and ice" than a front or rear wheel drive car.
This is not 100% accurate -- but for all practical purposes it would appear to be "mostly true."
But those who have written this seem to say that that is somehow a negative -- the reasoning appears to be: quattros are superior in low traction situations to front and rear wheel drive cars, but they don't stop any better -- wouldn't you rather have a car that was inferior in slick conditions going and no better or no worse stopping in slick conditions? The logic that your ability to go will cause you to drive with reckless abandon is not obvious to me.
And, technically this "sameness" is mostly limited to straight line full panic stops on rain, snow, sleet or ice -- where the ABS with brake assist and ESP are your best friends no matter what end of the car provided the initial propulsion. In less than "full on" stops, quattro does provide additional control and even engine braking distributed to 4 rather than 2 wheels.
For me, Audi's quattro cars would seem to have significantly fewer detractors if their weight distribution was the so-called ideal of 50% front 50% rear -- Audi's do understeer in part due to the fact that their front ends weigh more than their back ends. Refined suspension layouts as are present on quattros tend to mitigate this understeering somewhat.
Moreover, many feel that understeering (mildly) is preferable in the real world to tail happy cars.
Volvos such as the ones you are looking at also understeer.
Like I said, pick the one you like or is at your price point. I do believe they appeal to completely different tastes (and that is not a criticism), however.
#1971 of 6920 Problem...solved
Oct 10, 2001 (7:03 am)
As I dropped my daughters at school, I noticed the check engine light on. Being that my A6 4.2 is new (3k miles)and that I'm basically a technology idiot, I called the dealer and asked to be seen right away. The rep stated that as long as the light wasn't flashing, it wasn't an emergency and I could keep driving. Maybe it was my confused tone of voice, but they finally said to bring it by and they would try to squeeze me into their full schedule.
When I arrived, they gave me an old Audi 100 loaner (I really didn't care since I was greatful they took me) and I continued to work with only a five minute delay. It turns out the problem was a corroded contact which resulted in the sensor for the pressure in the fuel tank activating (I could have continued to drive with no problem).
They delivered the car back to me all cleaned, washed, and with a coat of wax. It's interesting that when I receive great service I find it unusual enough to make me wrie about it.
Oct 10, 2001 (7:24 am)
It has now been three maybe four tankfuls of gas -- so over 1,000 miles on my Audi of America paid for cross drilled OEM rotors. And, I have a mixed report.
#1 The car (a 2001 A6 4.2 w/15k miles and 11 months old) has the best brakes it has ever had, and this includes the 2000 A6 4.2 that I had had for 17 months prior. Stopping, while never a worry or issue, is both easy and almost silent. There is the mixed review.
#2 At speeds above 65+ mph, there is STILL a purring or slight shudder. It is less pronounced than before, and as I am now over 1/3 of the way through the lease -- and still basically loving virtually everything else about the car, I will wait until the "condition" worsens or the lease runs its course, whichever comes first.
For the newcomers to this forum, I will replace this Audi with another Audi -- and TODAY, it would be another A6 -- I am tempted by the rumors of an S4 and/or S6 saloon, however.
I am impressed by the efforts expended by both Audi of America and my dealer service department. There has been absolutely no effort on their part to "convince" me that "they all do it -- and I should live with it" or any excuses at all. I have received NOTHING but support, empathy and assistance.
I commend the dealer highly for fighting the good fight.
Those of you on this board and AudiWorld that have replaced their rotors some under the Audi Advantage, some on their own should have sent a message to Audi loud and clear -- my guess is these message boards work, as the write up of both the NEW A4's brakes (by journalists) and the declaration, in marketing literature, that the A6's for 2002 have improved brakes lend credence to that notion.
Anyway, I am not 100% happy with my brakes, but I am 110% impressed with the company and the dealership.