Last post on Dec 26, 2012 at 7:05 AM
You are in the Audi A6
What is this discussion about?
Audi A6, Sedan
Nov 28, 2000 (7:53 pm)
I have had 24 Audis since 1978 -- only 1 of them came with good tires (personal opinion). Audi is not alone in "undertiring" their cars. I have certainly never replaced the tires when new, but when I replace the tires, I generally upgrade with what is called "plus 0" sizing. For example, if the car comes with 205 x 55 x 16 tires, 225 x 50 x 16's will work just fine on the factory wheel (the formula is available many web based tire stores -- and will make certain you do not "go overboard" on your selection).
My 2000 Audi A6 4.2 came with 255 x 40 x 17's and they were Dunlop 9000's. These tires have been fantastic -- I would get them again. Unfortunately, my 2001 Audi A6 4.2 Sport came with Continental tires (same size as above) and I do not think they are as good as the Dunlops. I put Pirelli Asymetrico (?) on my 1997 A8 after the factory tires (Goodyear GS-D's) gave up the ghost 18,000 miles.
I generally read the reviews On-line for H,V,&Z rated tires in the size that will accomplish a Plus 0 upgrade -- I look for performance, road noise and durability -- in that order and then I usually buy the "best" I can afford at the moment -- often a major brand name is "on sale" on one of the many web sites that sell tires.
I generally have them shipped to my dealer and put on the car (mounted and balanced) which means I get to keep using the Audi Advantage (assuming the car has under 50,000 miles on it when I make the switchover.)
I have found that Audi Quattros take on totally new personalities with Plus 0 sizing and perhaps getting away from the All Season rubber that seems to come on so many cars (from all mfgr.'s) these days. Here in southern Ohio, driving a quattro with ABS and ESP, summer tires provide Year Round drivability and the only time I have even been stuck was when all four tire's contact patches were on "glare" ice (I assume I would have had the same problem with winter -- non-studded -- tires too).
Pirelli, Michelen, Dunlop, Goodyear, BF Goodrich all seem to have tires that will make substantial improvements in Audi quattros of just about any vintage. Heck, I even had a set of Firestone's that were great on my 1998 A4 2.8 Quattro sport.
Nov 29, 2000 (12:41 am)
What an interesting question - one with many answers.
What indicates the end of a car's "life"? Even the worst running car can be kept on life support and kept running forever, like so many VW Beetles still on the road. Perhaps it means when the monthly repairs equal the payments on a new one? What is your definition?
I had 2 Audi 5000 Turbos that were pushing 130K and 150K when I sold them, and they were still running and looking fine with few repairs, only one had the tranny rebuilt. There is a well cared for Audi 200 in the paper with 230K on it, still running well.
If you take regular care of your car and don't abuse it, I see no reason 200K+ cannot be expected. I am sure many of the Audi taxis in Europe go 3-400K or more.
#475 of 6920 If you had the bucks
Nov 29, 2000 (3:49 am)
If someone handed you $50,000 and said you can buy one of these cars, BMW 530i, Audi A6 2.7T or
MB E320 4Matic. Which one would you get?
Nov 29, 2000 (6:36 am)
For $50,ooo, consider the Lexus GS 430. It has much more power than the other cars, and with the L-Tuned suspension and steering upgrade from the Lexus dealer, it will smoke a BMW 540I. Heck of a value!
#477 of 6920 Audi A6 2.7T Reliability???
Nov 29, 2000 (6:39 am)
Can anyone comment on the reliability of the A6 2.7T????
I was considering this vehicle in conjunction with the very reliable Lexus GS 430. The audi does have much more supportive seating though!
#478 of 6920 If someone handed me $50K...
Nov 29, 2000 (6:57 am)
...I'd start by trying to work a deal on an A6 4.2 V8; if the numbers didn't crunch, I'd go with the 2.7T.
You don't need me to tell you that all 3 are fine cars, and I'm sure that any one of them would be a pleasure to own. Personally, I find the BMW to be a little too small (cramped) inside and its interior a little too stark.
The Benz is looking a bit long in the tooth, and while there's nothing offensive about its styling, there's nothing very exciting about it, either.
The A6, in my opinion, is the best blend of room, luxury, sportiness, styling, and value of just about everything out there. Mine's only a 2.8 (with quattro and Tiptronic), and it still makes me grin from ear to ear every time I get in it. I just went to the San Francisco auto show last week and revisited the BMW and Benz, and I still find both to be pale in comparison with the A6.
Nov 29, 2000 (4:32 pm)
Your list of cars for $50,000 could have included the Audi A6 4.2 (list price $48,900). With the obvious bias that this forum tends toward, the A6 4.2 with premium package and sport package minus the "normal" off - sticker discount would be the car that would blow all the others away -- but perhaps not be the winner in the majority of "contests."
The BMW and the Lexus will probably beat the A6 to 60 mph (but the A6 4.2 will beat virtually every other car you will encounter -- and in this class, there just aren't that many cars on the road). So if you are dead set on 0-60 acceleration as your key criteria, well. . . pick the quickest car.
On dry pavement each of these three cars have similar statistics (measuring handling, braking, acceleration, etc.). The Lexus "feels" the most different of the three -- for you this may be a good thing.
The BMW seems to be somewhat cramped inside -- but if you are not going to be in the back seat much -- or ever, who cares?
Everything about the Audi seems understated, perhaps almost spartan by comparison to the Lexus, with the BMW being somewhere in-between. The Audi will probably be the least expensive of the three when all are comparably equipped (sticker only, your dealer's discount may even the score, or not).
The Audi, with all-wheel drive, ESP and the sport suspension option is a very well balanced vehicle -- balanced in the sense that it does everything well, one or two things very well and one thing better than the rest (the quattro advantage).
When, if ever, there is a BMW 540ix (which would possibly be the way an all-wheel-drive BMW would be named) I can only imagine it would then be the King of the $50,000 [super] sport sedans.
In the meantime, the A6 4.2 quattro sport is deserving of your most critical consideration, in the price range you mentioned.
#480 of 6920 $50k cars
Nov 29, 2000 (7:12 pm)
For a $50k A6, I'd *much* rather have a loaded 2.7T than a bare 4.2. The 4.2 looks a little better and will likely be smoother riding and easier to maintain, but the 2.7T is much more of a performance car. With the 6-speed, it'll do 0-60 in under 6 seconds. Even auto vs. auto (since the 4.2 is only available with the Tiptronic), the 2.7T is a little faster (6.6 vs. 6.7). Plus, you can chip the 2.7T and shave almost a second off that.
As far as BMWs, the 540i is the only one that could compete, but it starts at like $53k. Great car, but it doesn't fit the criteria. The 530i just isn't as good a car on any count as the A6 2.7T.
The E320 is nice enough, but again, can't really compete with the A6 2.7T.
If the question were V8 midsize luxury sedans under $60k, it would be a really tough call between the A6 4.2, 540i, and E430. As long as were sticking under $50k, though, the A6 2.7T wins easily.
#481 of 6920 re: # 493...a
Nov 29, 2000 (7:47 pm)
It's hard for me to think of any A6 4.2 as being "bare", even if it has no options. As for performance, if you can actually perceive that tenth of a second edge the Tiptronic 2.7T has in its 0-60 time, you're a better man than I am! Besides, what's the point? If 0-60 times are the main concern, no A6 should be the primary candidate; the cars are about so much more than 0-60 times.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the 2.7T; I get envious every time I see one while driving in my "lowly" 2.8Q. Especially if one wants a high-performance sedan with a 6-speed, there's nothing else that can touch it. I just disagree that its ability to get from 0-60 a tenth of a second quicker is a sound reason to buy it instead of a 4.2. Its available 6-speed, significantly lower price, availability without leather & moonroof, 3-person back seat, those reasons make sense to me.
By the way, speaking of performance chips, don't forget the other side. They add stress to the engine that it isn't designed for and can shorten the life of critical parts AND void the vehicle's warranty.
#482 of 6920 Can a 2.7T cost $50K?
Nov 29, 2000 (8:36 pm)
I think a 2.7T MSRP maxes out well below $50K with all options. The 4.2 pricing starts there. If mileage is a consideration, the 2.7T is economical (over 20 mpg) if you can keep your right foot under control. Can't imagine the 4.2 engine doing as well.