Last post on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM
You are in the Audi A6
What is this discussion about?
Audi A6, Sedan
#5602 of 6921 Two answers to two questions
Jun 24, 2005 (11:22 am)
The general acceleration of the new A6 is decent -- if not awe inspiring. The allroad was (it still is, it just isn't mine anymore) much more powerful from a dead stop (remember 6 speed manual, turbo engine). The allroad was very quick, the A6 is not a dog, but it is "less urgent." The engine sounds muted but it makes a nicer, more refined sound than the 2.7T (way better here). The 2.7T was an engine that just had boatloads of torque at low rpms -- hard to beat that with the 3.2 engine. The 3.2 will probably pull away from the majority of cars out there, but it isn't going to be much of a threat to someone even with a modestly zippy car.
The allroad as I had it modified, was not a pig. It could be accused in fact of doing a good imitation of "nimble" on its sport antisway bar, lowered suspension and 18" 245 x 45 x 18" UPH summer only tires.
The new A6's chassis/body/frame/structure is much stiffer and it pays dividends in both ride and handling. The 18" low profile (40 series) tires make it feel more competent, too. I have hardly pushed it in this department. I did have it up to nearly 80mph for about 5 miles on the Interstate this afternoon.
The brakes on the A6 are much better than the allroad's. The A/C too is better and the sound system (especially Sirius) is a big step up.
The seats are better on the A6, but this is an incremental improvement over the allroad.
The tip upshifts out of first gear almost instantly.
I use the car in "S" mode -- I did have my first hint of tiptronic lag upon entering the freeway when the car in front of me slowed suddenly and I slowed from 45 to 20 rapidly followed by a punch of the accelerator (I was in D mode since I was getting onto the interstate) -- the car hesitated for a 1/2 second and then LEAPT forward as the lower gear and higher revs provided a boost of torque.
This problem is probably simply masked by S mode since it does not upshift with such determination and it seems, in this mode, to be more willing to down shift.
Automatics, smart automatics -- whattya gonna do?
This car with a 6speed manual would be the best car I have ever driven I'd imagine. It is the best Audi I have ever driven -- this blows my 1997 A8 away.
Hope this helps somewhat.
#5603 of 6921 Re: Two answers to two questions [markcincinnati]
Jun 24, 2005 (1:04 pm)
Next time you take your new A6 out on I -75 or I-74 (northwest expwy) could you report back the engine RPM"S at 70 /75 mph driving in standard "D"? My 2000 A6 w/tip spins about 2500 rpm 75 mph. Will be interesting to compare considering you are now equiped with the 6-speed.
#5604 of 6921 RPM's D vs S mode and a theory & comment. . .
Jun 25, 2005 (10:55 am)
At 75 in 6th gear on I275, the RPM's are a bit more than 2200. I set the cruise control to try to get this to be as accurate as possible. The stretch I was on was as flat as flat can be in Cincinnati. I had noticed, earlier, that 70 mph was a bit under 2200, so I am glad you asked.
There is NO difference between D and S at this speed unless you have recently accelerated hard -- S mode seems to apparently prevent or at least vastly reduce tip lag.
My observation is that tip lag is only an issue with this transmission if you are on the "cusp" of needing either first or second gear -- and the programming is apparently set to make the default mode the higher gear. Then when you need a bit more go you press a modest amount on the accelerator and the car does not instantly respond so you press a bit more and WHAM the thing down shifts and the revs go to 5,000 and the car lunges forward. Tip mode seems fine, but I am not impressed with the manu matic experience. S mode keeps the revs up a bit so that there is more torque on tap at most speeds under 60mph.
Those that find tip lag the most problematic are those who prefer stick shifts, have most recently driven almost exclusively stick shifts, etc.
I think those of us with stick shift proclivities have different expectations than those who are not used to and who do not prefer or perhaps don't know much about driving a stick.
The stick does what I want it to do when I want it to do it. I am not used to the transmission being smarter (and it isn't) or more capable than I am. Oddly, I am willing to let the brakes, brake assist and ESP help me -- I embrace those technologies. The contemporary auto transmissions do a pretty good imitation of competent shifting (and god knows I'm not perfect) -- but they still do things at times that I would not do or would not do at that moment.
I can see the curve up ahead, I know the whoop de do is coming in a couple hundred yards, etc. I know I want to assume engine braking NOW, but not THEN, etc.
These tip/step/command/etc - tronic transmissions are very good -- they aren't as good as a manual, they are more difficult to adapt to, they are not as much fun, they drink more gas (a little bit), they retard the performance and my hair isn't blue yet -- and if I had my magic wand, I would have this new A6 with a 6spd manual like my wife's BMW (which was even better than my allroad's 6spd manual).
All in all, at over 100 miles on the thing, it is a wonderful machine.
At this point, I will leave this review and comment at: this is the best Audi ever; and although I am not an SAE (self appointed expert), I am VERY experienced in this regard with Audi #28 now in my garage ("dark and hot").
Film at eleven.
#5605 of 6921 Re: The eagle has landed [pat]
Jun 25, 2005 (2:20 pm)
Weird world, I go away for a few days, and chaos ensues... Mark goes back to Audi, cats and dogs living together in sin, Spurs win the championship, what next?
#5606 of 6921 Re: The eagle has landed [liferules]
Jun 25, 2005 (8:32 pm)
as the audi turns, the man stays! All that work paid off! You gonna share the deal with us? We know everyting else about you!
Deep down you knew you panicked and in the end you got it! Good for you! I was begining to think my allroad would be a FX35 next year, but you give me hope, to carry on, you lite up my, oh never mind!
That ameretto interior is great, the green I take it is dark! must be great combo!
Im sure the boys back in the Rhine were quaking in their boots!
Good luck with the car, and I might go lurk again in audiworld and see what your up to!
#5607 of 6921 Re: The eagle has landed [bargamon1]
Jun 26, 2005 (6:06 am)
In some respects the deal exceeded my expectations. The company and specifically the individual sales representative at my long term dealer did what it took.
Back in early 2005, I would have paid a bit more (on a lease) for an Audi -- numerous posts attest to this. In the end the combination of the deal PLUS my long stated affection for the cars themselves (plus Infiniti's near INSTANT willingness to refund my deposit without issue) made this an offer I couldn't refuse.
The terms of the offer, the car's features and options are here and on the LPS board. All the data is within the past 3 or 4 days worth of posts if you care to review.
The color is DARK DARK green "pearl" -- the 7 spoke 18" wheels on the 245 x 40 x 18" tires plus the Bourbon, er, Amaretto interior are / were my first choice. My second choice (Audi or Inifiniti) was Silver + Amaretto or Bourbon. The Bourbon (Inifiniti), Amaretto (Audi) or Terracotta (BMW) seem to be the "it" interior color this year -- you either hate "it" or love "it" that is.
With my wife's Terracotta BMW sitting right beside my Amaretto Audi, I can tell you they are VERY similar. The Bourbon Infiniti, too, as memory serves, is similar with a touch more ORANGE in it.
The dealer said they had never seen the combination before -- score one for being either "odd" or "unique." I think the latter characterization is more to my liking.
#5608 of 6921 Re: The eagle has landed [markcincinnati]
Jun 26, 2005 (7:45 am)
I wish the Cactus Green over Terra Cotta was the "it" color combo in '98 when I ordered a new A4 with that combo. Unfortunately, the Cactus Green was much lighter than the '97 version and resembled a green life saver. To make matters worse, the Terra Cotta was too red and too orange for taste. Luckily, I leased, so no problems at trade in time. Sounds like they've done this combo right for '05. Enjoy!
Jun 26, 2005 (11:18 am)
I am nearing a decision on the 2005 A6 3.2. The car we like happens to have the 18" Continental ContiProContact 245/40 R 18 rims and tires. What is the general feeling out there about the 18" vs. the 17"? How is ride, handling, noise, etc. affected? Are the 18" tires good for wear, and do they cost a lot to replace, or are they hard to find? Any thoughts at all would be greatly appreciated.
Jun 26, 2005 (2:22 pm)
Based on reading several reviews and one TV show review of the A6, here is THE way to configure this car: regular suspension and 18" 245 x 40 x 18" tires and wheels combo.
The suspension of the A6 is stiff in standard mode and harsh in sport mode (mmm sounds like the reviews of the first take of the X3 from BMW in January 2004).
The 18" UHP all seasons are very quiet and the turn in is sharp. The chassis is stiff enough to keep the ride compliant.
The reviews of the sport suspension equipped versions almost all complain of "un-required" (unnecessary) stiffness and harshness.
Yet the A6 seems "in balance" with the 18" 40 series tires. UHP all seasons are a compromise. But one of the positives with this compromise is the tread wear should be at least 20,000 miles. This is NOT the case on the Max Performance summer only tires that come on the thing when equipped with the sport package.
The sport package is $1250, the wheels are $1000. I'd say that's a fair indication of the impact (both visual and tactile) of the 18" wheel/tire set up.
Never one to hold back: get this car with these wheels and tires -- and if you believe the editors you can pass on the sport springs.
I am happy with the handling of this "big" Audi.
The only issue I have would be little effected by stiffer underpinnings -- it is nose heavy. Now, Audi makes the best of this situation -- but the thing will understeer (like most Audis). The suspension tuners and chassis engineers and all the bright people that create cars have minimized this effect.
Having said that, it is NOT a BMW in that respect. Future Audis are already queuing for better F/R weight balance. Just understand this IS NOT a plow, but it is also not a "Lotus" that according to Pretty Woman, corners like it is on rails.
Try driving two of these cars back to back -- both with standard suspensions, one with 18" and one with 17" -- go over the same territory and see if the tires do not improve the "carve" capability of this lux perf sedan markedly.
As far as availability of replacement tires -- go to tires.com or tirerack.com and select by size. This size tire isn't a cheapie. But if it makes you feel any better there are plenty of tires that cost much more.
#5611 of 6921 Re: Tires and Wheels [markcincinnati]
Jun 26, 2005 (5:01 pm)
I went for the 17's because of fear of rim damage. They have a slightly higher profile and give me that little extra cushion. I agree the 18's track better.
BTW my tire guy looked at the rims, the brakes and the wheel assembly and was amazed by it.