Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Audi A6 Audi A6
6896 messages, Last post on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
You are in the Audi A6 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 15, 2008 3:30 pm) 1) Tires. I can easily imagine that FWD car with Blizzaks (or similar) would be far superior to an AWD with all season or summer and especially an optional "Sport Package" type 18" or 19" tire as say on a Jag XK or a Bimmer 5 series AWD 2) I'm not sure how much difference in final traction it really in AWD cars, if one car starts out sitting at 95%/5% Front to Rear power and the other is say, 45%/55% because the traction adjustment is very quick. I can say though that my wife's Volvo XC with 95/5 front to rear power scrubs on corners and is boring to drive. My Cayenne while similar to a Toureg has much more "dry" power sent to the rear wheels. 3) Finally, I think if I ever buy a 911 it will be with AWD not because it would be any faster (it wouldn't be on dry pavement) but it the AWD would keep the front end hooked up on a rain/snow swept road. I also think that the ideal 911 daily driver for a northeastern guy wouldn't have big 19" boots to avoid hydroplanning. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeqq (Feb 15, 2008 9:24 pm) My wife, after MONTHS of shopping and test driving (a lot of fun actually) re upped for another X3, a 2008 (which has mucho more power.) This time she went with the SAV package which omits the harsher sport suspension, but still gives the larger wheels and tires, Servotronic, etc. I would not have any issue with either set up. The quattro I currently drive, but not for long, is a 50 50 torque split version. I understand the new A4, which I hope to get, is 40 60 and also employes torque vectoring (side to side torque shifting capabilities.) Again, I drive on the highways in and around Cincinnati -- I do not take my car on the track. For all such purposes, any of these AWD systems will work fine. Now, with respect to boring or not boring, etc -- there are other design characteristics that will affect the drive. Weight balance is one, suspension set up is another. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am) Not sure if 4 doors is a requirement, but I'd definitely take out an A5/S5. The A5 (S-Line) is surprisingly nimble and responsive; the S5 is addictive. As others have stated, the photos do not do it justice. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am) Have you drove an S5? I did and you'll be shocked to hear I did not like the feel of the manual transmission. I'm happier driving a Tip. |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am) When?
|
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Feb 18, 2008 4:25 am) 
|
|
|
on the 2009 A4 is late this year [september,october] we'll see the 3.2 automatic. My understanding is that we will not see a 3.2 manual A4 in the states. However, you can order an A5 3.2 manual. The 2.0T That is going back to chain drive is getting a big torque boost and is much smother than the current belt driven 2.0T. [so I'm told] The 3.2 in the A5 is a different beast than the current 3.2 in the A6/A4. With valve lift, it feels like a turbo, and pulls harder all the way to redline. I don't think we'll see torque vectoring on the A4 for a few more years. I do think we'll see it on the next generation S4 that is going back to a 3.0 TT set up. There are Audi reps meeting in my dealership right now, not 15 yards away, but they are giving no 411.
|
|
|
Replying to: dhamilton (Feb 20, 2008 11:18 am) The A6 needs closer to 300hp in V6 form to keep up with the competition. 265hp is not bad in the 3.2 A6, but it still falls short a bit.
|
|
|
Replying to: rjlaero (Feb 21, 2008 1:04 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rjlaero (Feb 21, 2008 1:04 pm) The engine, apparently, will power the B8 S4 -- initially. One (me) wonders why Audi would not IMMEDIATELY put this engine into the A6, if for no other reason than to catch up to and pass the BMW 535xi. Of course, here is the rub -- if the V6 3.0T comes in at over 330 HP (even though we love torque, we seem always to quote the HP #), the V8 -- which is much more costly -- will become a "why bother?" choice, for it will be only slightly more potent with respect to HP and it would likely be less quick from 0-100kph due to the very early torque offered by the V6 turbo. An Audi A6 S-Line 3.0T would, unless the 4.2 V8 motor gets a similar upgrade, kill sales of the A6 S-Line 4.2. The Cadillac STS V6 DI makes the STS V8 seem darn near irrelevant and I would think the same situation would face Audi. Marketing trumps engineering, apparently. Green footnote: the artificially aspirated engines, like the 3.0T use less fuel and continue with each generation to enjoy reduced turbo lag and better and better mileage and pollution statistics. Give us choices! 
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Audi A6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
