Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
Nov 30, 2006 (12:41 pm)
. . .there are certainly times when I have felt my 255HP A6 3.2 needs more power. I just can't remember them.
I think the power is adequate. It goes faster than the vast majority of cars on the road and it gets to speed more quickly than most too.
I had three Audi V8 equipped cars and six Audi turbo cars, one of them a V6, two 5 cylinder versions and three 1.8T's, two of those 225HP tunings.
Nothing sounds sweeter than an Audi V8 (4.2) -- to my ears at least. My current V6 does a nothing to be ashamed of imitation of that sound. The V6 had a nice whine to it and my one S6 a 1995 vintage sounded pretty good too. The 1.8T's didn't sound bad, but they didn't have too much sound in the basso-profundo department, if you get my drift.
My point is, I wish my current car had more power. Frankly, my V6 is so good and so strong and sips so little gas, I can't entirely see the extra $5 grand or so the V8 A6 commands as worth it. It seems to buy about 1 second in the sprint to 100kph, which is decent -- but I live in a Big Town (or small city if you like) and it is becoming rarer and rarer that I can even use the acceleration that I have.
"Punching" it on secondary roads still remains an option, but what with sub-urban creep, I have to drive a "fur piece" to actually "play" with my car, the way I used to play with my, then new, 1995 S6 (which I routinely took under full throttle from a full stop to some extra legal speed.)
Time, traffic congestion and perhaps even a mild bit of prudence dictate my driving style.
I do, whenever conditions permit (and sometimes when they don't) drive "fast" (any number higher than 80mph that can be sustained, however, can usually only be sustained for a few moments or perhaps several short minutes.)
Low end grunt (and at least the 3.2 seems medium torquey) is more important to me, all things considered. Perhaps that is why I am so gung ho on having a diesel option.
A 250HP diesel engine with about 375 pound feet of torque routed through a 7spd DSG transmission would be, under these circumstances, the best of all worlds. That kind of power is easily extracted from a 6 cylinder diesel, too.
Insofar as the RS6, which took the 4.2 and applied "lungs", it's power was awesome (I averted my eyes, even), but almost completely useless. No one, well virtually no one, can "run away from me" in my underpowered A6 V6 as it stands.
My god, blowing the current V6 with an ultra fast, ultra quick to spool and light pressure turbo would jump its output to what "an easy 300HP" and give it more torque at lower rpm than the unblown 4.2 V8 (which is probably why Audi hasn't turbocharged the 3.2 since it would show the 4.2 its tail lights.
The previous generation A6 2.7T V6 was nearly a full second quicker than the 4.2 V8 also offered in the same A6 body.
Now we are what? Turboing the V10? Gawd? Where could I use that? I'm sure I'd like to try to find someplace, but not for the extra $25K or more that it will surely command over even the "normal" A6 V8 (at 350 HP.)
I am not arguing against horsepower wars -- I actually to this day cannot figure out why Audi brought out a new car that had 25HP less than the comparably priced outgoing model and bagsfull LESS torque, to boot. Yet, at some point, I just think there are pragmatic reasons (for me) to say "enough is enough."
I'd rather have more "features" for my "X" thousands of dollars, at this point (or at least once I reached the "just a wee bit more" power point.)
I'd like to have my navigation programmable by voice. I'd like to specify the Sirius station by calling out its channel number, heck, I'd like to have a backup camera and heated AND cooled seats.
An $8,000 speaker upgrade, oddly, seems like a better use of my money.
But hey, that's just me.
These cars, well most of them, are AT WORST, adequately powered and are typically able to perform well in all age and ability groups.
550 hp? There is a price point at which I WOULD buy it -- but I'm just not sure I could use it as it could be used and hence would probably "under appreciate it."
I love what BMW has done with their 3.0 engine via turbo charging. I never thought I'd see the day, in fact. I drove the 335i coupe AND that seemed ample, rational (well almost) and was a huge rush, especially at full throttle in second gear. It was also $40 something thousand dollars.
And, just like the upcoming 500+HP German cars, it came, conveniently, with the speeding tickets already in the glove compartment, which saves a lot of time.
I want to spend my money on more "content" not just on extra horses (even though it is an extra THREE HUNDRED horses.)
I want these cars to be better balanced, yea, that's what I want.
Why not put a 5 series out with the 3.0 turbo motor in it and just answer the phone "your order please?"
Naa, we'll have some 500+ HP waka waka zoom zoom German mobile with 1999 electronics and features instead.
#8796 of 10348 Re: More is better. . . [markcincinnati]
Nov 30, 2006 (2:16 pm)
I had a 2.7T myself. It was a ton of fun to blast down the interstate in.
When it was off the lease (and brought in a paltry $16K at an auction), I drove the then-new A6 4.2, I was instantly disappointed.
Then I drove the S4 sedan. And then I drove the S4 sedan again. I thought about stealing it. For fun, we drove an S4 Cabriolet, because I was feeling frisky. It sold me on the spot, and my confidence in Audi was regained.
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
Nov 30, 2006 (2:43 pm)
I'm curious why you leased an Audi 2.7T on a 5-year lease. Sounds like the car worked out extremely well, but didn't you drive a leased vehicle for 2 years w/o any warranty? Seems to defeat part of the reason to lease in the first place.My Audi had a 3yr. 50,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty, and extensions could be purchased, but that was on a buy, not lease program.
#8798 of 10348 Re: More is better. . . [markcincinnati]
Nov 30, 2006 (2:43 pm)
More power and speed also equate to more carnage, especially when combined with the false perception that more safety equipment allows us to drive more carelessly.
An Indiana state trooper who has witnessed hundreds of accidents opined, "I think people are just more in a hurry now than they've ever been," he said. "Their life is moving so fast they don't have time to think."
But that's not the only reason for reckless driving, according to Purdue University, which conducted a study that found air bags and anti-lock brakes cause drivers to be more reckless, too.
Researchers also studied motor vehicle data from the state of Washington during a five-year period beginning in 1992 and found that enhanced safety features actually make drivers less vigilant on the road. The findings were published in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty earlier this year.
But insurance loss experience for LPS cars is overall very good. So perhaps drivers of LPS cars are more experienced, skilled, risk averse, and diligent.
Many of us are also older, and less apt to be driving around at 2am...
So what's the solution? Maybe the trick is to design safety features that do not allow drivers to realize the edge of performance. But how you would do that, I don't know. Especially when new LPS cars are pushing 300-400 horsepower. And the driver is busy on a cell phone while blasting down the interstate. Lexus' often criticized mitigation systems may be one step toward addressing those variables.
#8799 of 10348 Re: . [fonefixer]
Nov 30, 2006 (5:59 pm)
I maintained my 98 A6 per the specs, but had some severe problems that made me think twice about replacing it. Before 50K, I had replaced the radiator, the water pump, the timing chain, a couple of A-arms (not because of hitting something...joints got loose), leaking seals, and a few other things.
I've mentioned it before, but the new one didn't pass my sit test. You can't get much of any nice to have options unless you buy the sunroof, and I just plain don't fit. I special ordered the 98 without a sunroof, which added 2.85" of headroom over the ones with it...nearly 3"! I refuse to drive laying down!
#8800 of 10348 Audi corrective
Dec 01, 2006 (6:46 am)
For some reason, among the various threads that run through the forum, there is an "unreliable Audi" thread. Haven't seen a similar detailed litany of repairs about other cars recently (Mark ... maybe your pro-Audi voice creates a compulsion to report only bad Audi experiences).
So, simply to keep some balance, ... I drove the M35, which came and went in three months) 3600 miles, during which time I needed repair of the rear suspension, driver seatbelt, and headlights.
On the Infiniti M new owners board, an owner, at the 34K mileage point, lamented: "I have owned my M45 sport for 14 months now. My previous vehicle was a FX35. I do drive about 2500 miles a month, so the car has about 34,000 miles on it. I am disappointed in how it is holding up. There seem to be some "glitches" that happen once in a while. The auto drivers seat and steering wheel work about 50% of the time. When it does not work, I have to push the memory seat position to start driving. There is a rattle in the back end of the car when I stop sometimes, and the a/c smells musty when the car starts up after sitting for more than an hour. I know these seem minor, but after spending over 50k for a car I want it to work right. I have taken it to the dealer for all of the issues only to be told that they cannot repeat them. I purchased an Infiniti so I would not have to worry about repairs. The car's initial appeal has really worn off. I am actually looking forward to my lease ending in 10 months. Its to bad, this car has potential, it just needs a little more excitement to be a show stopper."
And, from the Infiniti M35/M45 owners' problems forum: "I've put about 12,000 miles on my 2006 M35X. Before leasing, last summer, I read all the reviews and all of the posts on various sites - including Edmunds. The reviews were fantastic and so were the posts. Many former BMW and Mercedes owners raved about the M. I'm guessing there are other potential buyers that are doing the same right now. In my opinion, the best things about this car are the sound system (best I've ever heard in a car) and the interior. I really don't like the drive AT ALL. On the highway, the steering is all over the place. The transmission shifts are really pronounced in sound and feel, reminding me of a stick shift being driven by someone that really doesn't know how to drive. When you dive the car hard, it does perform. However, when you drive the car normally, it feels like you are pulling a boat.If I could get out of the lease today - I would (and I still might, regardless of the financial loss). I dislike this car so much I left it at our winter home in Florida all winter. This way, I would only have to drive it one week per month. Our two other cars are an Audi A4 and a BMW X3. Both of cars drive better than the M. All I can think about each time I drive the M is - I really can't stand this car! I kick myself each day for not choosing the Mercedes E350 or BMW 530."
#8801 of 10348 Re: . [james27]
Dec 01, 2006 (9:12 am)
I sold my 2000 A6 2.7T w/ 100,000 miles for $11,500 and bought a new Mazda Cx-7 for $28,350.00. Needed more hauling capacity, liked the way the Mazda handled, and changed brands with no expectations that Mazda will be more reliable than Audi.
Buying a vehicle really is a crap shoot no matter what the forums or anybody says or writes. Liked the look and driveability of the Mazda, plus the slick tiptronic setup, and really have to hope for the best!
If I have to have the radiator, water pump, timing chain, front end parts,oil seals, and "a few other things" replaced before 50 K, even if these things are covered under warranty, my search for the "holy grail" of reliable and trouble free transportation will start all over again.
Dec 01, 2006 (11:01 am)
Has anyone beside me been perplexed by the frequency of people generalizing from their car's particular service history to that brand's ultimate reliability? Contributors here seem bright, thoughtful, even insightful except in this one area.
Here's the situation: your car's particular service history is a matter of luck: sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but it is a matter of chance. As such, it's really not worth long diatribes. What you learn from problems is how good a particular dealer is in dealing with them, and how good a brand is in standing behind their products. But you don't learn a general reliability lesson for that brand or your model.
I've had a terrible time with my 2002 BMW X5. I wouldn't buy another one just because it has left a bad aftertaste. But I look at CR's just-released buying guide, and discover that the 2002 BMW has been of average reliability, with particular problems in electrical systems, AC, and power equipment. Well, my problems were in none of those areas; they were in the transmission, the suspension, and the body integrity. Does this mean that CR got it wrong? Of course not. It means the world is a phenomenally random place, and the hand I was dealt is not likely to get dealt again. I learned that my BMW dealer is pretty supportive and does its best to fix things and minimize my inconvenience. I might buy another BMW (maybe a 525ix wagon) and hope for a better hand. But I didn't learn much about BMWs or X5s. I go to places that do reliable surveys to learn about that.
#8803 of 10348 Re: Reliability of LPS [lansdownemike]
Dec 01, 2006 (11:29 am)
The question is : Were you satisfied with the dealer service in repairing the transmission, suspension and body integrity to the point where you would purchase BMW again?
I was not with the Audi dealer authorized service,and found an independent shop to keep the car running.
#8804 of 10348 Re: More is better. . . [markcincinnati]
Dec 01, 2006 (11:38 am)
I rarely visit here since purchase of my current non-LPS.
But every time I do ( these cars still hold a level of interest for me ) it seems I see a post by Mark that intrigues me.
Full disclosure here:
My current ride is a 2007 Corvette Coupe. HP \ TQ = 400 of each. And weight is close to 3200#. Mark’s A6 3.2 has 255 \ 243 and weighs something over 4000#.
One reason ( high on my list ) that I did not end up buying something like an Audi A6 4.2 ( I drove one of the first to arrive here in Atlanta ) is:
More ( as in great steaming piles of ) Torque and More ( as in very, very quick for a Daily Driver ) Acceleration were of paramount importance to me. And my circumstances finally allowed me to have an only vehicle \ Daily Driver wherein I could “give up” 2 seats & 2 doors in favor of a significant step up in both acceleration & handling.
The Corvette board I primarily monitor is rife with Corvette drivers who have 1 or more additional vehicles – and some are Audis or BMWs. But there are also a surprising ( to me ) number of folks who commute daily in their Corvettes – as I now do.
Point here is that I am rarely able to use WOT in the first 3 gears for more than a few seconds at a time. ( I generally try to avoid exceeding every current posted speed limit in the US. ) But I can utilize WOT on occasion, and I can & do use WOT in the higher gears, reveling in the elasticity and the Torque that slings me along at entertaining rates of acceleration.
( My name is Ray & I am a TQ \ HP Junkie – looking for a 12 step program. )
While I cannot safely explore the very high cornering limits of the Corvette. The handling is quite enjoyable at 6 or 7 tenths. And I can accelerate at a very enjoyable and engaging rate of speed whenever the mood & traffic \ road conditions allow.
So. More is better. For me.
And my recent trip to Florida over the weekend resulted in quite respectable fuel economy.
Trip: Approx. 725 miles, mostly over 2 travel days.
Average MPG = 28.25 ( Excel & Trip Computer nearly identical )
I was not driving trying to achieve the best possible MPG. This trip also included a couple of ( um ) ‘demonstration’ acceleration runs: 15 – 95 or so. NOT exactly the best conditions for fuel economy . . .
I did not select a Corvette because I expected Honda fuel efficiency – but this I do find quite remarkable.
Just my 0.02 gallons worth.
Very Happy with More . . .