Bad10

I drove a friends new 2.8 front track and it is definately a turd. My v-6 Toyota pickup is much more responsive, and thats not saying much! 2.7 and 4.2 are much more responsive in real-world driving conditions, contrary to previous posts below that state that the 2.8 isn't that far off the mark. By the way, the 2.7 is debored, NOT destroked, like someone else on this board stated. 2.7 and 4.2 are only way to go! BAD10

Coloraudi

Any non-turbo or non-supercharged motor under 3.5 liters in a car the size and weight of the A6 is just not exciting or practical at 5,300 ft. and up in my opinion. Where was it that you drove the 2.8?? I would think that at sea level or close, it would be adequate, though obviously still not as thrilling as the greater output of the 2.7T and the 4.2. And for $5K or more less money, it's still a fab car. Just my 2¢ ;-)

Ming 2.7T

2.8 is a fine car. The 2.8 engine is good for what it sets out to accomplish

roberte99

Just test drove both a 2001 S4 (tip) and 2001 A6 2.7T (6spd), I'm still deciding between the two cars (leaning towards the A6 ) I drove the A6 after the S4 and the A6 was awesome! Can't even imagine a less powerful engine in a car that size, at any altitude. The 2.7T engine is truly a sweet powerplant.

Its been 12 hours since I took the test drives and I'm still awake thinking about the experience!!!<p>--robert
99 Boxster Arctic Silver/Blk/Blk

JohnCee

Is your friend's new front track 2.8 a 2000 model year? The low-end torque converter and final drive gearing ratio was changed in 99.5. Also if the car is brand new, the adaptive transmission most likely has not "learned" an aggressive driving style yet (this is true for all A6 models).

Yes the 2.8 is not the swiftest around, but I wouldn't go so far as call it a turd. Man, if you think the front track is a turd, I would hate to see you in a 2.8 Quattro!! Although the 2.8 is surely not a 2.7 or 4.2, I think it is acceptable for non-enthusiast(as some of the previous post indicate).

P.S. Just wondering, but have you actually driven all three vehicles (2.7, 4.2, 2.8) in "real world" driving conditions?

Bad10

Yes, I have spent quite a bit of time driving all three models of the A6, especially the 2.7. I live in San Diego (Sea Level) and to answer Gary's question, yes it was a 2000 model.I was surprised at just how weak the 2.8 felt, even after hearing about its general lack of power. I can't imagine how underpowered it would feel in Quattro form. It is smooth but it needs more low-end grunt. The a6 is a really nice car but the 2.8 is just too unresponsive. Once again, IMO, the 2.7 amd 4.2 are the only way to go. If I couldn't afford more than a 2.8 I would buy something else. I guess the 2.8 is fine for non-enthusiasts, but I have been spoiled on v-8's most of the time and have driven many normally aspirated V-6's that have much better power than the 2.8. BAD10

Wowdi

I take exception to your assumption that only non-enthusiasts drive frontraks. I think of myself as an Audi enthusiast but am not impressed by fast cars. I am enthusiatic about Audi's advanced engineering, wonderful road manners, rich interiors, and superior fit and finish.

Furthermore, over the past two months, I have been impressed by the balanced, adult tenor of the helpful and informative posts made at this site. While there appears to be a bias toward high-powered Quattro models, the folks here are accepting of everybody.

I, in fact, did consider other cars besides the A6 Frontrak (Lexus LS and GS300, and Acura TL) and found the A6 superior in what mattered to me which did NOT include shear horsepower.

Maybe you want to rethink your definition of "enthusiast".<p>Charlie
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/AudiWorldPics/2000/CDM_Myaudi3.jpg">
2000 A6 2.8 Frontrak

Wowdi

<p>Charlie
<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/AudiWorldPics/2000/CDM_Myaudi3.jpg">
2000 A6 2.8 Frontrak

2.7Tango

Is a "turd" a good thing?

April

The 2.8 has a lower smog index than the 2.7t