Performance difference between 2006 and 2007 and tan interior question
09-14-2007, 08:01 PM
#1
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance difference between 2006 and 2007 and tan interior question
Hello,
With a kid on the way, I need to replace my 2-seater with a bigger car and the Audi A6 4.2 seems like the best in term of performance (when I am alone
), safety, luxury and look.
I was set on getting a used 2007 A6 4.2 s-line but I have been looking for a month and I cannot find anything. So I started looking at the 2006. I care quite a lot about performance (the S6 would be perfect but too expensive for what I want to spend - I was going to get a used bmw 550 but after the safety report, decided to go with Audi) and while 15HP diff does not seems like much on paper, what is the real life diff? Would I even notice it?
On an other note, I have always black interior and they always looked great even after 3/4 years. How does the tan interior hold up?
Thx.
With a kid on the way, I need to replace my 2-seater with a bigger car and the Audi A6 4.2 seems like the best in term of performance (when I am alone
), safety, luxury and look.I was set on getting a used 2007 A6 4.2 s-line but I have been looking for a month and I cannot find anything. So I started looking at the 2006. I care quite a lot about performance (the S6 would be perfect but too expensive for what I want to spend - I was going to get a used bmw 550 but after the safety report, decided to go with Audi) and while 15HP diff does not seems like much on paper, what is the real life diff? Would I even notice it?
On an other note, I have always black interior and they always looked great even after 3/4 years. How does the tan interior hold up?
Thx.
09-15-2007, 12:29 AM
#2
Tan holds up decent if you take care of it.
My 2003's interior still looks 95%, but that is from wiping down the dash and seats once a week with a damp cloth. I have yet to treat the leather or shampoo the carpet and both look very good. One key is to not eat or drink in the vehicle. On-going minor maintenance makes a big difference over time. FWIW, tan looks very rich and elegant. My next car will also be tan inside.
09-15-2007, 04:05 AM
#4
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Performance difference between 2006 and 2007 and tan interior question
Wassup:
INTERIOR: Well, you know about black. It tends to be a little hot in warm weather but doesn't show dirt or wear. Black carpet is always showing little things so I have the rubber A6 mats in my car year round. Tan is OK but you do have to clean it now and then and the car stays a bit cooler. I use Wurth Cockpit Cleaner a couple times a year on the interior, never Armorall. Audi standard leather requires minimal care.
CAR: As to this performace need of yours, The 3.2 has plenty of power for driving public roads in sporting if not insane fashion. The bigger engined cars come with big prices, suck more fuel and generally give more problems with maintenance.
I can't see using any 4,000 pound vehicle as a sports car anyway. On the odd times when you need real power, just drop it into "S" and get the revs up or use the manual shift mode. The power is startling when he revs are up on these cars.
My latest A6 is the least equipped of all of them. It has sunroof and heated front seats. All else is standard issue. I've had two very well equipped 2.7Ts prior to this. This 3.2 car is better in every way. Handling is more entertaining, but is just short of athletic. The ride is good, not punishing. I find it very easy to live without self-dimming rear view mirrors and built-in garage door openers.
I'm an instructor for BMW CCA track driving schools and have owned BMWs since 1980. I have a trick '95 M3 for track use. That car is a hoot, but I prefer the A6 for most driving.
Over the years, I've driven Mercedes and Audi big sedans that are so capable that they're frustrating on public roads. You can't drive them the way they're meant to be driven except on a closed course..and they don't excel there either because they're too heavy. They eat tires and brakes like candy on race tracks.
Get something lighter for track fun...like a good motorcycle or M3, Boxter/Caymen or tricked out Miata. Lighter cars can be thrown around and are really more fun to drive fast. A6 is a wonderful car, but it's not really light enough for that kind of stuff. If you buy huge engines and sport suspensions for these heavy cars and they just beat you up on public roads...at least the ones in the Midwest.
I feel right now that Audi makes the best A6 sized car while BMW makes the best A4 sized car. The A4 is too heavy for it's size. The BMW 5 series feels like a compromised 3 series and has some weird interior ergo issues and pecular styling. A8 sized cars are for loping around town and looking great. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't need big power for it or a sport suspension. I love the looks of the A8 and would love to have a short wheelbase 4.2.
What I like most about Audi A6s is there is nothing cheap looking about them and they are not laden with "new solutions" and bleeding edge technology that often goes wrong. Improvement at Audi is actually improvement, not experiment. I hope that never changes because I'm supremely happy with my A6.
That said, I really don't like the expensive Audis any more than the U.S. base models. The 3.2 comes very well equipped. It's solid as a bank vault with a supurb chassis. If you can't have fun with this new chassis and 250 HP, you need to learn how to get more fun out of a car.
For a while, I coveted the technology package. Then I bought a Garmin Zumo GPS (has car and motorcyle mounts). Sure, you have to stick it on the windshield, but it's so much more capable than any car system I know of. Now I'm happy I didn't get the built-in system.
The 3.2 is really a good car. This would be a premium car in Europe. Their gas is $8 a gallon now...Stay tuned, we're headed that way.
I thought I'd miss the power of the 2.7 turbo, but it's all here. The 4.2 gives a little different torque experience with a weight/handling penalty for a lot more money. That's not a good trade to me. I'll take handling balance any time. This is one thing the new chassis has over the old one - It's not so front heavy.
I thought I'd miss a lot of the features that my fully decked out 2.7 had, but I don't at all. Heated rear seats made a status impression on passengers, but really, who cares? Deluxe vs standard leather? I can barely tell! The standard A6 stereo has great radio reception and wonderful sound. Am I missing something here?
The new chassis is the real improvement. I find myself very happy in this car. I don't envy the bigger engines. I get plenty of power and overall performace for 85 mph with power and chassis capability to spare. I could probably do much more with the car than I do, but I need my license.
You're worried about 15 HP between two ~300HP engines? I promise you won't be able to tell. These are showroom things designed to empty your wallet. When you get the car out the door and live with it, chassis, ride quality, quality of materials, ergos, how it drives at the speeds you really drive at are the things that matter. These are the things that make a car good or not good. Don't buy stiff suspension if you live in a place with bad roads. That car will not make you happy. Driving near the limit of the car is more fun than just driving fast.
-3L
INTERIOR: Well, you know about black. It tends to be a little hot in warm weather but doesn't show dirt or wear. Black carpet is always showing little things so I have the rubber A6 mats in my car year round. Tan is OK but you do have to clean it now and then and the car stays a bit cooler. I use Wurth Cockpit Cleaner a couple times a year on the interior, never Armorall. Audi standard leather requires minimal care.
CAR: As to this performace need of yours, The 3.2 has plenty of power for driving public roads in sporting if not insane fashion. The bigger engined cars come with big prices, suck more fuel and generally give more problems with maintenance.
I can't see using any 4,000 pound vehicle as a sports car anyway. On the odd times when you need real power, just drop it into "S" and get the revs up or use the manual shift mode. The power is startling when he revs are up on these cars.
My latest A6 is the least equipped of all of them. It has sunroof and heated front seats. All else is standard issue. I've had two very well equipped 2.7Ts prior to this. This 3.2 car is better in every way. Handling is more entertaining, but is just short of athletic. The ride is good, not punishing. I find it very easy to live without self-dimming rear view mirrors and built-in garage door openers.
I'm an instructor for BMW CCA track driving schools and have owned BMWs since 1980. I have a trick '95 M3 for track use. That car is a hoot, but I prefer the A6 for most driving.
Over the years, I've driven Mercedes and Audi big sedans that are so capable that they're frustrating on public roads. You can't drive them the way they're meant to be driven except on a closed course..and they don't excel there either because they're too heavy. They eat tires and brakes like candy on race tracks.
Get something lighter for track fun...like a good motorcycle or M3, Boxter/Caymen or tricked out Miata. Lighter cars can be thrown around and are really more fun to drive fast. A6 is a wonderful car, but it's not really light enough for that kind of stuff. If you buy huge engines and sport suspensions for these heavy cars and they just beat you up on public roads...at least the ones in the Midwest.
I feel right now that Audi makes the best A6 sized car while BMW makes the best A4 sized car. The A4 is too heavy for it's size. The BMW 5 series feels like a compromised 3 series and has some weird interior ergo issues and pecular styling. A8 sized cars are for loping around town and looking great. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't need big power for it or a sport suspension. I love the looks of the A8 and would love to have a short wheelbase 4.2.
What I like most about Audi A6s is there is nothing cheap looking about them and they are not laden with "new solutions" and bleeding edge technology that often goes wrong. Improvement at Audi is actually improvement, not experiment. I hope that never changes because I'm supremely happy with my A6.
That said, I really don't like the expensive Audis any more than the U.S. base models. The 3.2 comes very well equipped. It's solid as a bank vault with a supurb chassis. If you can't have fun with this new chassis and 250 HP, you need to learn how to get more fun out of a car.
For a while, I coveted the technology package. Then I bought a Garmin Zumo GPS (has car and motorcyle mounts). Sure, you have to stick it on the windshield, but it's so much more capable than any car system I know of. Now I'm happy I didn't get the built-in system.
The 3.2 is really a good car. This would be a premium car in Europe. Their gas is $8 a gallon now...Stay tuned, we're headed that way.
I thought I'd miss the power of the 2.7 turbo, but it's all here. The 4.2 gives a little different torque experience with a weight/handling penalty for a lot more money. That's not a good trade to me. I'll take handling balance any time. This is one thing the new chassis has over the old one - It's not so front heavy.
I thought I'd miss a lot of the features that my fully decked out 2.7 had, but I don't at all. Heated rear seats made a status impression on passengers, but really, who cares? Deluxe vs standard leather? I can barely tell! The standard A6 stereo has great radio reception and wonderful sound. Am I missing something here?
The new chassis is the real improvement. I find myself very happy in this car. I don't envy the bigger engines. I get plenty of power and overall performace for 85 mph with power and chassis capability to spare. I could probably do much more with the car than I do, but I need my license.
You're worried about 15 HP between two ~300HP engines? I promise you won't be able to tell. These are showroom things designed to empty your wallet. When you get the car out the door and live with it, chassis, ride quality, quality of materials, ergos, how it drives at the speeds you really drive at are the things that matter. These are the things that make a car good or not good. Don't buy stiff suspension if you live in a place with bad roads. That car will not make you happy. Driving near the limit of the car is more fun than just driving fast.
-3L
09-17-2007, 05:56 PM
#6
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Performance difference between 2006 and 2007 and tan interior question
Performance difference between 2006 and 2007 is much greater than the 15 hp increase might suggest.
A few months ago I was in the same position as you are in now. I test drove a new 2007 A6 4.2 S-Line and was very impressed. Then I thought: OK, maybe I will save some money and buy a used 2006. A week later I found and test drove a used 2006 A6 4.2 S-Line and was stunned at how slow it felt in comparison to the 2007 car. I suspected it was just my imagination and went to the Audi dealer the same day to test drive the 2007 A6 4.2 again. The difference turned out to be real -- the 2007 car felt much quicker and more responsive. I think it should be at least one full second quicker 0 to 60 mph than the 2006 A6. I bought the 2007 A6 4.2 on the spot.
A few months ago I was in the same position as you are in now. I test drove a new 2007 A6 4.2 S-Line and was very impressed. Then I thought: OK, maybe I will save some money and buy a used 2006. A week later I found and test drove a used 2006 A6 4.2 S-Line and was stunned at how slow it felt in comparison to the 2007 car. I suspected it was just my imagination and went to the Audi dealer the same day to test drive the 2007 A6 4.2 again. The difference turned out to be real -- the 2007 car felt much quicker and more responsive. I think it should be at least one full second quicker 0 to 60 mph than the 2006 A6. I bought the 2007 A6 4.2 on the spot.
Trending Topics
09-18-2007, 07:38 AM
#8
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi's 0-60 number for 2006 is a bit optimistic
Edmunds clocked a 2006 A6 4.2 S-line making 0 to 60 mph at 7.1 seconds. I have included a link to the article.
I did not mean to say that 0 to 60 is the most important performance characteristic. My point was that these two cars showed very different response to the gas pedal, and 0 to 60 is an appropriate way to quantify this.
I suspect that Audi readjusted the transmission for 2007 in addition to changing the engine -- 15 hp increase alone cannot explain the difference in performance.<ul><li><a href="http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116521">http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116521</a</li></ul>
I did not mean to say that 0 to 60 is the most important performance characteristic. My point was that these two cars showed very different response to the gas pedal, and 0 to 60 is an appropriate way to quantify this.
I suspect that Audi readjusted the transmission for 2007 in addition to changing the engine -- 15 hp increase alone cannot explain the difference in performance.<ul><li><a href="http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116521">http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116521</a</li></ul>
09-19-2007, 06:42 PM
#10
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3.2 makes it to 60 in 7. Edmunds have long been unable to
properly launch a quattro.
C&D quoted 0-60 for the 4.2 in 6.3 secs (and for the non-FSI engine in late '04)
R&T have quoted the 3.2 in 7.0 secs.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=2062&p age_number=3<ul><li><a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8776/audi-a6-42-quattro-page4.html">http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8776/audi-a6-42-quattro-page4.html</a</li></ul>
C&D quoted 0-60 for the 4.2 in 6.3 secs (and for the non-FSI engine in late '04)
R&T have quoted the 3.2 in 7.0 secs.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=2062&p age_number=3<ul><li><a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8776/audi-a6-42-quattro-page4.html">http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8776/audi-a6-42-quattro-page4.html</a</li></ul>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Audi S5 TC
A6 / S6 (C6 Platform) Discussion
2
07-19-2005 02:26 PM
April
A6 / S6 (C6 Platform) Discussion
15
07-18-2005 06:46 PM
tdf
A6 / S6 (C5 Platform) Discussion
0
05-03-2000 09:32 PM
Fred
S4 / RS4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
1
11-06-1999 08:30 PM
