Test drove the A6 4.2
09-24-2005, 02:14 PM
#1
AudiWorld Expert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 28,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test drove the A6 4.2
I had previously driven the RL, M35X, GS300AWD, and A6 3.2.
The RL was the best of the sixes.
M35x was fastest but suspension sucked (non sport) and interior is a bit odd.
GS300 was perfect in every way except for being slowish. Geared pretty punchy but lacks top end.
A6 3.2 had the nicest interior, handled well, but performance left quite a bit to be desired. The GS actually felt faster.
So the A64.2 comes along - wow. It is clearly better than any of the other sedans - but it doesn't better the RL by much which makes the RL an amazing value (if you can get by what are generally considered slightly underwhelming exterior style).
The 4.2 didn't feel that much faster than the RL, S mode on the tranny was amazing in 1st and 2nd, but beyond that, I felt my Acura 3.2 TL Type S is faster. 0-60 and quarter mile numbers indicate they're about even so it must be perception due to gearing. Maybe shifting the 4.2 manually with tip would help - not sure.
Bottom line - best midsize AWD sedan by far, but a bit of underperformance for a V8. You pay V8 price but don't quite get what I consider should be V8 performance. 5.7/14.3 60/quarter would make this the perfect car for me. As it is I'm not sure i can swallow what amounts to the same price as a CLS 500 which would be a lot more sexy (albeit without AWD)
Oh, and my only big complaint about the A6 is steering way too soft - over assisted IMO.
The RL was the best of the sixes.
M35x was fastest but suspension sucked (non sport) and interior is a bit odd.
GS300 was perfect in every way except for being slowish. Geared pretty punchy but lacks top end.
A6 3.2 had the nicest interior, handled well, but performance left quite a bit to be desired. The GS actually felt faster.
So the A64.2 comes along - wow. It is clearly better than any of the other sedans - but it doesn't better the RL by much which makes the RL an amazing value (if you can get by what are generally considered slightly underwhelming exterior style).
The 4.2 didn't feel that much faster than the RL, S mode on the tranny was amazing in 1st and 2nd, but beyond that, I felt my Acura 3.2 TL Type S is faster. 0-60 and quarter mile numbers indicate they're about even so it must be perception due to gearing. Maybe shifting the 4.2 manually with tip would help - not sure.
Bottom line - best midsize AWD sedan by far, but a bit of underperformance for a V8. You pay V8 price but don't quite get what I consider should be V8 performance. 5.7/14.3 60/quarter would make this the perfect car for me. As it is I'm not sure i can swallow what amounts to the same price as a CLS 500 which would be a lot more sexy (albeit without AWD)
Oh, and my only big complaint about the A6 is steering way too soft - over assisted IMO.
09-24-2005, 07:04 PM
#3
AudiWorld Expert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 28,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but fully loaded 4.2 is close to base price of CLS
but you're right, MB charges you for freaking everything
But I disagree on the RL. It is a direct competetor to the A6. Yes, the exterior is boring but that's a matter of taste, not of "echelon"
But I disagree on the RL. It is a direct competetor to the A6. Yes, the exterior is boring but that's a matter of taste, not of "echelon"
Trending Topics
09-25-2005, 09:35 AM
#9
AudiWorld Super User
And that's a valid comparison?!!!
The MSRP base price of the CLS500 is $64,900 vs. $53,770 for the A6 4.2---So in your mind an $11k+ difference is the same? Option out both cars and the gap widens even more. And why would a dollar comparison of a fully loaded A6 4.2 to the CLS'base price be valid? Not a logical rationalization to beat up on the A6, IMO. If you're disappointed in the car's performance, then that's all you need to say--which would carry more validity.