I drove the 3.2 the other day. Really nice, and a big step up from the C5 in many ways. Looks-wise...the car looks great in person - very long and low-looking. Much more like the current A8 in overall impression than like the C5.
Dynamically, it's in a completely different league than the C5. The body shell is obviously much more rigid than the current machine, and the suspension is much better sorted as well. The non-sport I drove handled better than my "sport" suspended current car.
The interior is very high-quality, and feels much more modern. The back seat is roomier, and the 6-speed trans is nicely responsive.
One caveat, though: the 3.2 engine, while decently powerful, has little of the fire or spirit of the 2.7T engine it replaces. It makes for a more luxurious-feeling drive, but doesn't score high on the excitement meter, IMO. I'm worried about the big group of us enthusiasts who like our 2.7Ts, despite their foibles. For me, this engine makes the 4.2 the ONLY C6 I'd currently consider. Sad, in a way, since the value equation changes considerably when talking $50-$60K. Remember, however, that I'm a glutton for torque and speed - the 3.2 will probably satisfy most drivers that would consider it.
It's a GREAT car, and one that will probably bring many conquest sales for Audi - more than the C5 ever could have.
(compiled from 2 posts of mine in the C5 forum)
11-19-2004, 11:43 AM
That is the question I just posed, and deleted. I also have the 2.7T and like it, except for the turbo lag, and I am in the market for the new C6, but having a problem deciding whether to get the 4.2 loaded or the 3.2 loaded, as their is a significant difference in price. Tha is why I would like to know how the 3.2 compared to the 2.7T in speed and torque, not the numberes but the actual feel.
11-19-2004, 12:48 PM
I have a 6spd 2.7T S4 and I felt that the 3.1L tip in the A6 did a nice job for such a heavy automatic car. It curbs in at almost 4000 lbs, but it moved better than I expected a 4000 lb car with 255 HP to move. One small caveat was inital acceleration from a stop, but I'm not sure if that was a function of the transmission, possibly starting in second to provide a smoother more luxurious ride. It might have been different if you stomped on it from a stop in S mode. Overall I was impressed. I wouldn't feel let down by the 3.2 in any way. If anything I'd be a little disappointed by the 4.2 because of the loss of the beefy fender flairs from C5 to C6.
While the 2.7T may have 20 lb-ft of torque advantage over the 3.1, you have to remember that it was designed to replace 'ol the 3.0, which it destroys handily, not the 2.7T. Beating it out the 3.0 by a published 0.8s 0-60 and weighing almost 120lbs more. It's likely Audi has something in the works for an S-line, or some other sport designation not yet arrived which would be more in line to replace the current 2.7T A6. Hence why the last 2004 A6 2.7Ts were an S-line model fitting the end of that body style, before it's replacement is let out of the cage. I'd look for a 3.7L FSI V8 derived from the Euro A8 to fill the void between the 3.2 and the 4.2. Bring it in at about 300HP/300lb-ft with sportier styling and starting at $45k price point, and I think they'd have the perfect C5 A6 2.7T replacement. At least that's my opinion.
11-19-2004, 12:59 PM
..I don't mean to suggest that it's a dog - it's not.
That said, a C5 2.7T tip would leave it for dead in any contest of acceleration - dead stop, roll-on, whatever. The torque curve of the 2.7T engine is more like a plateau than a curve, as you know. It starts at ~2000rpm and doesn't let up until beyond 5000.
Also, the peak torque may only be LISTED at 15 lb. ft. more (258 vs. 243), but the measured torque on the 2.7T is often shown to be closer to 275 lb. ft., and it feels even stronger than that.
I think ours is a difference of expectations, not reality:
You expected it to be slow, particularly compared to your S4, and found that it wasn't so bad.
I expected it to be close in performance to my car, based on published 0-60 times, and feel that it's really not that close in the real world.
11-19-2004, 01:52 PM
I guess I was expecting 3.0L performance which left something to be desired when I drove that. Perhaps I need to find a tip '04 2.7T s-line and compare head-to-head. However, the 3.1L definitely rocks as a replacement for the 3.0L.
11-19-2004, 03:42 PM
...can promise you that it's in a different league even than MY car, so compared to the 3.2, it would be no contest, in engine performance at least.
That S-line actually made me think seriously about getting rid of my car for it - it's the ULTIMATE expression of the C5 (save for the S6 and RS 6, I guess). Smooth, quiet, composed, deceptively fast. Sublime, actually.
There were some killer lease deals on those at that time, and it was VERY tempting.
Drive one if you can find one - it's SWEET.
FWIW, Zimbrick Audi in Madison, Wisconsin still has 2 or 3 left - or did as of last weekend. They were starting at $5K off sticker....
If you call them (608-258-4000), ask for Brian Robbins - a nice guy, Porsche driving instructor, and easy to deal with...
11-19-2004, 04:18 PM
You've only had the one GOOD post here in all your years. <b> <font color="blue"> <link below> </font> </b>
11-19-2004, 05:21 PM
I ever made fun of your wallowy, bloated non-sport 4.2 limo, even though it was there for the taking...Nor did I make fun of you when you whined about the RS 6 being "too fast"....