I'm talking real life trip to the Rockies, 4 people, heavy load.
Can someone share some impressions? I'm thinking about A6 3.2 as my second car, I need something a bit bigger (than my S4 Avant). It would be used mainly locally, but I'd like to take 4 adults (incl. me) for a trip sometimes. I know there is always 4.2, but I'm not sure I need two of those ;-)

With the turbo engine you'd move the throttle to half or 3/4 travel, let the electronic throttle sort it out and wake up the turbos, then you'd modulate the throttle to adjust for whatever speed and acceleration you desired. Basically punch it, then work out the details.

With a normally aspirated engine you bring up the revs smoothly (since there isn't that lag when you're waiting for boost), and stay on the throttle by increasing the travel more gradually than you might in the turbo car, until you have the desired acceleration. The more you push, the more power you have.

I would have to adjust every time I swapped from my normally aspirated very rev happy Alfa, to any of the turbo cars on the dealer lot.

Doesn't feel as powerful since you don't get that turbo kick. In the end though, the power is similar, just delivered in completely different ways.

You may encounter some loss of power at altitude though, since of course the turbos can help compensate for the thinner air.

I have the C6 3.2 and I've felt it has ample power. Of course more is always better but I've found it has great low end torque like when pulling away from a traffic light. On the open road it also doesn't take much coaxing to get it moving.

I drove from Cincinnati in Ohio to Toronto Canada to Montreal Canada and on to Boston on the US East Coast. I found the car cruised quietly and effortlessly at 80MPH and had ample passing power even at that speed. There were two adults and ample luggage for a 10 vacation. We both found it a great long distance driving car. You won't go wrong with a 3.2 unless you really feel you need the raw power of the 4.2.

Craig

I personally haven't found any real noticeable difference with one or 3 passengers when accelerating from a stop.

My wife has a 2005 A6 3.2 V6 and I have a 2003 Jaguar S-Type 4.2 V8. The A6 has several advantages over the Jag except in two areas: The Jag gets more miles per gallon in town and on the road, probably because of the AWD. The Jag accelerates effortlessly while the A6 seems to be working hard. There are highway merges that I do with the Jag that I am reluctant to do with the A6.

Are we sorry we got the 3.2? Not at all; my wife would hate to drive a raring-to-go car.

I meant to say that the AWD on the A6 causes lower MPG.

It's odd how you sort of adapt to it and it becomes normal but now I cannot drive an NA powered car, especially one with a normal throttle cable, smoothly.

...That your V8 Jag gets better gas mileage than a C6 3.2 for many reasons:

-Jag V8 rated at 18/26mpg while C6 3.2 is 19/26. I've gotten upto 27.3 at 75mph and as low as 17 in city driving. No way the older technology V8 is getting better than that with the FSI V6.

- The Jag S Type has a drag coefficient of .32 while the C6 has a slippery .27. BTW, the drag CD of an Acura MDX SUV is .36.

There is no doubt the C6 3.2 engine will work harder than the V8, it has almost 40HP less.

Craig

That was the first thing I noticed about my 3.2; the merge onto highways was just not there. It's only in certain situations that the engine feels lacking and I can't put my finger on it when it will happen. It's not consistent. When you put the shifter into sport mode it will consistently give you that xtra push. They need to fix the kick down and the fact that the car resists revving higher than 3 or 4 grand when in "D". Adding another 25 horses would also help.
For most driving situations the 3.2 is fine. If you're a driver like me that wants punch on demand, it has lacking moments. I miss my turbo.

Thanks Tom for your opinion. I'm affraid if I get one and switch between my S4 4.2 V8 and A6 3.2, it will feel like a dog. But it's not smart economically to have two V8's I guess...

Craig,

The car is only six months old and it just had the 5K service. I heard that the brake-in oil is not the synthetic that is put in at the periodic service. Perhaps that will improve it. But on several tankfulls of local driving we only got 14mpg. I must admit that our highway testing has been very limited but our 2000 A6 2.8 only got about 24mpg, if I recall correctly.

used to turbo engines and V8 engines.

Got to wonder what owners of Japanese cars that traditionally don't have much torque and what there is, is mostly in the higher rev ranges must think - or maybe that just isn't a priority, and that's why they don't mind it. Now that most Japanese car makers use the American car maker trick of a large surge for a small throttle movement off the line, but not much more getty-up left at speed, it feels like the car is powerful. That's also probably the secret of why many of them get pretty good gas mileage - they never really get into the powerband.

Sport Mode.

Slap Baby into 'S' and make sure you don't get pulled over. Remember this is an Audi A6 not a 911 GT - if you want that sort of power then start working a little Overtime.


'05 3.2
Blk/Blk
Prem. Pack
17"

... and that's all I wanted and all I got.

Throw it into Sport if you want a quicker pickup, but be prepared to suffer with worse gas mileage.

Under the load you described, and compared to your S4 Avant, the 3.2 probably would feel a little doggy. (What wouldn't?) But I drove my dealer's 3.2 demo after spending a couple of weeks in my 4.2, and I was really pretty impressed.