I took my 03 A6 2.7t in for its last warranty service yesterdat, and they gave me an 06 A6 3.2 quattro as a loaner.

I went back and forth on my engine choice for my next A6 (which should be in in less than a month) and I eventually went with the 4.2 because I thought the 3.2 was going to be too wimpy. I am already tarting to regret that I went with the 4.2. This 3.2 has ample power, and seems to get decent mileage. I am quite impressed.

Does anyone with a 4.2 wish they had gotten a 3.2?

Chuck

I have had three 4.2's, one 2.7T, a bunch of 2.8's, several 5 cylinder versions with and without turbos and my current 3.2.

The sound of the 3.2 is close to the sound of the 4.2. This is a very good thing.

The balance of the 3.2 vs the 4.2 is slightly better, but not a maker or breaker if you ask me.

The power of the 4.2 is ample.

The power of the 3.2 is "nearly" ample.

The gas mileage of the 3.2 is impressive.

The gas mileage of the 4.2 is depressive.

The extra cost of the 4.2 is, IMHO, about $2K too high -- but a nice discount could take care of this issue, if it can be had.

The practical speed of both is the same on public highways, interstates and roads.

The new version of the 4.2 with the FSI treatment may mitigate the mileage issue somewhat and that is worth pausing over.

If I didn't believe there would be $4.00 gal gasoline, the newest 4.2 would certainly be more attractive.

The current 3.2 needs a bit more balls and ponies, but it remains a sweet sounding medium high performance (relatively speaking), gas sipping powerplant.

I love mine.

I cannot imagine, however, being in a position of actually HAVING a 4.2 and wishing for a 3.2.

Great punch line, markcinci! Echoes my sentiments.

The 2007 3.2 gets 19/27mpg the 2007 4.2 gets 18/25mpg. Combined average for the 3.2 is 22mpg and 20mpg for the 4.2. Even if you are an above average driver and go 15k miles per year and gas is $4/gal that is a difference of about $275/year to drive the 4.2 over the 3.2. With a more average 12k/year and $3.50/gal the difference shrinks to under $200/year. That hardly seems like it's worth complaining about when buying a $50k+ vehicle.

I test drove both a couple of times and am happy with my decision to stick with the 4.2. I've never had a V8 engine before - the sound and extra HP off the line are awesome. The improved gas mileage of the '07 FSI makes the deal even sweeter. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

The 3.2 can get you in plenty of trouble...the MA State Police gleefully handed me my most expensive ticket ever in one!

Imo, the $10k premium of the 4.2 isn't worth it, but with the right discount, maybe...

Thus increasing the price differential.

I'm personally happy with my 3.2 and don't ever think about "I wish I had more power". This isn't that kind of engine or car. Sure, it could have more, but I'm never left wanting more in my usual driving.

I agree with other posters on the current 3.2 deals...you can get them nearly for prices that A4's decked out are selling for!

Congrats!

I probably could use it about once a week. If I own the car for 5 years that's 260 weeks. That averages to $26.92 per week for that 1 second performance gain.

You haven't gotten used to the 4.2 yet.

Once you get used to it, the 3.2 will seem very slow.

With a 4.2, I'd be driving at 130 mph everyday to work to make it worthwhile.

With a 3.2, I'm maxing at 95-105 mph for daily cruising.

My wife will always tell me to slow down when she's around (and she's around a lot), so what's the use of a 4.2 if I can't step on the gas full throttle.

She keeps on reminding me that my insurance is low because i don't have a ticket. Yeah well, I have Valentine one. So I do feel pissed thinking about insurance premiums when I go pass 100 mph. So, 4.2 ... no. I also get 22 MPG mixed city/highway ... which is good.

I priced out the V6 vs. the V8 with similar options. keep in mind many things are standard witht the V8 (e.g. volterra leather which is a grand extra with the V6) difference in price ultimately was more like 3K. I got the V8 - no regrets. 100 more HP (350 vs 250, or is it 255?)

15000 miles (625 gallons) at 24 MPG
15000 miles (750 gallons) at 20 MPG

Difference is 125 gallons x $3/gal = $375.00
If gas is $3.50/gal x 125 = $438.00

My computations are different from yours.

Is this better?

15000 miles (681 gallons) at 22 MPG
15000 miles (750 gallons) at 20 MPG

Difference is 69 gallons x $3/gal = $207.00
If gas is $3.50/gal x 69 = $241.50

Obviously if the gap between the 3.2 and the 4.2 was bigger the savings would be bigger.

Now that was normal EPA averages.

Here is 100% city.

15000 miles (790 gallons) at 19 MPG
15000 miles (833 gallons) at 18 MPG

Difference is 43 gallons x $3/gal = $129.00
If gas is $3.50/gal x 43 = $150.50

...and 100% highway.

15000 miles (555 gallons) at 27 MPG
15000 miles (600 gallons) at 25 MPG

Difference is 45 gallons x $3/gal = $135.00
If gas is $3.50/gal x 45 = $157.50


Even at an extra $375/year it seems inconsequential when buying a $50k+ car. At the industry standard lifespan of a car (12 years)that's a whopping $4500 that's almost equal to sales tax on an A6 in some states.