Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
04-02-2005, 12:01 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
04-02-2005, 12:01 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
04-02-2005, 12:01 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
with AWD versions of their sedans.
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
04-02-2005, 06:43 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Well, I have had my 2001 A6 2.7T for over 4 years now, and the only problem I even had was a faulty tranny at 15,000
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
04-02-2005, 06:43 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Well, I have had my 2001 A6 2.7T for over 4 years now, and the only problem I even had was a faulty tranny at 15,000
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
04-02-2005, 06:43 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Well, I have had my 2001 A6 2.7T for over 4 years now, and the only problem I even had was a faulty tranny at 15,000
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
miles, which was fixed immediately. Never had a problem with the turbos. I guess it is how you drive the car that would
affect the reliability. You would do well with either the 2.7 or 4.2, but I didn't get the 4.2 because of the price
dsiparity <$5,000> between the two, and if you check online, you will find that the 0-60 for the both are quite close.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:01:07 -0800, "Jim Battan" <newsgroups@battan.com> wrote:
>A couple years back the US Consumer Reports magazine called the A6 2.7T the least reliable car of any.
>I'm glad to hear reports that Audi is trying to increase their reliability, especially since most of the competition is coming out
>with AWD versions of their sedans.
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>> wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
04-02-2005, 04:57 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Bought a 2001 A6 2.7T as a certified pre-owned. 2 year warranty.
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
04-02-2005, 04:57 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Bought a 2001 A6 2.7T as a certified pre-owned. 2 year warranty.
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
04-02-2005, 04:57 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Bought a 2001 A6 2.7T as a certified pre-owned. 2 year warranty.
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>
>TIA
04-02-2005, 06:11 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on 2002 A6 2.7 or 4.2
Your headlights are covered under the Audi Assured Warrenty. The dealer
will replace them and you will have only the $50 deductable.
<vls@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:me8u4155udcoio91dk4u7fgl9j9jnkk5b5@4ax.com...
> Bought a 2001 A6 2.7T as a certified pre-owned. 2 year warranty.
> I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
> auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
> disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
> far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
> seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
> cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>>
>>TIA
>
will replace them and you will have only the $50 deductable.
<vls@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:me8u4155udcoio91dk4u7fgl9j9jnkk5b5@4ax.com...
> Bought a 2001 A6 2.7T as a certified pre-owned. 2 year warranty.
> I've had it about 6 mos. and the only things wrong were that the
> auto-leveling headlights suck (point to the ground half the time, so I
> disconnected 'em) and the radio reception is terrible if you live very
> far away from the transmitters. Tested a 4.2 and a 2.7T and the turbo
> seems to do better at the high altitude where I live. Had a 1988 5
> cyl. that went 300K and was still running fine.
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:50 -0500, GJM <glenmac@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>>I am interested in the 2002 A6, eitther the 2.7T or the 4.2. Was just
>>wondering what others thought of this year, any reliability issues?
>>
>>TIA
>
