1996 Viper RT/10

I'm considering a new A4 Convertible, an A6 if I can stand the new nose, or
a two year old A8 or three year old S8.

The use will be for daily commute (40 miles round trip), carrying four
adults a fair amount of the time. I'd like a fun driving experience if
possible, but that takes a back seat to reliability and professional look.

I've driven the A6, and S8, and my partner has an A8.

I currently use a 99 S Class Mercedes as my daily driver, and find it too
large, ponderous, and poor handling. It is the 420 model, with the smaller
V-8 driving a 4700 lb machine, so it isn't great on acceleration. However,
it is well built, solid, and cruises with the best. Looking for more fun
and handling, without losing all of the creature comforts.

Would love opinions from people who have actually owned and driven these
specific models.

Thanks.

Steve Grauman

IMO, the used S8 will best fit your wants and needs. It's professional looking,
large and comfy. But it's also powerful and fun to drive. They're also fairly
uncommon, unlike the S-Class Mercedes and 7 series BMWs. BMW's 740i has always
been great to drive though. After the S8, I'd say go for a used or leftover A6
2.7T S-Line. 0-60 in well under 6 seconds, plus Quattro in a nice medium-large
sedan. The new version's 3.2 simply won't be as good as far as I'm concerned.

1996 Viper RT/10

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040524150419.15479.00002054@mb-m05.aol.com...
> IMO, the used S8 will best fit your wants and needs. It's professional
looking,
> large and comfy. But it's also powerful and fun to drive. They're also
fairly
> uncommon, unlike the S-Class Mercedes and 7 series BMWs. BMW's 740i has
always
> been great to drive though. After the S8, I'd say go for a used or
leftover A6
> 2.7T S-Line. 0-60 in well under 6 seconds, plus Quattro in a nice
medium-large
> sedan. The new version's 3.2 simply won't be as good as far as I'm
concerned.

Thank you, Steve. Anyone else?

Mike Smith

Steve Grauman wrote:

> After the S8, I'd say go for a used or leftover A6
> 2.7T S-Line. 0-60 in well under 6 seconds, plus Quattro in a nice medium-large
> sedan. The new version's 3.2 simply won't be as good as far as I'm concerned.

Why not? Similar output, no? Plus (maybe) the DSG? Hell, I'm thinking
a next-gen A6 w/DSG is probably going to be my next car.

--
Mike Smith

john s

> > After the S8, I'd say go for a used or leftover A6
> > 2.7T S-Line. 0-60 in well under 6 seconds, plus Quattro in a nice
medium-large
> > sedan. The new version's 3.2 simply won't be as good as far as I'm
concerned.
>
> Why not? Similar output, no? Plus (maybe) the DSG? Hell, I'm thinking
> a next-gen A6 w/DSG is probably going to be my next car.
>

No, the 3.2 FSI is superior. Here's a link to the FSI output (purple)
overlaid on A6 2.7T graph. Above 2500 rpms 3.2 puts out more power and revs
to a greater speed. The FSI curves go off standard 2.7T chart! At low speeds
the slightly higher turbo torque doesn't show up in on-road performance,
graph is steady-state output. By the time turbo gets under boost engine
speed is already greater, so in real world FSI also better down low. Both
2.7T and 3.2 were tested using 95 RON gas.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/shost0...SI-overlay.gif

Steve Grauman

Interesting stuff. I expected the 2.7T be be a better performer than the N/A
3.2 but after seeing the overlay I'll have to take that back till' I've seen
some real world tests. As a side note, Subaru recently redesigned the Outback
and Legacy sedans and wagons. They partially redesigned the H6 motor (3.0
litres) and squeezed it for 250Hp. However, they've also added the 2.5 litre
turbocharged Boxer 4 to both model ranges, which matches the H6's 250Hp, makes
more torque, and peaks (both Hp and torque) at lower RPMs. This seems to be the
case more often than not when comparing small turbocharged motors to marginally
larger N/A motors. Let's not forget that the updated S-Line version of the A6
2.7T is making 265Hp and well over 260Ft. Lbs. of torque - with peak torque
from below 2,000 RPM. The "old" 250Hp version ran 0-60 in 5.9 seconds with the
6-speed. Pretty impressive for a large car with Quattro.

JP Roberts

The point about getting a 2.7T is to get it chipped to 300+HP. Of course,
it's definitely a 3.2 whatnot beater. The 3.2 may only have a very little
advantage under 2,000 rpm, and maybe - it remains to be seen - more
reliability as it's not dependent on two turbos.

The bad news about the new A6 is there is apparently going to be nothing
like DSG as DSG is only available for transverse engines - or so the rumour
goes. This alone should scare people away from Audi, as they're fitting
Seats and Golfs with DSG already! If only BMW would make a decent 50/50
front/rear weight AWD!

Here in Europe, where the real first tests of the new A6 have now been
conducted, the most interesting model is the 3.0TDI, but it comes with
Tiptronic as standard, as is way heavier (at around 1,900 kg) than its
competitors. Still, this engine's real output of around 235HP and 500Nm
(factory states 225PS and 450Nm) is impressive. In my opinion, however, the
best thing to do is wait for the air-suspension equipped models scheduled
for next year. Just another reason to switch to BMW? I find VW's policy
insulting - the Tuareg and the A8 have had it for over a year, but if I
wanted to buy a Tuareg it would only be fitted with the 2.5TDI, at a meager
174PS, which means it's a just a heavy snail. Why don't they fit the Tuareg
with the 3.0TDI engine or the A6 with the Tuareg's air-suspension? Then we
might have two great cars, where neither stands out otherwise!

Want more nonsense? They're now fitting the Seat Ibiza with a 160PS TDI, and
the Leon with a 225PS FWD power train! This is not fair on Audi legitimate
buyers!

> > > sedan. The new version's 3.2 simply won't be as good as far as I'm
> concerned.
> >
> > Why not? Similar output, no? Plus (maybe) the DSG? Hell, I'm thinking
> > a next-gen A6 w/DSG is probably going to be my next car.
> >
>
> No, the 3.2 FSI is superior. Here's a link to the FSI output (purple)
> overlaid on A6 2.7T graph. Above 2500 rpms 3.2 puts out more power and
revs
> to a greater speed. The FSI curves go off standard 2.7T chart! At low
speeds
> the slightly higher turbo torque doesn't show up in on-road performance,
> graph is steady-state output. By the time turbo gets under boost engine
> speed is already greater, so in real world FSI also better down low. Both
> 2.7T and 3.2 were tested using 95 RON gas.
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/shost0...SI-overlay.gif
>
>

Steve Grauman

>If only BMW would make a decent 50/50
>front/rear weight AWD!

The AWD version of the G35 is an option.

>I find VW's policy
>insulting

I find it plain stupid. VW has spent so much time over the past 2 years trying
to come up with Audi/BMW/MB competitors that it's lost sight of building models
which are truly competitive in VW's normal areas. The Passat loses sorely to
the current competition in most areas as do most of the other VW models.
They've fitted the New Beetle TDi and 1.8T cabrio with the 6-speed DSG but
they've kept the Jetta, Golf and Passat TDi and 1.8T models stuck with the
not-anywhere-near-as-good 5-speed Tiptronic. And what about the Audi models?
The G35 and Acura TL have got the A4 beaten hands down on the priceerformance
ratio, the 3-series and IS300 are both better driver's cars and VW's W8 Passat
is equivalent to or better than the A4 3.0 in most every way for about the same
money. And does anyone really believe the A6 will be able to match the new
5-series? The A8 may very well be the best luxury sedan in the world of it's
size, type and price, but it pales in comparison to the 7-series where driving
dynamics are concerned and it's thousands more than the Jaguar XJR which is a
much better performer and not much smaller. The S4 and RS6 are the only
stand-out models they make and the RS6 is really only marginally better than
the E55 - but it's a lot more money. The Toureag may be as good as the BMW X5
and MB ML500 in V8 trim, but it's nearly as much money (it actually goes over
$50k fully loaded) and doesn't carry the prestige. The 3.2 powered model is
underpowered and over priced and if memory serves me, is fewer than $1,000 USD
less expensive than the more powerful and prestigious Cayenne V6. I own a 2002
VW that I like quite a bit, but I can all but guarantee that it's the last VAG
product I'll ever buy. There are simply to many other better products on the
market for the same money. The S4 is the only exception to this IMO.

john s

"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c92up8$do8$1@news.ya.com...
>The 3.2 may only have a very little
> advantage under 2,000 rpm, and maybe - it remains to be seen - more
> reliability as it's not dependent on two turbos.

Unfortunately direct injection injector fouling is not thoroughly understood
(completely different mechanisms that PFI). Compounding this, at least in
the USA, is high sulfur fuel that may never get legislated away. The
lobbyist have put enough loop-holes in that even in 2010 you could get a
slug of sulfur while refiners meet district average targets. How the engine
manufacturers are going to handle warranties is an interesting question.

JP Roberts

Couldn't agree more, Steve; except that new S4 is not as good either as it's
got the worst mileage in its category. Who wants a thirsty 344PS V8 if they
could have made a 3.2 biturbo that would make some more power (in the region
of 370PS) and much better torque when chipped?

>
> I find it plain stupid. VW has spent so much time over the past 2 years
trying
> to come up with Audi/BMW/MB competitors that it's lost sight of building
models
> which are truly competitive in VW's normal areas. The Passat loses sorely
to
> the current competition in most areas as do most of the other VW models.
> They've fitted the New Beetle TDi and 1.8T cabrio with the 6-speed DSG but
> they've kept the Jetta, Golf and Passat TDi and 1.8T models stuck with the
> not-anywhere-near-as-good 5-speed Tiptronic. And what about the Audi
models?
> The G35 and Acura TL have got the A4 beaten hands down on the
priceerformance
> ratio, the 3-series and IS300 are both better driver's cars and VW's W8
Passat
> is equivalent to or better than the A4 3.0 in most every way for about the
same
> money. And does anyone really believe the A6 will be able to match the new
> 5-series? The A8 may very well be the best luxury sedan in the world of
it's
> size, type and price, but it pales in comparison to the 7-series where
driving
> dynamics are concerned and it's thousands more than the Jaguar XJR which
is a
> much better performer and not much smaller. The S4 and RS6 are the only
> stand-out models they make and the RS6 is really only marginally better
than
> the E55 - but it's a lot more money. The Toureag may be as good as the BMW
X5
> and MB ML500 in V8 trim, but it's nearly as much money (it actually goes
over
> $50k fully loaded) and doesn't carry the prestige. The 3.2 powered model
is
> underpowered and over priced and if memory serves me, is fewer than $1,000
USD
> less expensive than the more powerful and prestigious Cayenne V6. I own a
2002
> VW that I like quite a bit, but I can all but guarantee that it's the last
VAG
> product I'll ever buy. There are simply to many other better products on
the
> market for the same money. The S4 is the only exception to this IMO.