Question: how would our Type S fare against an audi A6?
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: seattle
Age: 66
Posts: 2,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: how would our Type S fare against an audi A6?
Has anyone ever gone up against an A6 for the kill, or are we the ones getting kilt. Always loved the way they look, but don't know too much about their performance. Always been curious? Anyone?
#3
ChairmanMaoSaysRTFM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Age: 44
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
the 4.2 is listed as a 6.7s 0-60 time (fairly consistently in most of the articles i have seen). our car has been reviewed anywhere from 6.2 to 7.2. i am almost inclined to give it to the A6 because of the all wheel drive. although it could rightly be neck and neck but i guess that all depends on the driver and the initial launch with the VSA off. i think that would be an awesome race though.
SSTS
SSTS
#5
Intermediate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've driven the 2.7, 2.8, and 3.0. I almost bought a 2.7t before I bought my Acura, but Audi's reliability ratings are crap. Anyway, you'd definitely beat the pants off any of the 6-cylinders, but the 4.2 would be a close one I think.
#6
still a Masshole
Originally posted by mrogers
I've driven the 2.7, 2.8, and 3.0. I almost bought a 2.7t before I bought my Acura, but Audi's reliability ratings are crap. Anyway, you'd definitely beat the pants off any of the 6-cylinders, but the 4.2 would be a close one I think.
I've driven the 2.7, 2.8, and 3.0. I almost bought a 2.7t before I bought my Acura, but Audi's reliability ratings are crap. Anyway, you'd definitely beat the pants off any of the 6-cylinders, but the 4.2 would be a close one I think.
Trending Topics
#8
yeah, the 2.7t is the same 250 bhp engine as the previous generation S4. I'm sorry to say, but a 2.7t A6 would crush a TL-S, whether it was stick or automatic. The automatics post 5.9sec runs to 60, as apposed to 6.2 for the TL-S. I've driven a couple 2.7t A6's, and it is definetly a quicker car. As far as a 4.2 goes, a TL-S should take one fairly easily. It has 300 bhp, but the V8 adds alot of extra weight to the car. The 4.2 has alot of torque, but it doesn't feel as quick and nimble as the TL-S.
#9
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Worcester MA/ R.I. (school)
Age: 40
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i ran a friends 4.2 up to about 80mph and took it by about a car length (might have made that up, but if you do a search you'll prob find what i posted right after it happened). i dont know if the race was really fair or whatever, but for the record and bragging rights, i took it. 2.7t will win tho. turbo+stick+awd= beating the sh!t out of a tl-s
#11
Originally posted by seattle dale
super coupe, you mentioned the A6 4.2 was a v-8, i always thought it was a v-6. if its a v-6, what is the a8?
super coupe, you mentioned the A6 4.2 was a v-8, i always thought it was a v-6. if its a v-6, what is the a8?
#12
Purchased: April 28, 2001
Originally posted by seattle dale
super coupe, you mentioned the A6 4.2 was a v-8, i always thought it was a v-6. if its a v-6, what is the a8?
super coupe, you mentioned the A6 4.2 was a v-8, i always thought it was a v-6. if its a v-6, what is the a8?
#14
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sTrOnG IsLaNd
Age: 42
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoever said the a6 2.7 wont take a tl-s must be crazy!!!!! yes the reliablilty sucks but the a6 is a lot faster in a 6 speed...and the 4.2 only comes in the a8 for those who thought it came in the a6....the 3.0 is slow the tl-s would smoke that but thats about it
#15
Intermediate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, no vr-switch, you're wrong about the A6. I don't know where the hell some of you get the idea that the "6" in A6 means 6-cylinder. Does the "5" in BMW 530i mean 5-cylinder? NO. It's just their mid-range model number. The 4.2L V-8 is an available option on the A6, and has been for years:
http://www.audiusa.com/model_home/0,...200410,00.html
Also, you guys are right about the 2.7t manual, that probably would smoke the TL-S. I was referring to the auto, because that's the only 2.7t I drove.
http://www.audiusa.com/model_home/0,...200410,00.html
Also, you guys are right about the 2.7t manual, that probably would smoke the TL-S. I was referring to the auto, because that's the only 2.7t I drove.
#19
I wouldn't say that GoldieAlek. The quattro system give the A6 incredible traction off the line. Plus, their system is a true 50/50 power transfer system, so the wheels get all the torque right away. Also, all Audi V6's, even the old 2.8L had good low end torque, which we all know is not exactly a strong point for Acuras. The 4.2 has massive torque off the line, and the 2.7t also has alot of torque off the line, with virtually no turbo lag. At high RPM, a TL-S should easily hold its own if not beat most A6's, but don't underestimate them. Also, just to clear things up, the TL-S has 10 more hp than an Audi 2.7T. 260 vs. 250.
#20
Intermediate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, that close hp is what I think would make it a close race with the 2.7t. But, GoldieAlek, the 4.2 would definitely blow away the TL-S in an acceleration test. It isn't a ton more horsepower, but its a lot more torque. Those V8 A6's are FAST, and the all wheel drive really helps, not hurts, when it's done right, and if there's one thing Audi knows it's AWD.
#21
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Philly
Age: 38
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beat a 2.7t stick before. Not by much tho. Well seattle dale, only one way to find out yourself. Let's stop bench racing and get on the road!! Have fun and most importantly, be safe. Take it to the track.
#22
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: seattle
Age: 66
Posts: 2,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ya i was really close to buying the a6 4.2, it just had an incredable look, but my buddies @ work kept on telling me they were high maintnance. also wasn't sure about thier navi system which was important to me. I had my '91 legend coupe for 12 years, with 187k on her, with minamal problems. Had to change out a radiator once, & a few other small problems. That made me sway back to acura. But now i hear of the tranny gremlin nightmares & i'm begening to wonder if i nade the right choice or not. Don't get me wrong, luv the car, just don't want any stinkin problems.
#23
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northwest/burbs, IL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by seattle dale
ya i was really close to buying the a6 4.2, it just had an incredable look, but my buddies @ work kept on telling me they were high maintnance. also wasn't sure about thier navi system which was important to me. I had my '91 legend coupe for 12 years, with 187k on her, with minamal problems. Had to change out a radiator once, & a few other small problems. That made me sway back to acura. But now i hear of the tranny gremlin nightmares & i'm begening to wonder if i nade the right choice or not. Don't get me wrong, luv the car, just don't want any stinkin problems.
ya i was really close to buying the a6 4.2, it just had an incredable look, but my buddies @ work kept on telling me they were high maintnance. also wasn't sure about thier navi system which was important to me. I had my '91 legend coupe for 12 years, with 187k on her, with minamal problems. Had to change out a radiator once, & a few other small problems. That made me sway back to acura. But now i hear of the tranny gremlin nightmares & i'm begening to wonder if i nade the right choice or not. Don't get me wrong, luv the car, just don't want any stinkin problems.
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#26
still a Masshole
Originally posted by SuperCoupe93
yeah, the 2.7t is the same 250 bhp engine as the previous generation S4. I'm sorry to say, but a 2.7t A6 would crush a TL-S, whether it was stick or automatic. The automatics post 5.9sec runs to 60, as apposed to 6.2 for the TL-S. I've driven a couple 2.7t A6's, and it is definetly a quicker car. As far as a 4.2 goes, a TL-S should take one fairly easily. It has 300 bhp, but the V8 adds alot of extra weight to the car. The 4.2 has alot of torque, but it doesn't feel as quick and nimble as the TL-S.
yeah, the 2.7t is the same 250 bhp engine as the previous generation S4. I'm sorry to say, but a 2.7t A6 would crush a TL-S, whether it was stick or automatic. The automatics post 5.9sec runs to 60, as apposed to 6.2 for the TL-S. I've driven a couple 2.7t A6's, and it is definetly a quicker car. As far as a 4.2 goes, a TL-S should take one fairly easily. It has 300 bhp, but the V8 adds alot of extra weight to the car. The 4.2 has alot of torque, but it doesn't feel as quick and nimble as the TL-S.
0-60 mph in seconds: 6.4
Top track speed: 130 mph¹
As a matter of fact I've seen some at the track and although the A6 2.7t 6 is faster, it doesn't crush the TLS. The autos are exactly equal to the TLS.
#27
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: BRONX, NY
Age: 40
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i like both the a6's and the tl's but with the tranny problems the tl's have I rather not try to race with it anymore guys, i'm waiting on the 05A6's its supposed to have a brand new look, can't wait!
#28
Say what you like dude, but the TL-S is not as fast as the 2.7T. If you knew anything, you would know that manufacturers always underrate their performance specs. Check any auto mag...I always use Motor Trend, and they clocked the 2.7T at 5.9 secs to 60, and the TL-S at 6.2 sec, and i believe them. I've driven both cars many times, and IMO the 2.7t is a quicker car.
#29
still a Masshole
Originally posted by SuperCoupe93
If you knew anything, you would know that manufacturers always underrate their performance specs.
If you knew anything, you would know that manufacturers always underrate their performance specs.
Sorry dude, I'm not a mag racer. I'm telling you what I've seen at the track (as in I was there at a NE audi meet). I'm not saying they are slow just saying you are wrong about a 5.9 0-60. I'd even say that a 6.2 for a TLS is too low.
#30
i don't care what you saw at a track...until you've driven the cars for yourself then your opinion doesn't matter much to me. Call me a Mag racer if you want, but the road test editors go by actual numbers they aquire during actual road tests, not by watching people drive on a track and making opinions about performance. Audi has been underrating performance ppotential on their cars for years. The idea is to deter people from buying mid level cars and upgrading to more expensive trim levels. in the previous generation A4, their were 2 engine options...a 2.8L v6 rated at 174bhp, and a 1.8T rated at 150bhp. Dyno tests showed that the 1.8T actually had 152 hp at the wheels, so it was at least 175-180bhp at the crank. Audi would never advertise this to the consumers because if people knew that it put out as much hp as the 2.8L they would never upgrade to the more expensive engine and trim package. Just a little FYI, but you wouldn't know about that because only posers who read mags like me would understand what that's all about!
#31
The only thing I'll agree with you on is the top track speed. Audi always governs their U.S. spec cars at 130 mph. The drivetrains have much more potential than that obviously. Chip a 2.7T to remove the limiter, and it'll run well past 150mph all day...by the way, I didn't get this out of a mag, so there is no need for you to assume that it's a lie.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rboller
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
0
09-23-2015 02:49 PM
justin.w13.walker
Car Parts for Sale
0
09-22-2015 02:21 PM