I have a 99 S 420. I am an occaisional skier, who lives in Northern California. I am attracted to the A-6 4.2 because it has the power I like, appears to seat four people with good leg and shoulder room, and can handle snow from time to time without me having to drive a Ford Explorer.
However, in reading reports, the A-6 doesn't seem to get good points for reliability. Other choices for me would be the E - 500 4 Motion Mercedes, or just a standard BMW 5 series.
What can you tell me about long term ownership of an A-6 as far as fun, reliability, power, and steering?
I just sold my 2000 A6 4.2 to my son-in-law and bought an RS6. The A6 4.2 was a wonderful car that gave me many trouble-free miles. I had no maintenance problems whatsoever. When I bought it I considered buying the S4, but it was just a little too small for my needs. The A6 was perfect, but it was difficult to choose between the 2.5T and the 4.2 V8.
I bought 4 alloy wheels and mounted a good set of snows for winter use. It went anywhere I wanted to go, in the worst of New England weather. It was a joy to drive. But the RS6 sang its siren song and has corrupted me forever. d;o)
I need to carry full size adults, and I'm on a budget. Mercedes as of late has started to slip on reliability in their electronics (not the engines). I want something that is trouble free, but fun to drive, that seats 4 adults very comfortably, and can handle some trips into the snow, without chains.
How many miles did you put on your 4.2 A 6? Someone at eOpinions opined that the V-8 was "sluggish" compared to the 2.7 Turbo? Any thoughts or opinions?
Your new car is very nice, but well out of the price range that I'm willing to pay.
Ta dah! A6 Quattro. It will seat four adults comfortably and there is a good size trunk for baggage
It had 68,000 trouble free miles.
Someone at eOpinions opined
I drove the 2.7 Turbo the same day I bought the 4.2 V8. It may have just been the particular car I drove, but it was under-tired. Straight line acceleration was good, but in the twisties, it just didn't have the feel I was used to. The
4.2, otoh, came with 255/45 - 18 tires, more than enough to make the car feel good. Plus, I'm an old man who has spent 50 years shifting 3,4,5, and 6 speed trannies. My left leg ain't what it used to be, so the TipTronic of the 4.6 made sense.
When you're an old phart like me perhaps you can afford it. d;o) Dave
My uncle just bought an E500 sedan, it feels small inside, but is otherwise a pretty nice car.
Then you'll lose the AWD. Check out the X3 and X5, they both have very car like driving characteristics, but give you AWD and more space. I'd reccomend looking at the 2004 A6 2.7T over the 4.2. The S-Line version has been boasted to 265Hp, it's actually slightly quicker than the heavier 4.2 (but doesn't give the V8's seemless power delivery) and is less expensive.
Neither one of them seemed "sluggish" to me. The 4.2 is slightly heavier than the 2.7T and it's accleration suffers a bit. But it's got tottally seemlees power delivery, whereas the 2.7T has a small spike at around 2,200 RPM after the Turbo is spooled. However, I drove a 2002 2.7T with 250Hp. The 2004 version has had software revisions both for the engine and the tranny, and it's now up to 265Hp. It may be a better drive, and IMHO, it's certainly a better value. In any case, even when eqiupped with the Titronic tranny, neither model will have any problems laying down 0-60 in the mid to low 6s. There's also the S6, with the 340Hp 4.2, but it's only avaliable as an Avant and it's more expensive.
the A6 is a nice car and when you compare it to it's class, like anything it has it's problems. test drive them all and see which one you like the best.
I'm not sure the 2.5 Turbo *had* 16 inch tires. They were much narrower (maybe
225s) and the aspect ratio was a bigger number (perhaps 50 or 60). The 255s on the 4.2 took an on-ramp much easier (less/no squeal) that the 2.5T's tires. If indeed the aspect ratio was higher on the Turbo's tires, that could explain some of it, or the width (225 vs 255). I'm not sure, but the 225s may have even been all-season (yuck) tires. And, there is air pressure to consider. I know the 255s had their proper inflation (I bought the car), whereas the 225s could have been under-inflated, causing more sidewall give in a high g turn.
The following year, the 2.5 Turbo came with a tire option that, I believe, included the 18 inch 255s.
For this kind of "snow", you really don't need an Explorer or any AWD... None of these three are doing great, reliability-wise. My money would go on a E Class.
I currently have both an S420 (for sale) and a Ford Explorer lease car. I'd like to consolidate to one vehicle since my only use for the 4 wheel drive is a once per month ski excursion in the snow during the winter.
And I'm at the point where I'd like to get dead bang great reliability from a vehicle over a 10 year ownership (which is about 140,000 miles for me)
I've been reading each of these newsgroups, as well as a few others for a while, and in each newsgroup there are ongoing complaints about the reliability of each marque. I'm ALMOST willing to go Japanese, but not quite yet.
What are your recommendations for the most reliable 4 wheel drive car that will comfortably seat four adults, and why?
Thanks very much, Larry snipped-for-privacy@btcommercial.com
Done? Having driven your Explorer as an example? Come on!
I don't think RX is built like good ol' SUVs. RX is not a truck underneath. It's more like a car.
Nowadays there are more and more what we knew as SUVs built on their own "platform". Take Infiniti FX (Nissan Murano), Lexus RX, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg...
If you really need to get in the snow and not get stuck, a simple AWD sedan is not going to work. You will need something with a bit more clearance, like a Volvo XC or a Subaru Outback (am I allowed to mention Subaru here?). Check out Chrysler Pacifica, maybe. After all, they are Daimler now...
Audi has the most experience with all wheel drive passenger cars. The Quattro system is bullet-proof. Plus it is one of the safest cars out there. Dave
Ever hear of the Audi All-Road? It's a direct competitor to the Cross-Country, and it isn't a piece of shit. Chrysler Pacifica? Jesus, Chrysler hasn't built a decent car since the Hemi 'Cuda, and even that thing had flimsy gearbox and only went straight. The RX300 is now the RX330, but it's still boring. Lexus makes a great, boring product. Hell, they make Honda reliability look bad. I just can't get past the boring. One car for all purposes? That's a tough one. For me, it's an old Audi. Strength, reliability, safety. Wrap my family in high strength German (galvanized, undercoated) steel and hope for the best. I can tolerate the bullshit in leau of the benefits. Then again, I can fix anything that would ever fail. I highly doubt I'd have two V8 winter cars if I had to pay the repair bills. There is, however, nothing better in the snow than and old V8 on four studded Hakka's. Audi still has the best AWD system. I own a million miles worth of quattro systems without one quattro failure. They were building AWD automobiles long before the rest of the marques were even paying attention to marketing. Audi single handedly created the AWD fad of today. Do you think BMW or MB would have bothered with AWD models if they were not losing sales to Audi? MB wouldn't even gives us a damn cup holder until the late 90's! Screw German law, you're losing sales to Asia over a cupholder! Audi uses direct mechanical differential lockup when needed, and also use the brakes as "traction control." Other makers do not.
4-Matic comes closest, but its frequent and costly fuckups make it less admirable in my book. The Asian trash can't hold a candle to quattro's function. They rely on brakes alone to handle power distribution. Open diffs are cheap. Brakes are reactive, not proactive. As for the 420, Mercedes quality is nothing like the old days. I worked for MB back in the late 80's, and they had some excellent vehicles. The 126 sedans were excellent, strong, and crashed like nobody's business. Now they seem to be over-complicated, slapped together budles of woe. And that's just the German made ones. The US built one has turned out to be a joke.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:14:56 GMT, "Victor Bazarov" wrote:
I would recommend a Range Rover. They have an outstanding rep, and have the luxury needed. I had a 2.5 diesel, it was great. Mind you if your in the US, I would go for the 4.HSE. Here in the UK, fuel prices are crippling :(
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.