4.2 VS 2.7
12-03-2002, 10:20 AM
#11
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Significant differences exist between the A6 4.2, and the allroad 4.2...
The allroad's 4.2 engine is shorter than the A6's, allowing the allroad 4.2 to be otherwise identical to the allroad 2.7t. The A6 4.2, however, is a bigger (longer) car than the A6 2.7t, because of it's longer engine. The A6 4.2 is also wider than the A6 2.7t, accomodating bigger wheels.
The A6 4.2 has a 1stxFinal Drive Ratio of 9.75, whereaas the allroad 4.2 has a 1stxFinal Drive Ratio of 14.32. The allroad is geared much lower in 1st than the A6.
All of these things combine to turn the tables, when comparing the 4.2 engine's performance in the allroad, as compared to it's performance in the A6.
The A6 4.2 has a 1stxFinal Drive Ratio of 9.75, whereaas the allroad 4.2 has a 1stxFinal Drive Ratio of 14.32. The allroad is geared much lower in 1st than the A6.
All of these things combine to turn the tables, when comparing the 4.2 engine's performance in the allroad, as compared to it's performance in the A6.
12-03-2002, 10:27 AM
#13
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ar-4.2 is geared lower than the ar-2.7t (in 1st).
This would offset the torque difference for the first couple of seconds of accelleration. And, as Audi publishes, it works... the 4.2 tip is .4s faster to 60 than the 2.7t tip. No speculation is required. The gear ratios, the power & torque figures, the vehicle weights, and the performance numbers have all been published.
Clearly, one could rebuild the gearboxes, modify the engines, and do a number of things to alter the results... But, as Audi builds it, the 4.2 is going to be faster. So sayeth Audi. =)
Clearly, one could rebuild the gearboxes, modify the engines, and do a number of things to alter the results... But, as Audi builds it, the 4.2 is going to be faster. So sayeth Audi. =)
12-03-2002, 10:27 AM
#14
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One real-life note comparing 2.7T A6 vs 4.2 A6...
While using one of the dealers used cars as a loaner last month...I did a bunch of G-Tech runs with the 2.7T Tip...
The best average of 5 (7-runs, drop best and worst) was 7.01 for the 2.7T.
The best I've done with my 4.2 is 6.65 (avg of 5...of 7 like above), with a typical average of 6.70 in previous attempts.
This does not mean I univerally will assume that the 4.2 is 0.31-0.36 seconds faster than a 2.7T since I don't know the history of that car other than that it looked perfectly fine, drove perfectly fine, and sounded "right", and it had 22,000 miles or so on it. My 4.2 has been run several times with 20-something up to 31,000 miles on it with little variation. I would like to try another 2.7T tip to "confirm" my results.
The best average of 5 (7-runs, drop best and worst) was 7.01 for the 2.7T.
The best I've done with my 4.2 is 6.65 (avg of 5...of 7 like above), with a typical average of 6.70 in previous attempts.
This does not mean I univerally will assume that the 4.2 is 0.31-0.36 seconds faster than a 2.7T since I don't know the history of that car other than that it looked perfectly fine, drove perfectly fine, and sounded "right", and it had 22,000 miles or so on it. My 4.2 has been run several times with 20-something up to 31,000 miles on it with little variation. I would like to try another 2.7T tip to "confirm" my results.
12-03-2002, 10:30 AM
#15
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I remember when you first posted those results... I'm still skeptical. ;-)
I haven't seen any other report (magazine or Audi) where a back to back comparison shows the 4.2 is faster to 60. But, I believe that your data point is valid. It's just not a large enough sample for me to draw any overall conclusions =).
12-03-2002, 10:34 AM
#16
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed...that's why I want another 2.7T to "test"...
my "method" is valid, but the 2.7T might not have been the finest specimen to test...I need another. The roads I use are quite flat and I use the same ones over and over...I did the most recent tests just 1 or 2 days apart and the weather was the same (essentially)...even big changes in temp didn't do much to the 4.2 or S6.
I'm not proclaiming my tests as the benchmark (I know you realize this)...I just want to test another!
I'm not proclaiming my tests as the benchmark (I know you realize this)...I just want to test another!
12-03-2002, 10:55 AM
#17
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me know when next you "test"...
Maybe I can get permission to bring a 6-spd allroad to the test session. I'll have to practice my big-car launch technique.
Where abouts do you go? (No specifics needed... don't want to draw uneccessary attention to the activities. =)
Where abouts do you go? (No specifics needed... don't want to draw uneccessary attention to the activities. =)
12-03-2002, 11:00 AM
#18
Finman, I agree (mostly)
When I bought my first A6 4.2 (in 2000), my dealer was "kind enough" to allow me to order, sight unseen an A6 2.7T and an A6 4.2. I had at the time a 1997 A8 that I was trading in on a 1999 A6 2.8 (with a one year lease). I ordered my 2000 A6's (the pair of them) identical in every way (except for the engine), traded in my A8 and drove off with my new (dog) A6 2.8.
About 6 months later the phone rang and my new babies were in for my inspection. I opted for the 4.2 Audi A6 for many of the reasons you cite in your two posts. But, the A6 4.2 and A6 2.7T were (and are still I suspect -- as of the 2003 model year) much different from each other, look much different than each other and, the V8 sound is -- well, compelling.
I traded the 2000 A6 in on a 2001 (that I also special ordered) for one main reason and one "subordinate" reason -- main: ESP, subordinate "sport package and sat nav."
I enjoyed my 4.2's very much. I would recommend a 4.2 engined A6 over the 2.7T (at least as of model year 2002, not having driven a 2003 version of either car). I have opined way too long and often here and on edmunds about the differences between the two cars, even though the A6 2.7T apples to apples, i.e., w/tip is "quicker" than the A6 4.2 (also tip).
The original posting that I responded to -- 4.2 VS 2.7 -- did mention acceleration. And my response was, in part meant to point out (whether apples and apples or tip and tip) that in some configuration the 2.7T could be quicker (stock) and could be relatively easily modified to be quicker still (and what I have read about the mods that are or can be done to tiptronic versions of the 2.7T still would improve it over the 4.2 allroad).
The key reason for my apparently provocative title "why bother" is that the allroad for model year 2003 with the 2.7T and the 4.2 engines are virtually identical. This, in my experience was (is) not the case with the A6 line.
An allroad starts its life the same way regardless of the engine that is utimately put under its bonnet. And, if performance (granted who would "drag race" one often or seriously) was an issue, and if money is an object, the differences you cited (which I grant are real, are substantive, etc) MAY not be worth it.
Based on the heavy discounts available on the S6 Avant, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that an S6 avant MIGHT be close enough in price to the allroad 4.2 to even further the argument -- why bother. I have owned 1 S6 (1995) have driven both S4 sedans and an S6 Avant -- and the S6 is as different from my A6 4.2 as the A6 4.2 is from the A6 2.7T -- which is to say substantive.
As they say, to each his/her own: but, without driving it -- and that may totally change my opinion -- and with a minimum price difference of $5K, with all due respect, I don't see the value.
Now, the sound of the V8 is as I said compelling -- but in the same spirit that I rarely drag race -- under "normal accelerative" conditions, the sweet sound of the 4.2 is muffled (a lot). And, in the 2.7T allroad, the isolation from all sounds -- road, wind and engine -- is high. The characterization of the 2.7T engine that you have given may very well be true -- but it is difficult to hear its deficiencies due to the sound isolation the allroad provides (at least when compared to my 2001 A6 4.2 -- which, relatively speaking, made one far more aware of engine and road "noise" -- calling the 4.2 engine sound "noise" is difficult, the sound it is so sweet).
Smoothness, yep, the 4.2 is somewhat smoother -- but again the allroad has damn good isolation, the main lack of smoothness seems to be mainly coming through the shift mechanism, not via the "ear" or through the souls of the shoes.
I hope you are right, too, about the allroad's future -- all the "car press" seems to think that Audi is going to get rid of the allroad in favor of a "proper" SUV. More's the pity.
In summary -- your facts are impossible to dispute and your opinions and your reasons for them, as I said, are pretty easy to agree with -- overall (mostly, not entirely that is). I still feel that the relative lack of differentiation between the written word (as thus far we cannot drive them back to back for comparative purposes) concerning the allroad 2.7T vs 4.2 hardly justifies the price (increase of the 4.2 in an allroad), when for another "bump up" one could be driving an S6 avant.
But, this point assumes that jacking up the allroad to level 4 and going off road is something that someone who would pursue owning a 4.2 allroad would rarely, if ever, even attempt.
I have no intention of off roading in mine, and probably would have gone for an A6 4.2 sedan with sport package and 6 spd manual -- IF only one were but available.
In some form, then, the 2.7T allroad is -- slightly -- quicker than the 4.2 -- and considering that many of the differences [you cited, for example] are very subtle -- the 4.2 seems to be disadvantaged and at a hell of a premium for such small/subtle differences. I presume the 18" 4.2 wheels can be fitted to the 2.7T even further reducing the visual cues otherwise available (unlike the standard saloon A6 2.7T vs 4.2's).
This does not mean I would kick one out of bed for bringing crackers -- hell, I'd bring the crackers! Next time, I'll go with an S6 (avant or saloon) which will probably -- by then -- have that dandy new 6spd tip as standard equipment. So many Audis so little time.
About 6 months later the phone rang and my new babies were in for my inspection. I opted for the 4.2 Audi A6 for many of the reasons you cite in your two posts. But, the A6 4.2 and A6 2.7T were (and are still I suspect -- as of the 2003 model year) much different from each other, look much different than each other and, the V8 sound is -- well, compelling.
I traded the 2000 A6 in on a 2001 (that I also special ordered) for one main reason and one "subordinate" reason -- main: ESP, subordinate "sport package and sat nav."
I enjoyed my 4.2's very much. I would recommend a 4.2 engined A6 over the 2.7T (at least as of model year 2002, not having driven a 2003 version of either car). I have opined way too long and often here and on edmunds about the differences between the two cars, even though the A6 2.7T apples to apples, i.e., w/tip is "quicker" than the A6 4.2 (also tip).
The original posting that I responded to -- 4.2 VS 2.7 -- did mention acceleration. And my response was, in part meant to point out (whether apples and apples or tip and tip) that in some configuration the 2.7T could be quicker (stock) and could be relatively easily modified to be quicker still (and what I have read about the mods that are or can be done to tiptronic versions of the 2.7T still would improve it over the 4.2 allroad).
The key reason for my apparently provocative title "why bother" is that the allroad for model year 2003 with the 2.7T and the 4.2 engines are virtually identical. This, in my experience was (is) not the case with the A6 line.
An allroad starts its life the same way regardless of the engine that is utimately put under its bonnet. And, if performance (granted who would "drag race" one often or seriously) was an issue, and if money is an object, the differences you cited (which I grant are real, are substantive, etc) MAY not be worth it.
Based on the heavy discounts available on the S6 Avant, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that an S6 avant MIGHT be close enough in price to the allroad 4.2 to even further the argument -- why bother. I have owned 1 S6 (1995) have driven both S4 sedans and an S6 Avant -- and the S6 is as different from my A6 4.2 as the A6 4.2 is from the A6 2.7T -- which is to say substantive.
As they say, to each his/her own: but, without driving it -- and that may totally change my opinion -- and with a minimum price difference of $5K, with all due respect, I don't see the value.
Now, the sound of the V8 is as I said compelling -- but in the same spirit that I rarely drag race -- under "normal accelerative" conditions, the sweet sound of the 4.2 is muffled (a lot). And, in the 2.7T allroad, the isolation from all sounds -- road, wind and engine -- is high. The characterization of the 2.7T engine that you have given may very well be true -- but it is difficult to hear its deficiencies due to the sound isolation the allroad provides (at least when compared to my 2001 A6 4.2 -- which, relatively speaking, made one far more aware of engine and road "noise" -- calling the 4.2 engine sound "noise" is difficult, the sound it is so sweet).
Smoothness, yep, the 4.2 is somewhat smoother -- but again the allroad has damn good isolation, the main lack of smoothness seems to be mainly coming through the shift mechanism, not via the "ear" or through the souls of the shoes.
I hope you are right, too, about the allroad's future -- all the "car press" seems to think that Audi is going to get rid of the allroad in favor of a "proper" SUV. More's the pity.
In summary -- your facts are impossible to dispute and your opinions and your reasons for them, as I said, are pretty easy to agree with -- overall (mostly, not entirely that is). I still feel that the relative lack of differentiation between the written word (as thus far we cannot drive them back to back for comparative purposes) concerning the allroad 2.7T vs 4.2 hardly justifies the price (increase of the 4.2 in an allroad), when for another "bump up" one could be driving an S6 avant.
But, this point assumes that jacking up the allroad to level 4 and going off road is something that someone who would pursue owning a 4.2 allroad would rarely, if ever, even attempt.
I have no intention of off roading in mine, and probably would have gone for an A6 4.2 sedan with sport package and 6 spd manual -- IF only one were but available.
In some form, then, the 2.7T allroad is -- slightly -- quicker than the 4.2 -- and considering that many of the differences [you cited, for example] are very subtle -- the 4.2 seems to be disadvantaged and at a hell of a premium for such small/subtle differences. I presume the 18" 4.2 wheels can be fitted to the 2.7T even further reducing the visual cues otherwise available (unlike the standard saloon A6 2.7T vs 4.2's).
This does not mean I would kick one out of bed for bringing crackers -- hell, I'd bring the crackers! Next time, I'll go with an S6 (avant or saloon) which will probably -- by then -- have that dandy new 6spd tip as standard equipment. So many Audis so little time.
