4.2 VS 2.7
12-03-2002, 11:19 AM
#21
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous conversation, the guess a was a $7k difference for comparibly equipped vehicles...
<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/allroad/msgs/31866.phtml">4.2 price vs 2.7 price</a></li></ul>
12-03-2002, 11:22 AM
#22
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah...I definitely agree with the differences you note...
between the 2.7T and 4.2 A6, and the 4.2 A6 and the S6. Having both at the same time, I can easily appreciate the very substantial difference between the '01 4.2 and the '02 S6...although I paid for that difference (~$14k out the door difference). Now, that difference would be ~$7-8k if one were willing to take an '02 S6, or ~$10-11k for an '03 S6...(gas-guzzler tax, lux tax, and the difference in sales tax is still pretty substantial)...depending on the options chosen.
Another huge difference between the A6 4.2 vs 2.7T comparison, and the allroad comparison is that with the A6, in addition to the sweeter engine, you also (very importantly) get the big fenders and the bulkier and burlier front end and grille...this "improvement" is not there for the allroad...The fenders and front end of the 4.2 A6 was worth the $6k difference alone! (for me). That is actually one of my only "peeves" about the allroad...the front end and grille...it has that small, wimpy, roundish grille...I really like the squared off, bolder grille and I think the allroad would look better with that...but...
I would love to have an allroad...because I really like the idea of it for ski-expeditions...not really off-roading, as I'd still prefer a Land Rover Discovery or Defender for that. The S6 and 4.2 do very well in the snow with snow-tires...but I don't really like taking them through the sandy-gritty muck on the roads...too much damage, plus if the snow is very deep, the 4.2 sport and S6 sit too low...but so far I've managed (I've taken the Outback on days that were really nasty and deep).
Another huge difference between the A6 4.2 vs 2.7T comparison, and the allroad comparison is that with the A6, in addition to the sweeter engine, you also (very importantly) get the big fenders and the bulkier and burlier front end and grille...this "improvement" is not there for the allroad...The fenders and front end of the 4.2 A6 was worth the $6k difference alone! (for me). That is actually one of my only "peeves" about the allroad...the front end and grille...it has that small, wimpy, roundish grille...I really like the squared off, bolder grille and I think the allroad would look better with that...but...
I would love to have an allroad...because I really like the idea of it for ski-expeditions...not really off-roading, as I'd still prefer a Land Rover Discovery or Defender for that. The S6 and 4.2 do very well in the snow with snow-tires...but I don't really like taking them through the sandy-gritty muck on the roads...too much damage, plus if the snow is very deep, the 4.2 sport and S6 sit too low...but so far I've managed (I've taken the Outback on days that were really nasty and deep).
12-03-2002, 11:30 AM
#24
Re: Is this $6-$8K "upgrade" based on a basic or loaded 2.7?
My dealer said that the 03 allroad that I bought (which at MSRP, was north of $49,000) would be "probably $6 or 7K more" as a 4.2 car.
My aftermarket tire upgrade and full-paint treatment added an additional $2540 -- again at MSRP. The 4.2 full paint option is $1995, I paid $1640 without "full paint" on the roof or rocker panels, but WITH full paint on the bumbers. The extra cost to paint the roof etc, was $260 which is close enough to the factory option's cost to make it comparable.
After all was said and done then, my car at MSRP was $52,090 (I did receive a decent discount, btw). A "comparable" 4.2 allroad, would be, then, about $6K more -- Finman and others see the value, and for them it DOES represent value; I don't see it -- heck they were discounting S6's (2002's granted) fully loaded to about the price of the allroad 4.2 (plus change back from your $60,000 bill!).
My aftermarket tire upgrade and full-paint treatment added an additional $2540 -- again at MSRP. The 4.2 full paint option is $1995, I paid $1640 without "full paint" on the roof or rocker panels, but WITH full paint on the bumbers. The extra cost to paint the roof etc, was $260 which is close enough to the factory option's cost to make it comparable.
After all was said and done then, my car at MSRP was $52,090 (I did receive a decent discount, btw). A "comparable" 4.2 allroad, would be, then, about $6K more -- Finman and others see the value, and for them it DOES represent value; I don't see it -- heck they were discounting S6's (2002's granted) fully loaded to about the price of the allroad 4.2 (plus change back from your $60,000 bill!).
12-03-2002, 11:39 AM
#25
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it's not a big jump to a 2002 S6...
Invoice for a 2002 S6 is $55k (no options) to $60k (all options). Invoice is about all a reasonable person can expect to get one for, although a few people have reported nabbing there's for $1-2k under invoice (the dealers in NorCal are not interested in that kind of deal, that I've seen)...
So, a well optioned 4.2 allroad may well sticker in the $57k range...with discount down to $54 or so...so a bump to a one-year old S6 is not much of a stretch...(so little so, in fact, I've considered trading my '01 4.2 in on another S6!)...
So, a well optioned 4.2 allroad may well sticker in the $57k range...with discount down to $54 or so...so a bump to a one-year old S6 is not much of a stretch...(so little so, in fact, I've considered trading my '01 4.2 in on another S6!)...
12-03-2002, 12:21 PM
#26
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nevada
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget altitude effects
An engine with turbo loses little power at altitude up to 7000 ft. By 5000 ft a non-turbo engine can lose as much as 20%.
Only an issue if you spend much time in the mtns..
Only an issue if you spend much time in the mtns..
12-03-2002, 01:02 PM
#29
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well,
Technically, Fairfield is North Bay...Vacaville is valley...but they are just a couple miles from each other (or really they touch...but the "towns" are several miles away)...
45 miles from SF city...(the sticks, no DSL, no cable modems!!!)
45 miles from SF city...(the sticks, no DSL, no cable modems!!!)
12-03-2002, 01:25 PM
#30
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is 100mph the magical number where smaller engines suddenly lose all races to bigger engines?
It's often quoted on this sight that one's heavier, larger displacement car will kick a$$ if let loose on the Utah Salt Flats...
Is this really more practical than low 0-60 times? Personally, I'd rather get up to speed quickly when accellerating from an on-ramp into a break in traffic, than I would cruise at 162.5 on the highway.
And, why do we always claim that a 4.2 will win any race over 100mph against a 2.7t? It's fairly common in racing, for the smaller engined vehicles to use higher corner exit speed to compensate for lesser accelleration down a straight. Said another way, the bigger engined car must have <b>significantly</b> more accelleration at high speed to compensate for less accelleration (or corner speed) at low speed.
I've yet to find a use for the 165mph top speed of my bike... but the 3.0s 0-60 has been fairly handy around town. =)
Of course, none of this really applies to the light-weight allroad 4.2... at least, not if compared to a tiptronic allroad 2.7t. I suppose this is a more appropriate discussion for the A6 forum. Sorry for babbling. =)
Is this really more practical than low 0-60 times? Personally, I'd rather get up to speed quickly when accellerating from an on-ramp into a break in traffic, than I would cruise at 162.5 on the highway.
And, why do we always claim that a 4.2 will win any race over 100mph against a 2.7t? It's fairly common in racing, for the smaller engined vehicles to use higher corner exit speed to compensate for lesser accelleration down a straight. Said another way, the bigger engined car must have <b>significantly</b> more accelleration at high speed to compensate for less accelleration (or corner speed) at low speed.
I've yet to find a use for the 165mph top speed of my bike... but the 3.0s 0-60 has been fairly handy around town. =)
Of course, none of this really applies to the light-weight allroad 4.2... at least, not if compared to a tiptronic allroad 2.7t. I suppose this is a more appropriate discussion for the A6 forum. Sorry for babbling. =)