ROAD&TRACK ( "compare 11sports sedans ...")02 Audi A4 3.0 $38,410 as tested, finished 5th...
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
ROAD&TRACK ( "compare 11sports sedans ...")02 Audi A4 3.0 $38,410 as tested, finished 5th...
Lexis IS 300 third (as tested $36,014), BMW 330i, ($39,519) second although all the testers thought it was the best but gave it second-go figure, and Infiniti G35 ($31,820) first. There were three cars over $40,000 in the test. The Jaguar X-Type 3.0 highest at $46,510, Mercedes C320 Sport at $44,412 and the Saab 9-5 Aero at $40,412. All prices were as tested. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the A6 2.7T could have been an acceptable admission, (although it would have had the highest base price,) to the group instead of the A4, and then where would the chips have fallen?
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Are you refering to the comparo a while back
thought R&T were right on about the comments. The A4 feels a bit numb in that group while the both interior and exterior stood out and would be the first choice if that is the area of main priority. However, it's surprising that the Saab finished ahead. You're right about squeezing the A6 with 2.7t in; especially the 03 model with standard sport package would greatly strength its standing in both handling and acceleration but I am happy A6 is not in compared in that class.
New Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
A6 in different category with 5 series and E class...
the day they start comparing the A6 to the 3 or c series is the day Audi is in real trouble! Also, following your argument, a BMW 525 would also qualify.
2002 A6 4.2 Sport
2002 A6 4.2 Sport
AudiWorld Super User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 1
The 4.2/2.7T A6s made their 10 Best list on a prior year.
<ul><li><a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2227&p age_number=1">C&D 10 Best 2000</a></li></ul>
New Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Really?
Never heard of that comparo. If so, makes absoultely no sense as they are two different class of cars. Also sort of an insult if you ask me. The A6 is supposed to go against 5 and E and comparing it to the 330 is another way of saying the A6 is such a pos compared to the 5 and E we may as well see how does in a lower class. I am not too convinced that R&T actually did such a comparo. Although I could be wrong as I normallyn am.
2002 A6 4.2 Sport
2002 A6 4.2 Sport
Trending Topics
New Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Saab
The 9-5 Aero compares in size to the A6 so why is IT in this test? BTW, I cross-shopped the 9-5 before getting the A6 and the Saab salesman who saw this article wrote me an "I told you so" e-mail suggesting I should have bought the Saab. Apparently, he didn't know the difference between an A4 and an A6 or didn't listen to me, and I didn't bother enlightening the jerk.
DW
DW
AudiWorld Stories
Bringing Audi to Life for Audi Fans
10 Strangest Audi Designs That Actually Made Production
Joe Kucinski
2027 Audi Q7 and SQ7: Audi Upgraded EVERYTHING!
Michael S. Palmer
Audi Unveils Absurdly Cool New Supercar: 10 Things You Need to Know!
Verdad Gallardo
The Highs & Lows of Every Audi C-Class Generation
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Audis Ever Sold on Bring-A-Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Audi Features & Options We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Audi Recreates Crazy-Looking Speed Record Breaker From 1935
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilder Recreates the 1995 Audi TTS Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Every Audi V10 Car Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
Craggy Old Man
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,643
Likes: 0
Found this post from Finman about it, couldnt get a url for it.
Damn Motor Trend...
User account number (aid): 12452 [admin]
Posting IP Address: 198.26.130.38
Posted by Finman on 2001-04-04 11:13:46
These ***-clowns did it again. This time they compare the 2.7T against a bunch of cars that are smaller than it is and not direct competitors. Plus, they test the sport package with the 16 inch wheels, not the 17s and then complain that the tires suck. They did the same thing with the 4.2 last year testing the non-sport with the crappy 16s and then bitched about how flabby the tires and suspension were.
The 2.7T should not be put up against:
Acura TL-Type S--Ok, similar size and power, I'll give 'em that one.
BMW 330i: should have been the 530
Volvo S60: should have been the S80
Saab 9-3 Viggen: should have been the 9-5 Viggen
MB C320: should have been the E320
User account number (aid): 12452 [admin]
Posting IP Address: 198.26.130.38
Posted by Finman on 2001-04-04 11:13:46
These ***-clowns did it again. This time they compare the 2.7T against a bunch of cars that are smaller than it is and not direct competitors. Plus, they test the sport package with the 16 inch wheels, not the 17s and then complain that the tires suck. They did the same thing with the 4.2 last year testing the non-sport with the crappy 16s and then bitched about how flabby the tires and suspension were.
The 2.7T should not be put up against:
Acura TL-Type S--Ok, similar size and power, I'll give 'em that one.
BMW 330i: should have been the 530
Volvo S60: should have been the S80
Saab 9-3 Viggen: should have been the 9-5 Viggen
MB C320: should have been the E320
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LCP
A6 / S6 (C6 Platform) Discussion
6
Apr 1, 2005 03:34 PM
richb
A6 / S6 (C5 Platform) Discussion
10
Apr 13, 2002 09:28 PM
Bada Bing
A6 / S6 (C5 Platform) Discussion
14
Aug 11, 2001 10:56 AM
