CTC Review: 2009 Audi A6 3.0T

[vdk]

My point is that it is hardly "bashing" to point to specific examples of horrible Audi reliability.  If you would like to read more than one example, just go to the moan and whine section. 

I found 1. So now there's 2. Anything else you might want to add?

Just that I hope you now understand that it's not "bashing" a car to point to specific examples of poor reliability.  Did you read the one about the guy whose father's car spent the better part of three weeks in the shop for a single repair?

Hey, you asked. 

Jaeger

Yes but extending the poor reliability of 2 models to an entire lineup is 'bashing' IMO.  And 3 issues in almost 4 years doesn't strike me as utterly unreliable.

Also, 'He told me he's never had service like this before, he feels like a king.  Always a car waiting for him to drive to work when it's in for service, he has an espresso in the morning etc.'

[Jaeger]

My point is that it is hardly "bashing" to point to specific examples of horrible Audi reliability.  If you would like to read more than one example, just go to the moan and whine section. 

I found 1. So now there's 2. Anything else you might want to add?

Just that I hope you now understand that it's not "bashing" a car to point to specific examples of poor reliability.  Did you read the one about the guy whose father's car spent the better part of three weeks in the shop for a single repair?

Hey, you asked. 

Jaeger

Yes but extending the poor reliability of 2 models to an entire lineup is 'bashing' IMO.  And 3 issues in almost 4 years doesn't strike me as utterly unreliable.

Also, 'He told me he's never had service like this before, he feels like a king.  Always a car waiting for him to drive to work when it's in for service, he has an espresso in the morning etc.'

Well, if you think that VW / Audi's spotty rep for reliability hangs on but two examples....

Even the blowhard Audi fan posting earlier about "who cares about reliability" seems to acknowledge that it is an issue - just not one of concern to the well-heeled driving purists that purchase these automotive wonders.

Jaeger

[vdk]

I'm sure we gathered about 10 VWs that have been decently reliable on that City Golf thread. 

It's not what it used to be, get over it people.

[vdk]

James, how would you compare this supercharged V6 with BMW's turbo 6?

[carcrazy]

I'm sure we gathered about 10 VWs that have been decently reliable on that City Golf thread. 

It's not what it used to be, get over it people.

This is the same as people thinking that Honda and Toyota reliability is bulletproof and they are the only reliable cars on Earth. It takes time to change the perception.

[Mitlov]

Well, if you think that VW / Audi's spotty rep for reliability hangs on but two examples....

Even the blowhard Audi fan posting earlier about "who cares about reliability" seems to acknowledge that it is an issue - just not one of concern to the well-heeled driving purists that purchase these automotive wonders.

Jaeger

There's not one "VW/Audi reliability."  It depends on the model.  You just can't compare a Rabbit and an A8 and a Gallardo and assume that they're similar reliability-wise because they're products of the same parent company.  That would be like judging a GT-R's reliability based upon a Nissan Frontier (or vice versa), which wouldn't be accurate at all.

From what I remember from Consumer Reports, the bottom-end VW models are actually doing quite well reliability-wise, and the A4 is average.  As you climb in complexity (i.e., price), reliability declines.

There's not a doubt in my mind that the A6 is less reliable than a GS.  However, from the reviews I've read, it's much more exciting dynamically than the GS and comparable luxury-wise.  So it depends on your particular priorities are.  So long as we don't all have the same priorities, it's good that not all car companies make cars with the same priorities.

What I will say is that I don't believe that the stereotype that VW/Audi is worse than BMW or Mercedes is accurate anymore.  If I recall correctly in Consumer Reports, the 3-Series has a slight advantage over the A4 and C-Class, but otherwise, comparably-priced models are comparable in reliability as well.

[jack695]

I've owned 2 audis in the last 7 years and i'll never own another.  I bought both brand new and they're the least reliable vehicles i've ever owned (worse than my 2001 chrysler sebring).  Audi can't even build reliable n/a engines- god help us with these supercharged ones. (3.0 T  -news flash T is for Turbo but what do you expect from a company that builds cars that randomly accelerate on their own (60 minutes in the 1980's).

[Mitlov]

I've owned 2 audis in the last 7 years and i'll never own another.  I bought both brand new and they're the least reliable vehicles i've ever owned (worse than my 2001 chrysler sebring).  Audi can't even build reliable n/a engines- god help us with these supercharged ones. (3.0 T  -news flash T is for Turbo but what do you expect from a company that builds cars that randomly accelerate on their own (60 minutes in the 1980's).

Oh for the love of god.  If you don't want to buy an Audi because you're once-burned, twice-shy, that's great.  I can understand that.  But don't get into the "unintended acceleration" fiasco. 

First of all, that 60 Minutes report was based entirely upon owner reports.  No mechanical explanation was ever found, except for plain old driver error (pedals placed closer to each other than in domestic cars).  Not surprisingly, no incidences of "unintended acceleration" were ever reported in Europe, where people are used to this closer pedal arrangement.  Incidences of "unintended acceleration" have also been directed at the Prius and Tacoma recently, and you know what?  Once again, it turned out to be the accelerator pedal being depressed (these times by a floor mat creeping forward). 

Even if the "unintended acceleration" fiasco wasn't media-induced hysteria with no mechanical truth, that was thirty years ago.  Would you also turn your nose up at the Hyundai Genesis based upon the Hyundai Pony.

[Jaeger]

I've owned 2 audis in the last 7 years and i'll never own another.  I bought both brand new and they're the least reliable vehicles i've ever owned (worse than my 2001 chrysler sebring).  Audi can't even build reliable n/a engines- god help us with these supercharged ones. (3.0 T  -news flash T is for Turbo but what do you expect from a company that builds cars that randomly accelerate on their own (60 minutes in the 1980's).

Well, that makes 4.  No doubt these 4 are the only bad apples - all the rest are surely brilliant.

But dude - you need to get up to date on your facts.  The allegations of unintended acceleration were completely BOGUS.  There are a myriad of ways that an Audi will leave you stranded, but they won't go charging into a brick wall of their own volition.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

There's not a doubt in my mind that the A6 is less reliable than a GS.  However, from the reviews I've read, it's much more exciting dynamically than the GS and comparable luxury-wise.  So it depends on your particular priorities are.  So long as we don't all have the same priorities, it's good that not all car companies make cars with the same priorities.

To my way of thinking, reliability SHOULD be among the very highest priorities for any car manufacturer.  It's not like there is any inconsistency - from a manufacturing standpoint - between making a car that is fun to drive and making a car that is reliable to operate - so it's not really a question of priorities.  To suggest such is to join ranks with our blowhard Audi driver who scoffs at any mention of reliability as being beneath the consideration of a driving purist.  Which is, of course, utter drivel.  How much driving enjoyment do you get stranded on the side of the road waiting for the flatbed to arrive?

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

[carcrazy]

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

Do you really believe that " ...it tends to shift a little roughly..." means that A6's tranny is rought-shifting? 

[Jaeger]

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

Do you really believe that " ...it tends to shift a little roughly..." means that A6's tranny is rought-shifting? 

Hey chuckles, I quoted the article directly for a reason.  I don't know how rough it is  - not that there is any way to quantify that - but when a transmission is described as having "positive and negative" tendencies - and the NEGATIVE come into play pretty much ALL THE TIME - that's not good.     And in a car that costs $74k - that's really not good. In my opinion.

Jaeger

[carcrazy]

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

Do you really believe that " ...it tends to shift a little roughly..." means that A6's tranny is rought-shifting? 

Hey chuckles, I quoted the article for a reason.  I don't know how rough it is  - not that there is any way to quantify that - but when a transmission is described as having "positive and negative" tendencies - and the NEGATIVE come into play pretty much ALL THE TIME - that's not good.    

Jaeger

Yeah, but without knowing how rough it is you already assumed that it "must suck for A6 owners".

[Mitlov]

To my way of thinking, reliability SHOULD be among the very highest priorities for any car manufacturer.  It's not like there is any inconsistency - from a manufacturing standpoint - between making a car that is fun to drive and making a car that is reliable to operate - so it's not really a question of priorities.

I disagree.  You've got a certain amount of money to spend on R&D.  Every dollar you spend on laboratory tests subjecting the electrical system or the transmission to extreme endurance testing is, necessarily, one less dollar to spend on a handling track, tweaking suspension, steering feel, chassis design, etc.  This isn't a situation where any company could make a car superb at absolutely everything, and some simply lack the gumption to try.  Instead, think of having several baskets--handling, speed, luxury, reliability, etc--and a finite number of eggs to allocate between the baskets.

Think about the luxury sports cars with best-in-class reliability--cars like the G35 and the GS--and you'll often see them lagging their less-reliable competitors in other areas.  The G35 lags behind its Teutonic competitors in refinement (particularly the first-gen); the GS in handling.  That doesn't mean they're worse--for many people those are better set of compromises than an E-Class or a 3-Series--it just means they're made with a different set of priorities.

To suggest such is to join ranks with our blowhard Audi driver who scoffs at any mention of reliability as being beneath the consideration of a driving purist.  Which is, of course, utter drivel.

The world is not black and white.  Is this a game of "you're either with me or against me"?  What the blowhard said and what I said are very, very different.  I never said that emphasizing reliability is "beneath" anybody.  I said different people have different priorities, and car makers make cars with different priorities.  No value judgment there whatever.  

How much driving enjoyment do you get stranded on the side of the road waiting for the flatbed to arrive?

This is what everyone said when I sold an 18-month-old Subaru to buy a 3-year-old Jetta.  You know what?  Getting stranded does suck.  Going to the shop for unexpected maintenance does suck.  But contrary to assertions made on message boards, it's not an everyday occurrence.  I've never been stranded, but I have had to go to the shop for unexpected maintenance (which admittedly may have been caused by the REVO ECU chip and not a stock VW part), whereas my Legacy never had to go to the shop for anything but oil changes.  And you know what?  For me, the big smile the VeeDub puts on my face every time I drive it outweighs the one day of frustration in the past two years.

Reliability isn't an all-or-nothing thing.  You can't divide the world into "cars that don't break down" and "cars that do."  It's a spectrum, and honestly, even the worst end of the spectrum is pretty good compared to what people put up with decades ago.  So it's not a question of "do you care about reliability or not."  There's not a single person out there who would say "not."  It's a game of "you've got a dozen eggs to distribute to all your car's virtues; how many go in the reliability basket?"  Not everyone has the same answer to that question.

[Jaeger]

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

Do you really believe that " ...it tends to shift a little roughly..." means that A6's tranny is rought-shifting? 

Hey chuckles, I quoted the article for a reason.  I don't know how rough it is  - not that there is any way to quantify that - but when a transmission is described as having "positive and negative" tendencies - and the NEGATIVE come into play pretty much ALL THE TIME - that's not good.    

Jaeger

Yeah, but without knowing how rough it is you already assumed that it "must suck for A6 owners".

Well, I DO think it would suck to own a $74k premium sport / luxury sedan and have it shift roughly (however exactly roughly that is) in entirely common driving circumstances.  It's not like it is reported to shift a little roughly from 4 th to 5th at redline / max-throttle.  We're talking about a day-in-day-out situation, here.  You may have a different opinion as to the likely suckage of that deal - and that's fine.  The opinion I was offering is my own.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

Mitlov - let me put it this way - I probably wouldn't buy a car from a manufacturer in respect of which relaibility wasn't a very high priority.

And frankly - I think it IS a very high priority for every manfacturer - just that some are better at it than others.  The excuse of focussing more on performance or whatever is just that - an excuse for those that don't do as well in this area. 

If you can find me a quote from any large market manufacturer who doesn't describe reliability as being among their highest priorities or says that "At X brand, reliability takes a back seat to driving thrills!"  I'm all ears.

Jaeger

[carcrazy]

Returning to the article if I may:

"The six-speed tiptronic transmission has both positive and negative traits. Drive sedately and it tends to shift a little roughly, especially between first and second gear as you stop and start at intersections. Drive with vigour, though, and this engine and transmission combo come alive with quick, smooth shifts that nearly rival Audi’s own DSG gearbox."

That's kind of a big negative isn't it - a rough-shifting tranny when driven sedately and especially between 1st and 2nd approaching and departing from intersections?  Must suck for A6 owners who aren't canyon-blasting and apex-clipping for the majority of their driving time.  Which I guess would be most of them.

Jaeger

Do you really believe that " ...it tends to shift a little roughly..." means that A6's tranny is rought-shifting? 

Hey chuckles, I quoted the article for a reason.  I don't know how rough it is  - not that there is any way to quantify that - but when a transmission is described as having "positive and negative" tendencies - and the NEGATIVE come into play pretty much ALL THE TIME - that's not good.    

Jaeger

Yeah, but without knowing how rough it is you already assumed that it "must suck for A6 owners".

Well, I DO think it would suck to own a $74k premium sport / luxury sedan and have it shift roughly (however exactly roughly that is) in entirely common driving circumstances.  It's not like it is reported to shift a little roughly from 4 th to 5th at redline / max-throttle.  We're talking about a day-in-day-out situation, here.  You may have a different opinion as to the likely suckage of that deal - and that's fine.  The opinion I was offering is my own.

Jaeger

I would agree with you that it would suck for the tranny to shift rough in such a car, but is this the case? Is this what Wing meant? Perhaps he can chime in and qualify his statement.
However, if all he meant is that you can perceive the 1-2 gear shift versus the other gear shifts, I wouldn't care about one bit.

[Mitlov]

Mitlov - let me put it this way - I probably wouldn't buy a car from a manufacturer in respect of which relaibility wasn't a very high priority.

That's fine.  But quit pretending that everyone with different priorities is wrong or a fanboy.

And frankly - I think it IS a very high priority for every manfacturer - just that some are better at it than others.  

Okay, here's our disconnect.  You think that there are good car companies and bad car companies.  I think that there are car companies that emphasize X and car companies that emphasize Y , and in some cases car companies with more resources to pull from and car companies with less, but not car companies that are "better" or "worse" than other car companies when they put equal resources towards a problem.  Those are fundamentally different views of the auto industry.

If you can find me a quote from any large market manufacturer who doesn't describe reliability as being among their highest priorities or says that "At X brand, reliability takes a back seat to driving thrills!"  I'm all ears.

I don't recall Lexus advertising that the GS has worst-in-class handling.  I don't recall Infiniti advertising the VQ's relative lack of refinement over a BMW inline-six.  Why do you think that Audi would advertise that they put fewer eggs in the reliability basket than Lexus or Infiniti?  Every manufacturer claims to put maximum emphasis on every single characteristic of the car, even though nobody actually builds a car that's "the best" at everything.

[Feds]

Just so I am clear on this DSG thing:

In exchange for more of my money, I get less reliability, less driving satisfaction, and less smoothness than a traditional manual, while getting more distraction, less smoothness, and more wear items then a traditional automatic?

Where do I sign?

[Oz]

Just so I am clear on this DSG thing:

In exchange for more of my money, I get less reliability, less driving satisfaction, and less smoothness than a traditional manual, while getting more distraction, less smoothness, and more wear items then a traditional automatic?

Where do I sign?

Huh? Where did it say DSG was going to make the tranny unreliable?

If anything it makes the car much more fun to drive.