95 S6 Test Drive Results

[Brett Dikeman]

At 12:50 PM -0500 1/2/02, Bill Rowe wrote:
>Test drove a 95 S6 sedan w/ 160k miles a few days ago and was quite
>disappointed.  Car was in good shape all around but I wasn't impressed
>w/ the additional 60+ hp over my 5k.
>   My 87 5kcstq w/ 160k miles and
>only mod being a stiffer wastegate spring felt just as fast.  Were my
>expectations unreasonable or is there something wrong w/ the S6?
>Without a turbo gauge it was tough to tell how much boost it was
>generating.

The S6 is much heavier, but sounds like maybe something isn't quite
right.  A stock S6 should be still be noticeably faster...the 20vt
has a lot more low end torque, and spool up should be much quicker
thanks to a smaller turbo.  There is a short period of overboost as
well in the AAN.  I don't know how "detectable" it is, but if it
wasn't there, chances are you were not getting the full monty.  Maybe
someone filled it up with a load of 87 octane(unlikely, but possible)
and the ECU knocked boost levels down.

It is also a much more refined car, so speeds will not feel the same.
Many new 20vt owners comment that on highways etc, they get going a
lot faster than they thought they had.  I experienced this...for the
first few months, I'd go to pass someone on the highway, finish the
pass, and look down...yikes...the 200q20v is also much more put
together at speed than the 5k was...

Without pulling codes, running the output tests etc, it'd be hard to
say.  If you felt the car was in good shape cosmetically and asking
price was about right, have an independent mechanic check it out, see
what they say.


B
--
----
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/bdikeman.asc	(PGP Public Key)