used A6? need advice

Wed Aug 31 12:30:38 EDT 2005

I have a '96 A6q Avant with about 110k miles.  It's an auto, obvioulsy, with all the normal bells and whistles.  I've put on about 20k miles on it and so far so good.  No real issues other than the ignition switch being replaced.  It is heavy so gas mileage isn't stellar, but we get 23mpg on the highway and 20 in mixed driving.  My only complaint is that it's noisier than I anticipated it would be.  It has new Nokian WR's so I know it's not the tires.  The suspension is sagging, but I'll get to that someday.  The tranny is underwhelming.  They shift from 1st to 2nd at about 3 mph.  Unless you're really giving the boot.  On the highway, the power is sufficient and passing is accomplished with ease.

Check out 12v.org for differences in the 2.8s.  I believe '96 was the final "upgrade" and seems to have some advantages over earlier models.

As a reference, my tolerance for Audi-induced pain is based on the ownership of a '91 90q20v (gone) and a '99 A4 1.8tq Avant.

So far, this one has probably caused the least amount of grief.

Hope that helps.

Joel

> 
> From: Kent McLean <kentmclean at mindspring.com>
> Date: 2005/08/29 Mon PM 07:32:16 CDT
> To: Keith Lawyer <LawyerKG at co.laplata.co.us>
> CC: quattro at audifans.com
> Subject: Re: used A6? need advice
> 
> Keith Lawyer wrote:
>  > Anyone have input on the '96 A6 in question?
> 
> No, but I'll give you my 2 cents.  I bought a '94 100 S Avant
> a year ago with 137K miles on it.  It needed a new ECU and
> wiring due to a water leak (clogged drains in under hood plenum)
> that corroded them.
> 
> I fixed that and put over 15K miles on it since then.  The *only*
> thing I've had to replace (other than the ECU) was a left front
> control arm, which didn't pass state safety inspection last month.
> And now it needs a new ignition switch.
> 
> Compared to my Type 44, it has been very reliable.  My '94 is a
> front wheel drive automatic, but my reading of the list makes
> me believe the C4 bodied Audis (92-97 100/A6) are much more
> reliable than the Type 44 in general.  The early V8s had
> automatic transmission trouble, as did the early 1990's 100
> (turbo, front wheel drive).  But I think the '92- automatics
> are much better in that regard. I've had no trouble with
> mine.
> 
> That said, the 1996 is a (almost) 10 year old used car.  Don't
> expect it to be perfect.  But I also wouldn't expect it to be
> Type 44 unreliable.
> 
> --
> Kent McLean
> '94 100 S Avant, "Moody"
> '89 200 TQ, "Bad Puppy" up in smoke
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> 