I figured you understood, but your post was a great opportunity to explain why a 20" on an A8 will drive smoother than a 18" on a 335. Put the 20" (with the correctly sized tires for the BMW) on the 335 and you won't be able to drive a mile before all your teeth fall out and your car rattles apart.

 

We Audi guys refer to those large grilles as the "trout mouth". It's a love it or hate it kind of thing. My dad hates it but I like it. It's a pretty big, dominant part of the front end so it kind of spoils the car for some people.

Wait until the S6 goes for sale. Similar motor to the new merc 4.6tt. Audi's will be a 4.0 Twin Turbo FSI with ~450hp.

 

I gotta say, the S6 adds some necessary flavor to the A6 body, and balances it out to look pretty damn nice.

I actually really appreciate the smooth and clean/classy design of the A6 (save for the front end perhaps), and feel that it is very similar in character to the F10 (elegant, almost interchangeable from the smaller/bigger models below/above it), clean, classy, etc.). Although I feel that neither are as dynamic or interesting (or even fussy) as the E-Class.

To spice up this spicy Thread, what would you guys choose if you had to choose one car, between the new A6 and the F10 5-Series (pretending the E-Class didn't exist, as well know that it's the best choice, obviously )? Saying equal "competing" equipped models.

 

A lot of manufacturers are now offering more attractive lease rates on the shorter term leases. When I got my 535xi the 30 month term was less expensive than the 36 month term. When I got my E350 the 24 month term was also less expensive than the 36 month term.

The shorter term lease has a higher residual value, and the car companies can get a potential new sale 6 or 12 months earlier.

 

Easy choice for me. A6, no questions about it.

 

Although I like both, I would lean towards the A6 at this time.

1. The run flats alone on the 535 would tilt the decision toward the A6 for me.

3. I have never owned an Audi and it would be interesting to try out a new marque. The car is more unique because there are far fewer A6's on the road.

 

The A6's unique aspect is definitely a notable selling point. Ironically enough, it's also a negative point.

I don't know which of the two I'd choose. I gotta admit, the "Audi" name/brand/heritage due to the family-bloodline look and overall reputation never really moved me/had a negative impression on me (maybe it's because of that embarrassing big Gold Audi 5000S my Dad gave me as my first car), so I feel like I might have a bias toward the BMW if it came down to the two. However, this A6 for some reason almost entices me more than the 5-Series does.

 

K-A, that would be a tough choice for me.

I've owned a lot of Audi's...A4's, S4's, multiple A6's (various engines) and TT's in coupe and convertible form and still own one. In Chicago, the Quattro system is hard to beat and transforms even the TT into an all weather performer (with the right winter tires). I loved them all when I bought them but they weren't trouble free. From minor things like headlight bulbs failing almost monthly (first the left, then the right, and repeat, and in more than one car) to Tiptronic transmission failures to interior switches breaking in my hand to the driver's seat that became way too hot for comfort and had to be replaced. In fact, I felt like I owned an Audi All-Road for awhile. It was fun but it was a loaner yet I drove it a lot while my A6 2.7T was in the shop, also a lot. Yet I would sell one and buy another. Even with the problems, I always felt the cars were capable overall and the fit and felt the finish of the interior design was better than the competitive cars on the market, IMO.

I'd consider another but I'm not yet sold on the front of the new A6 and I prefer the interior design of the previous generation's interior. I'm just not captivated by pop up NAV or the center stack design as of yet. I recently looked at the A7, but was less inspired by the rear end in person than in pictures. However, I do like Audi's use of supercharged V6's and Quattro. I would consider an S4 as I prefer the interior dash and front grill to that of the A6. If 0-60 specs were of driving concern, 4.9 from a V6 for the S4 is very respectable and 5.2 for the A6 slightly edges out the 535 RWD, but not sure how it compares to the 535Xi.

In CA, without the winter challenges of Chicago, I'd probably lean towards the BMW over the Audi this time around.

 

i test drove the A6 3.0T right before I drove the MB, the engine felt powerful. great pick up. the only test it failed was not being able to display chinese characters (i duno why this matters to me so much haha). If it did, I just might be driving an A6 instead.

 

Actually, Daimler has an internal program whereby they allow/disallow different wheel/tire combos based on the quality of roads within a given country. For years, Canada was a "bad road country" and was excluded from larger wheel/tire options. I don't believe USA was burdened by this status.

The reality is that small wheels prevent a car from selling. The wheels make the car, and some lame 17" wheels on an E-Class where BMW and Audi have 19 and 20" options just doesn't cut it. At the same time, buyers want a sharp handling car (read: sport tuned suspension), which further exacerbates the harshness of small sidewalls. You can look at the success of the 204 vs 203 C-Class and the take rate of sport vs luxury 212 to see just how much customers demand a sporty look/ride.

Ultimately, MB typically offers "approved" tire sizing that is smaller diameter than standard to allow for less expensive and more forgiving winter tire setups. In the future, if added sidewall is what you're after, you could surely negotiate with your dealer to downgrade to smaller OEM wheels/tires upon delivery at minimal/no cost. But I can assure you that no manufacturer is going to go back to offering small wheels.

 

The W203 was actually also offered with Sport Packaging as standard/common here, so no difference there between it and the W204. Not sure which sold more, but I will say that W203's are as common as lamp posts. The W204 outselling it probably has more to do with natural population-increase and sales-evolution than anything.

M-B seems to take some consideration into providing the best ride of car makers, considering the E does come with "only" 18's as its biggest wheel. However, problem is, even with a moderate "meet-at-the-middle" size, it doesn't absorb much if any better than some cars with larger wheels.

Also, the E Sport might look fast, but it certainly isn't a corner carver. Exaggerated body roll abound, the only thing "sporty" about the ride is how harsh it gets over crap roads, yet when you hit the turns, the floats all over the place..... which is good, mind you, as it proves that the car is smooth as butter (as it should be)..... Until you hit rough roads.

Maybe M-B can further what they're clearly trying to go for: Sporty styling with luxurious driving. They're almost fully there with the E, they just need to fix one aspect of the driving (characteristics over rough roads).

 

It wasn't until the repositioning of the C-Class from affordable luxury (203) to affordable luxury-sport (including the star-in-grille; 204) that it gained any real traction vs the 3er.

 

It certainly is a sad commentary about the American consumer if it is all form over substance. The new c class gave the consumer a lot more than just bigger rims, it was a more spacious better vehicle. And they did take on the BMW 3 series for sure with more sporty models as well. In many ways I like the suspension of the c class better than the e class. As I said the move to bigger rims and smaller sidewalls requires much harder work in making a comfortable suspension. More rubber is an easy way to absorb the rough stuff on the road. Doing it with suspension parts a much trickier proposition and Mercedes has recently failed to deliver. It's also a matter of safety. Low profile tires are more prone to blowouts. Period. I know that there is an epidemic of bent rims and blowouts in recent years. Bigger rims and low profile tires. Insane!!! Mercedes e and s class cars are not sports cars. They only need to "handle" so well. There needs to be some sanity. My 1985 500sel had 15 inch rims. My 2000 e320 had 16 inch rims. It seems to me that 17 inch rims are more than big enough to provide more than adequate handling for an e class and 18 inch rims should surface for an s class. Anything more is for mostly vanity over safety and comfort and for bigger profit margins for car companies and for selling more rim and tire insurance and fixing more bent rims and selling more tires. So, how about those Audi a6's!!! Regards. Ned.

 

Were we discussing the Audi A6? I can't remember...

 

While wheel size is a factor in suspension and steeing calibration, the most critical measurement in setting up ride dynamics is centered on unsprung wieght and geometry.

 

I did test drive of A6 as well but for free. My impressions are pretty much the same. Audi pushed a lot efforts to make car sophisticated from electronics point view. Driving was also really surprising, car with just 310hp looked as rocket after test drive of Cadillac CTS-v which claimed to do 0-60 in 3.9s. Audi showed better resposiveness in my opinion, although lacked in good push at freeways speed. However when I tried to lease the car, I went empty handed. $960+tax for $60,000 car, 36 months, 10,000 miles. I was quoted just $880 for well loaded BMW 550i with MSRP $74,200 (sale price $68,200). So if you look to buy a car, the certainly consider Audi, although keep in mind that low residual for this car means fast deprecation. So I would stick with Benz which deprecates really slowly same as BMW.
BTW Audi A6 doesn't have power trunk close, no dynamic seats, no cool column shifter, so if you try to summarize all all small things Mercedes are offering, you will understand why Audi gives $100 just for testing their cars.

 

Agreed. Audi's depreciate like a falling rock. Not that BMW and MBZ don't, but just at a faster rate. I had an Audi S4 10 years ago and a couple thoughts on Audi's:

1. Front-Wheel drive. When not in full Quattro mode, Audi's are essentially front wheel drive cars. I prefer rear wheel drive.

2. Re-labled VW? Although Audi's are executed nicely and come with cool features, the engineers and production crew essentially reach into the same parts bin as the Volkswagen guys.

3. Dealership/Service experience. When I had to get my car serviced, a loaner car was a rarity and something that had to be reserved 2 weeks out. I've never had that problem with Mercedes. Just drop it off and drive off in a new C-Class loaner.

I'd go with a W212 E550 or the 550i.

 

I don't think the new, current generation audi's depreciate quick. When we shopped for our Q5, we looked at the average price of used q5's and they held up well. It's generally the same for all models.


In fact, I can say the E class loses value quick. I picked up my 2010 e350, p2 with the upgraded wheels for 31k. The previous owner paid 56k just a year and a half ago.

 

Actually, MB depreciation is slowly leveling out, after the disastrous previous generations quality problems got MB's to drop like rocks as well. The 221/204/212 are improving the resale aspect, and as time goes on, and these cars maintain their top spot ahead of BMW and Audi in the Quality Charts, it'll just get better.

The W212's biggest problem is how much MBUSA discounts them before they leave the lots (BMW does the same thing, perhaps even more extreme even), making resale appear all over the place.

My 2010 E350 with Pano and P2 I drove for one year, put 9K Miles on, and got $44K for it as a *Dealer Trade In*. They probably sold that car Certified for almost $50K (it didn't even make it to the Lot, they Sold it that fast). My 2011 that I got was a higher MSRP vehicle, Stickered at $58K, and I got it discounted for $48K. Showing that a CPO E350 sold for about the same price or maybe more than a brand new 2011, almost equally equipped. MBUSA slashes prices on the New Cars too excessively IMO, but I don't mind taking advantage of it if I can.

 

The beauty of Audi's Quattro system is that its a full time AWD all the time. There is no such thing as "not full Quattro mode". Its the same misunderstanding as some people had/have about 4matic (there was a thread recently in which one of the posters said the same about 4matic - that its not full time AWD system).

Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the way Quattro was set up then (10 or more years ago) vs. currently. Quattro of 10 or more years ago was primarily (under normal conditions) a front biased AWD system - 60/40 (this slightly varied by model). Quattro of today is primarily (under normal conditions) a rear biased AWD system - 40/60 (this slightly varies by model too).

BTW, 4matics were also a front biased AWD system then - 55/45, but are rear biased now - 35/65 (under normal conditions).

 

To me, the main issue with Audi's FWD leaning isn't the technicality of where the power is put as much as it is Audi's are designed at their cores as FWD cars. I.e, the proportions of the cars and how they're designed are as FWD cars, which have terrible proportions, excessive overhangs, and very stubby space between the front wheels and inside door shutline (not an elegant look).

Audi has put attention to try and get that RWD proportion/look as much as they can, and finally has seemed to pretty much succeed with their latest iterations- namely the new A6. However, I'm so RWD-Proportionally biased, it just bugs me to know that Audi's are built on FWD platforms, not to mention, are literally FWD cars when not equipped with AWD. To me that cheapens the whole car and takes it out of the running from the E/5, due to my mentioned biases in that area.

 

You know, the Audi, Lexus, and other FWD luxury cars have the same complaints about MB and BMW being RWD biased and therefore not as good in inclement weather.

Truth be told, AWD wouldn't be at the consumer level if it weren't for the rally successes of AWD FWD cars like Audi and Subaru.

Each type of driveline has advantages and disadvantages and - quite frankly - none of us here on the board ever drive our cars to the extremes where anyone would notice the differences.

 

My bias against FWD is first and foremost aesthetic, as the proportions are always eye sores, namely past the front doors. I also personally prefer a RWD feel vastly when I'm driving.

 

I prefer AWD with a rear bias. Perfect for New England driving conditions. It's great that MB, BMW, Audi and others all offer this option.

 

While I agree regarding the ride of the 17" wheels (I have them on my BlueTEC), the reasoning for 18" wheels on the E-sport is in my opinion strictly a factor of marketing to what "most" people want - or at least think they do. For years MB had what most would considered (and some still do) very conservative wheel designs. At the same time, competitive offerings were available with much more aggressive designs. In their effort to be more competitive and move the brand a bit more to the "driving enthusiast", the E-Class has become progressively more bold/sporty/aggressive. AMG styling, more aggressive wheels and improved driving dynamics are steps in this direction. Where the rubber meets the road is in places like the tri-state area where this strategy does not work so well with the roads. Now of course MB could instead use 17" wheels, but they make decisions for the masses and also for the country as a whole where roads are considerably better. Making what is considered by "most" the better wheel (18") standard (instead of 17") allows the dealer to have the right car most of the time. There is a 17" wheel on the Luxury sedan and also a 17" option for the sport sedan for those who prefer the smaller wheels. These are few and far between though and as a result, are the less preferred option. All that being said, I've got 17" and I think they suit the 212 the best.