# Advice Needed: 2001 A6 2.7 vs 2002 A6 3.0 Avant, Performance/Reliability



## GoldFISH_no641 (Jul 9, 2005)

Been seriously looking at two cars.
One being a 2001 Audi A6 (automatic/sadface) witha 2.7 engine and reasonably low miles for the model year. The car has documented work (at an Audi dealership) on the car for the timing belt/water pump assembly, outer CV joints, new tires/wheels (not OEM sadly, but nice) and seems to have a very nice overall car. Also claims to have a clean CarFAX but I haven't personally purchased it yet. I'm going to drive it sometime this week.
The other is a 2002 Audi A6 3.0 Avant Wagon, (also auto I believe). that I have been in talks with via email, but I don't really know how clean the history of the car is compared to the 2.7T.
In regards to the two cars, if they are both similarly taken care of and maintained... I really don't know anything about the two engines themselves. If anyone can give me a brief heads up that would be great. I tried searching, but I haven't been able to find an even moderately solid comparison of the two.
--Rich


----------



## GLS-S4 (Jun 6, 2005)

*Re: Advice Needed: 2001 A6 2.7 vs 2002 A6 3.0 Avant, Performance/Reliability (GoldFISH_no641)*

Recommend to drive a stock 2.7T and a 3.0L as they feel quite different.
The main difference is 2.7T 250HP Twin Turbo vs 3.0L 220HP Normally Aspirated.
Both are good engines so it depends if you want 2.7T with upgrade options or NA power... maybe 3.0L supercharged http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by GLS-S4 at 11:09 PM 2/23/2010_


----------



## izzo (Mar 19, 2004)

I am a sucker for a 2.7T and have been lurking the C5 forum a lot;
from what I have read numerous times, if I was facing the dilemma you are - the 2.7T hands down.


----------



## julex (Jan 24, 2009)

*Re: Advice Needed: 2001 A6 2.7 vs 2002 A6 3.0 Avant, Performance/Reliability (GoldFISH_no641)*

Hard choice. Foe one 2.7t is better performing but at the same time higher maintenance car. From my experience, I would chose 3.0 if I would not know squat about cars and don't like or know how to wrench. On the other hand, 2.7t opens a whole slew of possibilities as after some investment, it can be upgrade to some pretty insane HPs.


----------



## monkeytronic (Oct 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*

I one wants more factory stock power than the 3.0 with less maintenance/operating issues than the 2.7T there's always the 4.2.


----------



## zeroboy (Sep 3, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (monkeytronic)*

Damn Audi Turbos a *BIG* money for people who don't work on their own cars everyday.
There's no dealer in the city I live in and I know some foreign auto shop owners personally ~~ and several times a year people will *write off* (read: forfeit the car for the cost of current repairs) a 2.7T instead of fixing it.
I just can't imagine wanting a car so damn heavy to move SO fast. Useful power is one thing...
Then again, the All-Road's suspension can be a killer too.


----------

