Lost to Maxima?
#31
12-28-2007, 09:12 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
ORIGINAL: Tha Abbot
What are you talking about? The link it say:
2.7T = 1/4 mile 15.3 at 92MPH, 0-60 6.8 (MT)
4.2 = 1/4 mile 15.5 AT 94MPH, 0-60 7.3
There was no 60-92 test. If you can go from point A-Band get there with a better time anda lower MPH, to me thats saying that the 2.7 is faster.
From what you are saying, the 2.7 power dies b4 the 1/4 miles is over.
ORIGINAL: Kevin
Again it depends what you are comparing. I am a highway guy, not a red light guy, and the article you linked actually shows that the 4.2 is faster, not quicker off the line, but clearly faster and quicker on the top end. According to your own article, the 2.7t goes from 60 to 92 in 8.5 seconds, while the 4.2 goes from 60 to 92 in 7.7 seconds (the 4.2 goes from 60 to 94 mph in 8.2 seconds, or 1mph in acceleration for every .24 seconds assuming linearacceleration, byreducing the 4.2's 94 mph 1/4 mile speed to the 2.7ts 1/4 mile speed of 92 mph, it is approximated that the 4.2 hits 92 mph .5 seconds before it hits 94 mph (2 mph times .24 seconds) or in approx. 15.0 seconds, since cars are not typically capable at linear acceleration over 60 mph it is likely that the 4.2's time from 60-92 is probably a couple of tenths of a second better than I am estimating). So the 4.2 is nearly a second fasterfrom 60 to 92. In other words, while the 2.7T is winding down when it reaches the speed limit, the4.2 is still pulling.The only reason why the stock 2.7T was .5seconds faster on the bottom end is that it had a MT. So the 4.2 is clearly faster. The 4.2 is also quicker on the top end. The 2.7t'squickness is only useful if you are a boy racer who likes to pull away fromtraffic lights.
ORIGINAL: Tha Abbot
Not true, out the box the 2.7 is faster http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1848.shtml
ORIGINAL: RedShoeRider
Out of the box, the 4.2 is faster (higher hp and torque, though it is a bit heavier. Great fender flares, too!). Modded, the 2.7T is faster. Of course, modding it isn't that expensive or complicated, so given the price differential, you'd likely end up with a faster, cheaper car with the 2.7T. However (always a but...) the 4.2 is rock-stable, the 2.7T's block sure is, but you eventually will get into turbo replacement with them. There's another thread floating around here about roughly when that replacement is. Then you can go nuts and go with the K04 turbos (from the RS-series cars), yada, yada....but that's a whole 'nuther story.
The biggest problem we have as A6 drivers is weight. Sure, we make a bunch of power. But with all the hardware for the quattro (not to mention that there's plenty of body metal), we're lugging around an extra 400-800lbs compared to other cars in the same class. What we gain in stability from quattro we loose in absolute acceleration due to the weight.
2.8 = great engine, great car, great for driving around, not so great for playing around.
2.7T = for fun. Can mod to the heavens. The most tunable of the family.
4.2 = for raw refined power. Nothing says low-end grunt like a V-8. Bulletproof engine.
Pricing? Around here (North Jersey), for an 01 2.7T you're talking 12-15k, for a 01 4.2 it's something like 14-20k. That's really, really ballpark. MT6 might cost you more, as they can be harder to find.
Out of the box, the 4.2 is faster (higher hp and torque, though it is a bit heavier. Great fender flares, too!). Modded, the 2.7T is faster. Of course, modding it isn't that expensive or complicated, so given the price differential, you'd likely end up with a faster, cheaper car with the 2.7T. However (always a but...) the 4.2 is rock-stable, the 2.7T's block sure is, but you eventually will get into turbo replacement with them. There's another thread floating around here about roughly when that replacement is. Then you can go nuts and go with the K04 turbos (from the RS-series cars), yada, yada....but that's a whole 'nuther story.
The biggest problem we have as A6 drivers is weight. Sure, we make a bunch of power. But with all the hardware for the quattro (not to mention that there's plenty of body metal), we're lugging around an extra 400-800lbs compared to other cars in the same class. What we gain in stability from quattro we loose in absolute acceleration due to the weight.
2.8 = great engine, great car, great for driving around, not so great for playing around.
2.7T = for fun. Can mod to the heavens. The most tunable of the family.
4.2 = for raw refined power. Nothing says low-end grunt like a V-8. Bulletproof engine.
Pricing? Around here (North Jersey), for an 01 2.7T you're talking 12-15k, for a 01 4.2 it's something like 14-20k. That's really, really ballpark. MT6 might cost you more, as they can be harder to find.
What are you talking about? The link it say:
2.7T = 1/4 mile 15.3 at 92MPH, 0-60 6.8 (MT)
4.2 = 1/4 mile 15.5 AT 94MPH, 0-60 7.3
There was no 60-92 test. If you can go from point A-Band get there with a better time anda lower MPH, to me thats saying that the 2.7 is faster.
From what you are saying, the 2.7 power dies b4 the 1/4 miles is over.
Instead of saying that the 2.7's power dies before the 1/4 mile is over, I would characterize it as the 4.2's power is significantly greater than the 2.7's when you are at speeds over 60 mph.In fact if we were to chart an acceleration graph for both cars it would probably show that the 4.2 becomes a quicker car at around 50 mph.
I hoped that this helped.
#33
12-30-2007, 12:32 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
ORIGINAL: gkb
what's the differnence off of a roll, will it make any differences if we start racing off of a 40mph roll?
what's the differnence off of a roll, will it make any differences if we start racing off of a 40mph roll?
#35
12-30-2007, 09:31 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
ORIGINAL: Kevin
I would think that off a roll the 4.2 is ceratinly quicker than the stock 2.7T
ORIGINAL: gkb
what's the differnence off of a roll, will it make any differences if we start racing off of a 40mph roll?
what's the differnence off of a roll, will it make any differences if we start racing off of a 40mph roll?
Lol, thanks for the tip but i was talking about my a6 Vs. the Maxima. Would the roll make a difference
#36
12-30-2007, 09:43 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
Maximas rock, great engine. Interior quality was horrible for a while but is better now, though stil way behind AUDIs the leader in interior design and build quality.
Nissan had a hard time but is coming back with some of their vehicles including the Infiniti brand, I think having Renault now as a owner and also a source for parts and design has helped.
That said, I would always always toujours toujours siempre siempre pick an Audi over a Maxima no matter the result of a face off on the road! I just LOVE driving my Audi, the interior is top notch and still will be in 10 years! The paint, the body panel fit... and the QUATTRO with two turbos... WHAT a combination!
Nissan had a hard time but is coming back with some of their vehicles including the Infiniti brand, I think having Renault now as a owner and also a source for parts and design has helped.
That said, I would always always toujours toujours siempre siempre pick an Audi over a Maxima no matter the result of a face off on the road! I just LOVE driving my Audi, the interior is top notch and still will be in 10 years! The paint, the body panel fit... and the QUATTRO with two turbos... WHAT a combination!
#37
12-30-2007, 11:00 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
Well if it feals any better guy's Im a new 2.8 owner
But in my 3.2tl even with a set of heavy as chrome aftermarket rims I was eating Maxima's left and right from highways to light's.
I must say I am a DIE HARD acura fan.
But I have just now enter the world of -=A*U*D*I=-
But in my 3.2tl even with a set of heavy as chrome aftermarket rims I was eating Maxima's left and right from highways to light's.
I must say I am a DIE HARD acura fan.
But I have just now enter the world of -=A*U*D*I=-
#39
01-02-2008, 11:47 PM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
I like Acura too..I traded in my 2001 CLS for my current A6. Car was definitely quick and would beat the maximas all day. They are light as hell. I kinda miss the car a bit because it was so damn reliable. Oh well, I stepped up to AUDI for the 2nd time and am certainly happy. Still....memories....haha
BTW - Unmodded, the 4.2 will beat the 2.7t form 55-60 on to 130+ by car lengths. Buddy of mine has a 2002 2.7t andwe screwed around one night on an empty dryfreeway.He hung off my rear bumper to about 60 and then it was bye bye...Gotta love the v8 torque. Modded, no question the 2.7t will be faster all the way. Dimes to dollars gents!
BTW - Unmodded, the 4.2 will beat the 2.7t form 55-60 on to 130+ by car lengths. Buddy of mine has a 2002 2.7t andwe screwed around one night on an empty dryfreeway.He hung off my rear bumper to about 60 and then it was bye bye...Gotta love the v8 torque. Modded, no question the 2.7t will be faster all the way. Dimes to dollars gents!
#40
01-03-2008, 06:14 AM
RE: Lost to Maxima?
ORIGINAL: prbayha
BTW - Unmodded, the 4.2 will beat the 2.7t form 55-60 on to 130+ by car lengths. Buddy of mine has a 2002 2.7t andwe screwed around one night on an empty dryfreeway.He hung off my rear bumper to about 60 and then it was bye bye...Gotta love the v8 torque. Modded, no question the 2.7t will be faster all the way. Dimes to dollars gents!
BTW - Unmodded, the 4.2 will beat the 2.7t form 55-60 on to 130+ by car lengths. Buddy of mine has a 2002 2.7t andwe screwed around one night on an empty dryfreeway.He hung off my rear bumper to about 60 and then it was bye bye...Gotta love the v8 torque. Modded, no question the 2.7t will be faster all the way. Dimes to dollars gents!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
