M56 or A7
05-20-2011, 02:26 PM
#16
They are about the same in size, but I think the M56 is going to have a bit more front seat room. The A7 is also only a 4 seater, but it does have more useable rear leg room and more cargo capacity due to it's design. Performance wise, the M56 is slightly faster (low 13s 1/4 mile vs. A7 mid 13s). You get the 8 speed auto with the Audi as well, hence the better gas mileage despite being AWD and slightly heavier. They are both good cars. M56 is definitely going to be a better value, since a fully loaded A7 is close to $80k. You can get a fully loaded M56 for less than $68k. The choice is yours, but it's up to you to drive both and see what you like. The price of the A7 personally really puts me off as it falls into the same category as the CLS once fully optioned out. Good luck, and post pictures of whatever you get. Both are great cars. The A7 will definitely be more rare.
Last edited by koa789; 05-20-2011 at 02:49 PM.
05-20-2011, 02:48 PM
#18
Oh I didn't know that so many people already brought in their A7s for problems they've been having? Come on man, don't just blurt **** out. You have absolutely NO facts to back up what you just said. The newest Audis have proven to be very reliable.
05-20-2011, 10:10 PM
#19
I'm thinking a CPO S4 will be our G replacement in 2013.
05-20-2011, 10:17 PM
#20
True story, pretty much sums it up right there. I traded in my Nismo 04x for a 4.2 A6, it was nice, but sold it after 10 months and got my current Xs.
Last edited by qb37Xs; 05-20-2011 at 10:24 PM.
05-20-2011, 10:55 PM
#23
totally different driving experience. both good cars, but i don't care what anybody says. driving experience in a german automobile wins. i have both and love them both. not to mention the low end torque of Audi's supercharged/turbo engines are way more fun to drive.
05-20-2011, 11:34 PM
#24
That is the stupidest **** I have ever heard lol
They are about the same in size, but I think the M56 is going to have a bit more front seat room. The A7 is also only a 4 seater, but it does have more useable rear leg room and more cargo capacity due to it's design. Performance wise, the M56 is slightly faster (low 13s 1/4 mile vs. A7 mid 13s). You get the 8 speed auto with the Audi as well, hence the better gas mileage despite being AWD and slightly heavier. They are both good cars. M56 is definitely going to be a better value, since a fully loaded A7 is close to $80k. You can get a fully loaded M56 for less than $68k. The choice is yours, but it's up to you to drive both and see what you like. The price of the A7 personally really puts me off as it falls into the same category as the CLS once fully optioned out. Good luck, and post pictures of whatever you get. Both are great cars. The A7 will definitely be more rare.
They are about the same in size, but I think the M56 is going to have a bit more front seat room. The A7 is also only a 4 seater, but it does have more useable rear leg room and more cargo capacity due to it's design. Performance wise, the M56 is slightly faster (low 13s 1/4 mile vs. A7 mid 13s). You get the 8 speed auto with the Audi as well, hence the better gas mileage despite being AWD and slightly heavier. They are both good cars. M56 is definitely going to be a better value, since a fully loaded A7 is close to $80k. You can get a fully loaded M56 for less than $68k. The choice is yours, but it's up to you to drive both and see what you like. The price of the A7 personally really puts me off as it falls into the same category as the CLS once fully optioned out. Good luck, and post pictures of whatever you get. Both are great cars. The A7 will definitely be more rare.
05-21-2011, 05:00 AM
#26
05-21-2011, 09:30 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that is why they ended up 26th out of 27 manufacturers for reliability on Consumer Reports.
05-21-2011, 10:41 PM
#30
A3, they only have data for 2006-8
A4: 2001-2010
A5: 2009 only
A6: 2001-2008
A8: 2004 only
Q5 2009-2010 only
Q7 2007-2008 only
S4 2005 only
TT 2001-2002, 2008 only
That's a pretty useless set of data to be judging current reliability on, wouldn't you say? Consumer Reports should actually decline to give a ranking on the brand because of lack of data, and especially "current" data.
Also, when you look at the individual cars reliability ratings for a particular year, not just Audi but in general, it's sometimes baffling how they come up with an overall rank of below average when 80% of the individual tests are above average. Vise versa as well (they give higher rankings in cases where the individual parts are mostly average or below).
On very common cars where they have a lot of continuous data, the Consumer Reports rankings are worth looking at. In all other cases, not so much. You get better data following the highest-traffic internet forums on the cars you are interested in, but you have to do some filtering of that as well
