New Base 248 HP 2.0L TFSI Makes 2019 Audi A6 $4,800 Cheaper

[cawimmer430]

For the cheapskates among ya. 


New Base 248 HP 2.0L TFSI Makes 2019 Audi A6 $4,800 Cheaper

Audi is introducing a new entry-level four-cylinder engine for the 2019 A6 in the United States.

Not counting the newly-launched 444 hp 2020 Audi S6, up until now the premium midsize sedan was only offered with a 3.0-liter turbocharged V6 gasoline engine making 335 hp (340 PS) and 369 lb-ft (500 Nm) of torque.



Quattro AWD is standard

From now on, U.S. customers will be able to choose a new entry-level 2.0-liter TFSI turbo-four gasoline unit rated at 248 hp (252 PS) and 273 lb-ft (370 Nm) of torque. Offered as standard with the quattro AWD system and a seven-speed S tronic dual-clutch automatic transmission, the 2019 Audi A6 2.0 TFSI accelerates from 0 to 60 mph (96 km/h) in 6.1 seconds — one second slower than the six-cylinder model.

Obviously, the new four-cylinder engine makes the 2019 A6 more accessible for U.S. customers as the base price gets lowered to $54,100 for the Premium grade (excluding $995 destination). That makes it $4,800 cheaper than the equivalent 2019 Audi A6 3.0T Premium. The 2.0-liter engine is also offered for the mid-range Premium Plus grade which starts from $57,800.

Included in the base price are goodies such as three-zone automatic climate control, heated eight-way power front seats with four-way power lumbar adjustment and leather upholstery, progressive steering, LED headlights, high beam assist, lane departure warning, and 19-inch 10-spoke dynamic design wheels with all-season tires.

Also standard are the MMI navigation and Audi smartphone interface but the Audi virtual cockpit is optional. Buyers who want more can tick the Convenience package box which adds Audi side assist with Audi pre sense rear, Audi phone box, and Audi advanced key.

There's an available Black optic package as well that features high gloss black exterior surrounds for the windows and Singleframe grille. Finally, the Executive package available for Premium Plus models adds features such as four-zone climate control, ventilated front seats, heated rear seats, power trunk open/close and interior lighting package plus — the latter adds multicolor ambient light.


Link: https://www.carscoops.com/2019/07/new-base-248-hp-2-0l-tfsi-makes-2019-audi-a6-4800-cheaper/

[12,000 RPM]

We got the 4 popper in the last A6. A good engine but for that big car I think the V6 is a better fit. For the money I think I'd rather get an A5 Sportback.

[Xer0]

This car will there to advertise a low lease cost and as a loaner for dealers.  I doubt many people will actually buy it new.

[cawimmer430]

In my opinion (and experience) I don't think a modern 4-cylinder turbo motor is going to be underpowered or slow in the heavy A6. Modern turbo 4-cylinders are responsive, torquey and smooth and coupled to an efficient transmission can really move this A6.

I'm continually amazed at the power and responsiveness and immediate response of the turbo-4 in my A250. It really moves the car! By contrast, my dad's '89 500SL and '10 E350 CGI "feel slow and sluggish", and those are 326-hp 5.0 V8 / 4-speed A/T and 292-hp 3.5 V6 / 7-speed A/T cars. They're quick cars, but they feel slower than my A250. I'm not saying they're slow, but they simply "feel" slower and sluggish.

My dad actually wants to drag race me in his 500SL.  He'll have the better launch/start because the A250 has a massive torque steer and grip problem if you hammer it in COMFORT/SPORT mode...

[93JC]

In my opinion (and experience) I don't think a modern 4-cylinder turbo motor is going to be underpowered or slow in the heavy A6. Modern turbo 4-cylinders are responsive, torquey and smooth and coupled to an efficient transmission can really move this A6.

I don't think it's a question of having enough power to "really move" a midsize luxury car, it's a question of refinement. Overall I've really liked the A4s I've rented in the last eight months, but the 2.0T has its moments where it's noticeably not very refined. Stop-start especially does not flatter the engine.

[cawimmer430]

I don't think it's a question of having enough power to "really move" a midsize luxury car, it's a question of refinement. Overall I've really liked the A4s I've rented in the last eight months, but the 2.0T has its moments where it's noticeably not very refined. Stop-start especially does not flatter the engine.

The best Start-Stop I've experienced was in a Volkswagen Golf 1.2 TSI Convertible - you literally couldn't tell when the engine switched off and on. I would think they could have transferred some of that magic to their Audi products.

[12,000 RPM]

Your A250 probably weighs 500kg less than the A6 so that would make a difference.

I don't think the A6 2.0T would be slow. The last one was about as fast as my Optima, which I deem.... adequate. But people don't buy luxury cars for adequacy. They could just get a loaded Passat instead.

[Submariner]

My aunt has a 528i with the turbo 4.  It has a bit of clatter at low speeds, but it's only noticeable from the outside.  Power is plentiful (I'm guessing that 0-60 comes faster than in an old E39 540i) and smooth.

The 4 banger in the new Mercedes E300 is similarly refined, though there were a few moments when I was driving it that did reveal it's Econo-car roots, especially when the auto-stop "eco" mode was engaged.

[Xer0]

I don't think it's a question of having enough power to "really move" a midsize luxury car, it's a question of refinement. Overall I've really liked the A4s I've rented in the last eight months, but the 2.0T has its moments where it's noticeably not very refined. Stop-start especially does not flatter the engine.

I think Volvo is proving that engine refinement is really not that important to the average car buyer what with their all 2.0T lineup going all the way up to the 150K Polestar 1.

[12,000 RPM]

I think refinement begins to matter more as MSRPs increase. But yea at $50-60K or so customers don't give a fuck.

And to be fair the German 2.0Ts are pretty good for what they are. I mean, the last gen A6 2.0T quattro is faster than the previous gen A6 4.2 (by a hair) while getting 50% better gas mileage. That's solid

[cawimmer430]

Your A250 probably weighs 500kg less than the A6 so that would make a difference.

I don't think the A6 2.0T would be slow. The last one was about as fast as my Optima, which I deem.... adequate. But people don't buy luxury cars for adequacy. They could just get a loaded Passat instead.

Weight is definitely a factor, however I also find the 2.0 turbo-4 in my A250 to be more responsive and eager. By contrast, the 500SL and E350 CGI feel "lazy", and they're both pretty quick cars to begin with.

[12,000 RPM]

Weight is definitely a factor, however I also find the 2.0 turbo-4 in my A250 to be more responsive and eager. By contrast, the 500SL and E350 CGI feel "lazy", and they're both pretty quick cars to begin with.

Their old conventional transmissions and probably their overall tuning philosophies have an effect on that.

[93JC]

I think Volvo is proving that engine refinement is really not that important to the average car buyer what with their all 2.0T lineup going all the way up to the 150K Polestar 1.

Their sales volume is a fraction of Audi/BMW/Mercedes-Benz's. In fairness they're up YTD, but still toward the bottom of the sales charts.

[HurricaneSteve]

I'm not in the market for this kind of car but I would be pretty disappointed to be getting a 4 cylinder in a $54,000 vehicle.

[12,000 RPM]

Id wager most luxury buyers couldn't tell you how many cylinders their cars have honestly

[MX793]

I think Volvo is proving that engine refinement is really not that important to the average car buyer what with their all 2.0T lineup going all the way up to the 150K Polestar 1.

Excluding a relatively brief period during the Ford years when they got an I6 and V8, both now gone, Volvo mostly used 4 and 5 cylinder engines.  Volvos don't sell on their powertrains.

[Galaxy]

Excluding a relatively brief period during the Ford years when they got an I6 and V8, both now gone,

Apropos Volvo V8, why did they go with the Yamaha engine, when Ford has so many around? To difficult to convert to transverse?

[MX793]

Apropos Volvo V8, why did they go with the Yamaha engine, when Ford has so many around? To difficult to convert to transverse?

Ford had only used 2 transverse V8s in FWD applications.  The 4.6 ModV8 that saw use in the Lincoln Continental of the 1990s and the short lived 3.4L Yamaha V8 used in the Taurus SHO of the mid/late 90s.  The former would have been way too big to fit in the Volvo platform (tall and a 90-degree V).  The latter, like the 4.4L Yamaha V8 that Volvo got, was a more compact, 60-degree motor, but it was discontinued a few years before the introduction of the XC90 and I'm not sure it could have been bored/stroked out large enough to be worthwhile in a large car/CUV.

[Galaxy]

Ford had only used 2 transverse V8s in FWD applications.  The 4.6 ModV8 that saw use in the Lincoln Continental of the 1990s and the short lived 3.4L Yamaha V8 used in the Taurus SHO of the mid/late 90s.  The former would have been way too big to fit in the Volvo platform (tall and a 90-degree V).  The latter, like the 4.4L Yamaha V8 that Volvo got, was a more compact, 60-degree motor, but it was discontinued a few years before the introduction of the XC90 and I'm not sure it could have been bored/stroked out large enough to be worthwhile in a large car/CUV.

So did Yamaha start from scratch or did they base it on Ford tech?

What about the Ford V8 versions of the Rover 75 and MG ZT after BMW sold the company? Those were transverse I believe. 

[93JC]

The Rover 75 and MG ZT were converted to longitudinal, rear-drive to make the V8 fit. It was the Modular 4.6 L, right out of a Mustang GT of the time.

[12,000 RPM]

Rover was a weird ass company

[MX793]

So did Yamaha start from scratch or did they base it on Ford tech?

What about the Ford V8 versions of the Rover 75 and MG ZT after BMW sold the company? Those were transverse I believe. 

IIRC, the 4.4L Yamaha motor was started from scratch for Volvo, though Wiki claims the block has also seen use on Yamaha marine engines (albeit at much larger displacements, which I find a little hard to believe).

[93JC]

I'm pretty sure Yamaha used the SHO V8 as a basis for the Volvo engine—same 60° bank angle, same bore spacing, same stroke—but the final product deviated quite a bit. The SHO engine was basically a 2.5 L Duratec V6 with a couple extra cylinders, so there was definitely room to increase displacement.

[Galaxy]

So Rover put more effort into those cars then I gave them credit for.

[93JC]

I think they put quite a lot of effort overall into making the 75/ZT, but ongoing legacy issues—crappy dealers, crappy resale values, stigma against Rover as a brand to begin with—made it difficult to capitalize on that effort.

[cawimmer430]

Their old conventional transmissions and probably their overall tuning philosophies have an effect on that.

And their engines lack a turbo! 

[MexicoCityM3]

Id wager most luxury buyers couldn't tell you how many cylinders their cars have honestly

Yes. I drove a last gen 4 pot 528i and thought it was perfectly viable as a luxury vehicle. Much better at altitude than it's N/A 6 pot predecessor.

We get here even lower 4 cylinder trims (like in Europe). By a wide margin the most popular 5er is the lowly 520i that has less than 200 turbocharged hp. This Audi will sell.

[AltinD]

I don't think the A6 2.0T would be slow. The last one was about as fast as my Optima, which I deem.... adequate. But people don't buy luxury cars for adequacy. They could just get a loaded Passat instead.

That's what i did in 2008 (in Dubai). I test drove a FWD A6 with 4 banger and 180 or less HP. A really crappy ride. For slightly less money I opted for the fully loaded V6 AWD Passat instead.

[93JC]

We get here even lower 4 cylinder trims (like in Europe). By a wide margin the most popular 5er is the lowly 520i that has less than 200 turbocharged hp. This Audi will sell.

... in México...


I'm sure a four-cylinder luxobarge is acceptable across most of the world (because of higher fuel costs, displacement taxes, CO₂ taxes, etc.), but it raises eyebrows in the US and Canada.

[2o6]

Does it raise eyebrows? When I worked at BMW, one lady got rid of her E46 because she didn't like how front-wheel-drive felt in the winter. Not to mention, it's not like the old 323 or 525's were bastions of performance.


I don't think anyone cares aside from the handful of guys online who wouldn't buy one anyways.


Also this A6 has like 2HP within the 530i. I don't see the problem.