M56 or A7
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 325
Likes: 1
From: Staten Island, NY
Plenty of M37x here on Staten island, saw maybe three M37S. But there are alot more Panameras and CLS, Idk man if I had 70k to drop on a car the M56S would get my vote, that car just has a commanding presence. I have seen only ONE yes ONE M56, idk why but thats how it is.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
From: SoCal 90125
Audi definitely hasn't been in the top half as a brand, but you have to do some digging to interpret Consumer Reports data. For example their Audi data is pretty sparse:
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
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
Registered User
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
I would take the A7, after 50k the only Infiniti I would consider is the Q56, becauase it offers so much more for the dollar its not even funny and the purpose would be to move my family around. If you are going to spend +50k for me brand cache is a big deal, 0-60 does not matter. In any case the A7 is pretty fast, 0-60 in 5.3-5.4s, thats enough to hold its own on the road. Just own the car within its warranty and let it go after it expires so no need to worry about reliablity
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
From: Chicagoland
Audi definitely hasn't been in the top half as a brand, but you have to do some digging to interpret Consumer Reports data. For example their Audi data is pretty sparse:
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
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
"Europe's bumpy road
BMW had a bad year, with five of 11 models now scoring below average. Although the BMW M3 topped the sporty cars category, the 1, 3, and 5 Series models with the 3.0-liter, turbocharged engine had high problem rates related to the fuel system, among other issues.
Mercedes-Benz had the least reliable vehicles in three categories. Six of its 13 models were below average, and the GLK SUV was far below average this year. The redesigned E350 sedan was above average, but the new E-Class coupe, a wholly different car, was a disappointment.
Almost three-quarters of the Audi models we analyzed were below average. Volkswagen did better, with its Golf (formerly Rabbit) doing very well and the various Jetta models doing average or better."
Interesting they say 3/4s of Audis were below, but you said 80% were above.
The Audi A3 and A6 were rated least reliable in their class.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 253
Likes: 3
From: Houston, TX/Greater Houston Area
Audi is too expensive for the power and options compared to Infiniti.
Audi design is very nice, but then design is a biased opinion.
M56 with sport package all the way. Nothing beats raw power to inspire the soul.
Saying that one car has enough horsepower is like saying you have enough money... You can never have enough.
Audi design is very nice, but then design is a biased opinion.
M56 with sport package all the way. Nothing beats raw power to inspire the soul.
Saying that one car has enough horsepower is like saying you have enough money... You can never have enough.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 126
Likes: 1
Anyway, to the original question, I'd probably avoid a first-year Audi model. They seem to take a few years to get them dialed in, even on newer models. For the $70k price range in general, I'd go with a CTS-V wagon. The sleeper to end all sleepers, and can also haul a decent cargo load.
Gotta say those twin cannons out the back are pretty sweet,once you see those you'll know it's the real deal. Gotta ditch those yellow stripes on the seats though (maybe the wagon doesn't have those?).
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 325
Likes: 1
From: Staten Island, NY
I'm not entirely sure how much the asking price is for the A7 is (I saw one a while back, was most certainly NOT a fan, but to each is his own) but someone mentioned the M56S above.
What about the 550i BMW? That's in our line up the next time we're in the market for a new luxury car. Consider it too?
What about the 550i BMW? That's in our line up the next time we're in the market for a new luxury car. Consider it too?
