I have the AR-5 and belong to a group on Yahoo that is devoted to discussion on the Meade refractors. I would suggest you join - Free - and poke around there:
I can tell you this, however. The optics are very good on the AR-6, and the cell that holds the objective is adjustable for collimation. The finder is a stock Meade 8X50mm, which beats the usual 6X30mm on most other scopes offered in this format. Quite nice and bright field of views. The mount, as in the top part of the beast that cradles the scope and contains the motor and motor housing, is quite capable of doing the job. HOWEVER: The tripod itself is a problem. This is true of most, if not all, tripods that come with 6" achromatic refractors. It is at it's absolute limit with the AR-6. Why Meade would take an otherwise excellent telescope and put it on a cheap aluminum tripod is a matter of constant irritation. You can get by with tricks to stabilize the 'pod such as anti-vibration pads, etc. But even a moderate breeze can make one seasick at higher powers. Hence many people, myself included with the AR-5, have opted to get a better tripod for it. I got a nice, handmade solid red oak one for $250 that does the job very nicely, and would certainly do the same for the AR-6.
So the bottom line is that you can expect to shell out a bit more money for your scope than the Meade stock price. But the optics of the AR-6 make that a viable option. It is, by all accounts, an excellent telescope worthy of doing good duty on planets and deep sky objects both visually and for photographic purposes.