jsuka6 Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Audi's new model year tends to start around Week 20 (first week of May). It may be the configurator is being updated to reflect as yet unannounced spec changes as any car ordered now for factory build would be the new model year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterS Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 You pleased with your E Class Peter? Yes, it's going well gizze. Can't believe I've had the thing 6 months already Must get round to writing a more detailed review at some point! Didn't take long to get back into the Mercedes groove I have to say, and now its loosened up a bit (7k miles) it quite swift enough for me, given the type of car it is. Avantgarde suspension (albeit with 18" wheels) is as firm as I'd like - the Sport I test drove just didn't ride as well on the roads round here. TBH the 18" wheels are unnecessary - they came with the 'Style' pack that my car has (I took a stock car); I'd have been happy with the standard 17" ones. Can't complain at 40+ mpg - I've had to eat my words on that; I scoffed when people told me I'd see north of 40mpg. After a string of (admittedly last generation) large diesel autos (E270CDI/525d/535d) I fully expected to be pleased with low to mid 30s! After a longish drive down to France for Christmas I saw a true 48mpg (over 1,300 miles) driving 'normally', ie cruise at 85 on the autoroutes and overtaking when appropriate on N/D roads. The standard 59 litre fuel tank is too small though - the optional 80 litre one is worth having I think, just for the longer range it would give. Other comments? The Intelligent Lights System (AKA adaptive bi-xenons) are excellent - from memory better than those on teh 535d, but without a back to back comparioson difficult to say. The auto dipping main beam lights generally work well, but can be downright dangerous on winding country roads (dangerous that is for oncoming traffic!!) The quickest way of disabling them is to flick the headlight switch from auto to 'on' My car has NAV 50 (an Edition 125) which seems fine to me; COMMAND undoubtedly adds more functionality, but the only bit I miss compared to the A4 is the SDS stuff. Will write a more structured review at some point Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveP Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Friend has a6 2.0 tdi manual and has yet to break 40mpg. But is very pleased with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldavo69 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 When the OBC says 0 miles I always thought you had 5l left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsuka6 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 The Real MPG data being collected by HonestJohn (Audi | Real MPGs | Honest John) would suggest an average of mid40s for the 2.0tdi but only high 30s for the multitronic version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 See this baffles me, I drive a 2.0 Petrol! Audi A6 and regularly seem to be getting 35mpg going to and from work each day about a 40mile round trip that has queues, motorway driving and rural roads. But people with the Diesel seem to get little more, so whats the point of getting one when its more expensive to fill it up and buy, its no quicker and its less refined. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanG Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 My old mans new A6 has a long term average of 42mpg (6k miles on it now). It's a 3.0tdi Quattro avant auto. Which I guess is ok and a vast improvement over the 2010 A6 3.0tdi Quattro auto which gave 33mpg. My a4 2.0T petrol Quattro avant ha given me a long term 36mpg. I don't think there is any point buying a more expensive diesel, despite 15k miles a year. Have you considered the modern petrols? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Man Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) See this baffles me, I drive a 2.0 Petrol! Audi A6 and regularly seem to be getting 35mpg going to and from work each day about a 40mile round trip that has queues, motorway driving and rural roads. But people with the Diesel seem to get little more, so whats the point of getting one when its more expensive to fill it up and buy, its no quicker and its less refined. :confused: I know where your coming from.....but what I`v found is that if you thrash a 3.0d you`ll still see 30-34mpg... on a long motorway run at 70mph the XF will easily achieve 45-50mpg(trip).....and if you really do drive like a saint....60mph on the motorway then according to the trip the car is averaging 60mpg....In fact there`s a little competition on the XF forum.....60 miles at 60mph and lets see if you can hit 60mpg....and a fair few FMs have....Suprizingly the 3.0d can achieve a better mpg on a long run than the 2.2d....something dealers are now pointing out to customers....basically they are admitting the 2.2d is for company car drivers and the quoted mpg are`t realistically achievable...unlike the 3.0d. Having said all that I`ll probably still go down the petrol rout for my next car....Oh and the 3.0d V6 fitted to the XF is incredibly refined....more so than the 3.0d units fitted to the BMW`s I tested...although Audi`s 3.0tdi were as refined as the 3.0d fitted to the XF...obviously just my opinion of course. Edited April 12, 2012 by Mr Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hashluck Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Audi 3.0TDI here and happy but I am impressed with some of the mpg figures now from V6 and even V8 petrol engines and would consider going back to petrol BUT FOR thecrippling depreciation compared to diesel. Maybe a lightly used example is the way to go. Neighbours new M5 is doing 24mpg, 400+ miles to a tank. Impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 would consider going back to petrol BUT FOR the crippling depreciation compared to diesel. See again that hasn't borne out to be true either. My last car was a nearly new 330i M-Sport BMW, the equivalent identical used 330d, same spec colour everything was £3k, yes £3,000 more than the petrol at purchase time. Fast forward to when I sold it, the 330i was worth only £500 less than the 330d, so the diesel had actually lost more money than the petrol car over the same time period. Add to that lower overall fuel costs because I only did circa 35k over 4 years in it and I was quids in to the diesel. Also having looked at an article in the times a few weeks ago they looked at the cheapest diesel and petrol cars in the top 10 best selling cars and only 1 car was worth owning as a diesel as a three year costs than its petrol equivalent, in fact one car the crossover point was in year 64! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I guess it can depend heavily on the model. The 330d isn't all that popular - by far the biggest seller is the 320d. So it'd be interesting to see a similar comparison between a 320d and 320i over a similar period, perhaps with more miles. Will be interesting to see how your 2.0 petrol A6 stacks up against the 2.0TDI come sale time. Even at around 20k miles per annum, I would love to go back to petrol if I thought the overall running costs were comparable. The latest Merc 350 CGI 3.0 petrol is supposed to average over 40mpg - surely that has to be a better proposition in something like a CLS than even the most refined tractor engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yeah I can see the 320d thing but in relation to how popular I'd say that fewer people wanted a 3.0 petrol than a more powerful diesel so it was fairly compatible. As for the resale of mine, who knows it was plenty cheaper than the 2.0tdi and I'm getting fairly good mpg so I bet it will be a similar result to my previous purchase. Also I don't do masses of miles at the moment which is why petrol works so well for me, also I can sometimes lift share 3 days a week that again saves miles and money in petrol. I'd only go for a diesel if it was the right car/engine combination and thus far they haven't been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Bangle Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 It is strange, the official figures are some of the best as well. You will struggle to match the Official Figures since the EU has decreed that new models require a particulate filter, which requires a considerable amount of diesel to regenerate and needing to drive the car with higher revs to do it. This is not included in the EU consumption lab tests on the basis of which cars are taxed. They are standard EU tests for all cars done in a laboratory and done at 20-30 °C starting with the urbal cycle and an engine not used for 2 hours (cold!?), the cycle used is very specific series of revs changes etc. They're are widely known as not being very reflective of real use environments, but they are the only figures a car manufacturer can publish. The official tests are also done without any ancillaries like Air con, heaters, audio etc on or people in the car. Also the DPF is another thing in the exhaust flow restricting the Engine so less mpg again. According to the owners manual for the RR it should take about 10-20mins at speeds between 40-70mph to regenerate which I struggle to do on my daily commute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hashluck Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 See again that hasn't borne out to be true either. My last car was a nearly new 330i M-Sport BMW, the equivalent identical used 330d, same spec colour everything was £3k, yes £3,000 more than the petrol at purchase time.Fast forward to when I sold it, the 330i was worth only £500 less than the 330d, so the diesel had actually lost more money than the petrol car over the same time period. Add to that lower overall fuel costs because I only did circa 35k over 4 years in it and I was quids in to the diesel. Also having looked at an article in the times a few weeks ago they looked at the cheapest diesel and petrol cars in the top 10 best selling cars and only 1 car was worth owning as a diesel as a three year costs than its petrol equivalent, in fact one car the crossover point was in year 64! Good points and really good to hear of a real world example. I was referring to my experience with Audi where the equivalent petrol model is about the same price NEW. If you bought your car nearly new then you have proved my point that the petrol model took a huge hit compared to the diesel. So used petrol is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Man Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Also having looked at an article in the times a few weeks ago they looked at the cheapest diesel and petrol cars in the top 10 best selling cars and only 1 car was worth owning as a diesel as a three year costs than its petrol equivalent, in fact one car the crossover point was in year 64! I tested both the 2.0t and 3.0tdi versions of the A5 Quattro Coupe....I think the petrol was 3 or 4k cheaper at the time....I used an online calculator and based on the official mpg figuers:roflmao:...and assuming I bought new(list price) then with my annual milage of approximately 12/13k miles it would have taken me something like 15yrs before I was quids in with the diesel....However the calculator does`t take account of depreciation/service costs/tax/insurance etc...etc....however even if it did and even if the 2.0t averaged 28mpg/3.0tdi 38mpg(based on Audi A5 forum long term mpg) then I still reckon the cross-over point was around 8-10yrs.....I was genuinely torn between the 2 cars as well. I still think the VAG groups 2.0tfsi is a corker of an engine....not so much for the outright power but more for the way the power is delivered....loads of low down grunt.....However at the time I was looking for a relaxed cruiser...and that`s why I ended up going with the 3.0d....but in a Jag rather than an Audi....I still think I`ll bite the bullet and go down the petrol rout next time though.....That said modern 3.0d engines are incredibly refined....and bloomin quick as well...and it makes a pleasant change to ride the huge torque wave rather than chasing the red line. According to the owners manual for the RR it should take about 10-20mins at speeds between 40-70mph to regenerate which I struggle to do on my daily commute. By chance I was looking at the trip on one occasion when a regeneration cycle started.....it counted down 1 mile every 10-15seconds for about 10 minutes(roughly)...I seem to recall 30 or 40 miles were knocked off the range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noblemon Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I know where your coming from.....but what I`v found is that if you thrash a 3.0d you`ll still see 30-34mpg... on a long motorway run at 70mph the XF will easily achieve 45-50mpg(trip).....and if you really do drive like a saint....60mph on the motorway then according to the trip the car is averaging 60mpg....In fact there`s a little competition on the XF forum.....60 miles at 60mph and lets see if you can hit 60mpg....and a fair few FMs have....Suprizingly the 3.0d can achieve a better mpg on a long run than the 2.2d....something dealers are now pointing out to customers....basically they are admitting the 2.2d is for company car drivers and the quoted mpg are`t realistically achievable...unlike the 3.0d.Having said all that I`ll probably still go down the petrol rout for my next car....Oh and the 3.0d V6 fitted to the XF is incredibly refined....more so than the 3.0d units fitted to the BMW`s I tested...although Audi`s 3.0tdi were as refined as the 3.0d fitted to the XF...obviously just my opinion of course. My colleague takes delivery of an XF 2.2 Lux today and I've got a C7 Avant S Line 2.0TDI Multitronic on order so it'll be interesting to compare notes. Mr Man how would you compare the cars in general terms (quality, refinement, ownership etc) neither of us have run a Jag or Audi before? My colleague's got me questioning my decision to go for the C7 over the XF..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noblemon Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I know where your coming from.....but what I`v found is that if you thrash a 3.0d you`ll still see 30-34mpg... on a long motorway run at 70mph the XF will easily achieve 45-50mpg(trip).....and if you really do drive like a saint....60mph on the motorway then according to the trip the car is averaging 60mpg....In fact there`s a little competition on the XF forum.....60 miles at 60mph and lets see if you can hit 60mpg....and a fair few FMs have....Suprizingly the 3.0d can achieve a better mpg on a long run than the 2.2d....something dealers are now pointing out to customers....basically they are admitting the 2.2d is for company car drivers and the quoted mpg are`t realistically achievable...unlike the 3.0d.Having said all that I`ll probably still go down the petrol rout for my next car....Oh and the 3.0d V6 fitted to the XF is incredibly refined....more so than the 3.0d units fitted to the BMW`s I tested...although Audi`s 3.0tdi were as refined as the 3.0d fitted to the XF...obviously just my opinion of course. My colleague took delivery ofhis XF 2.2 Luxury today and I've got a C7 Avant 2.0 TDi S line Multitronic on order so will be interesting to compare the two. New to Audi so hoping ive made the right choice as the XF was mighty tempting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Man Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 My colleague took delivery of his XF 2.2 Luxury today and I've got a C7 Avant 2.0 TDi S line Multitronic on order so will be interesting to compare the two. New to Audi so hoping ive made the right choice as the XF was mighty tempting... The face-lifted XF are now fitted with an 8 speed ZF auto box(improved mpg/CO2 emissions)....some 2.2d owners complained the new auto box was a tad too keen to up-shift to the highest gear and the car felt a bit flat and un-responsive....The XF forums top tip is to select sport...keeps the revs up...and then press the winter mode option(aides traction on the white stuff...no substitute for winter rubber though)....this combination improved the throttle response without any noticeable affect on the fuel economy....Having said said most 2.2d owners are more than happy with the car as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noblemon Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 The face-lifted XF are now fitted with an 8 speed ZF auto box(improved mpg/CO2 emissions)....some 2.2d owners complained the new auto box was a tad too keen to up-shift to the highest gear and the car felt a bit flat and un-responsive....The XF forums top tip is to select sport...keeps the revs up...and then press the winter mode option(aides traction on the white stuff...no substitute for winter rubber though)....this combination improved the throttle response without any noticeable affect on the fuel economy....Having said said most 2.2d owners are more than happy with the car as it is. I'll pass on that tip+++. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Dont't think I could go back to a four pot petrol ever again even with a turbo. I might not ever go back to a petrol everyday car either. The grunt and refinement of the 3.0tdi suits me down to the ground. Its great for wafting about in and goes like stink when I want it to. Round town economy could be better but I'm happy with the economy overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted April 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Sorry for the delayed reply. Had a good day the other day with the 530d m-sport, 3.0tdi quattro and an E350cdi estate. I had sort of done the deal on the 530d, but after getting back in it I had some serious doubts. Fidgety on the motorway, not as dynamic as previously and no where near as comfy as the Merc, or strangely the Audi. Long story short, I have bought an E350cdi estate. I posted this on the BMW forum..... A6 is out.To be fair to Audi it is a very nice car, and really has moved the game on as far as Audi are concerned when it comes to comfort and dynamics. I have owned around 15 Audis over the last 15 years and around the same amount of BMWs. The Audis have always been bought as I like their design, both externally and internally. They were always a little bit more understated, never annoyed anyone like BMWs can. I bought it because of the badge, I guess where as with BMWs I buy it despite the badge. The Audis have always been both wallowy and crashy at the same time, an engineering feat for sure, but not one to be proud of! However this new A6 is certainly more comfy than the F11, the way it soaked up the road was pretty impressive. The interior was as good as always and although I thought the F10 has one of the nicest interiors of any car at any price I found the Audi just as good when actually in the car. The Handling was much better too, not as sharp as the BMW but no longer did it feel lacking like every other Audi I have been in, with the exception of the RS4 and R8, and if I am honest the A6 actually felt lighter on its feet than the BMW, which was the real shocker!! To be honest though it was the price, the 3.0tdi Quattro S-Line was coming in close to £50,000, just like the 530d and E350cdi, and over with options. But used they were still asking silly money, £43,000, £46,000 etc. etc. 530d and E350cdi were more like £35,000. Then had the 530d for a while. To be honest I was not over keen on the all black interior. Loved the space grey though, and I now feel bad for saying to John from the Tyresmoke forum that his 550i in space grey was a nothing colour, it looks stunning. The gadgets I know well as we had an F11 se before and have a 5GT as well, the old mans car that I drive a lot as we work together. Overall I found the 530d a big jump up from the 520d we had in terms of grin factor, but, and it was a big but, after an hour or so the niggles started to creep in. Very crashy, but it was on 19" run flats and a bit jiggly. I would think that real tyres would sort the crashyness, but not sure it would sort the jigglyness of the car? Also, I still can't get over the high window line and the big bonnet, it makes the car feel massive, and not in a good way, combine that with the small interior and laughable boot size and I decided against it. Don't get me wrong I really wanted this car, had sorted the finance on it and had got a perfect trade in price on our X1, plus it was £31k for a fully loaded late 2010 (MY2011 build) car with some really nice options on it. Due to the low price and high residuals it was a £400 a month car which is silly cheap really. But I just wasn't sure. I went round the corner to the Bentley dealership as I had noticed a nice 2011 E350cdi Estate on their forecourt. I took this for a spin and straight away it just felt more me. Not saying it is for everyone, just right now the Merc is more about what I am looking for in a car. The interior felt nicer, not better, just more elegant. Where the BMW still feels like a drivers car interior, purposeful and precise, the Merc just had a nicer feel. The ride is like a magic carpet compared with the BMW and Audi, as good as they felt this was just on another level. But the most surprising thing was how the Merc drove, it was not as sharp as the BMW but it was not far behind, and I hate to say it but it made the BMW steering feel very vague, especially round the centre. Pulling onto the motorway the Merc is just so planted, which made me realise that in the BMW I was constantly adjusting the car to keep it straight, the Merc was just so much more relaxing. I can certainly see why people choose these cars, although very similar in size, price, image, etc. they all deliver in a very different way. 10 years ago when I was 30 it would have been the BMW all day long, but now at 40 I appreciate the Merc more than ever. Also the load space on the Merc is massive, it is a proper estate car unlike the other two, and this is important to me, I want to be able to throw the lads bike in the back with the dog and not have to think about loads. I know you will all think I am nuts on here for going with the Merc, but this time round I found it to be the better car, for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted April 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Just in case anyone is interested. MPG figures for the route, 20 miles, 3 miles in town, 10 miles on a roads and about 7 miles on the dual. 530d - 42mpg E350cdi - 39mpg A6 3.0tdi - 34mpg Resetting the trip computer thing on each sat with cruise on at 75mph. 530d - 53mpg E350cdi - 46mpg A6 3.0tdi - 39mpg Fair bit of difference between them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can't fault you on the choice of the E350 CDi. That engine is a great piece of work. Good choice! When do you pick it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted April 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Hopefully this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Out of interest, particularly with your comments on the ride, what model is the Merc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now