Audi A4 or A5?

[shifty_uk]

Looks really nice, but the steering in them still writes off mainstream Audi's as a whole for me. Having driven the BMW competition, didn't you feel a little bit short changed by the feel of the Audi?

Totally - made 10x worse by having an F10 lease before I bought it

I've even been looking at fixes/software upgrades for the servotronic recently, if I could have it in the stiffer mode 100% of the time then I'd be happy.

On the flip side of that, I enjoy the car and wouldn't have any of the equivalent models from Mercedes or BMW. I like Audis design language, the layout of the interior is great, MMI is okay, it's a a comfortable cruiser even with the 19 inch wheels but plenty stiff in the corners when you shift it into sport and plant the foot. Easy car to park which I need living and working in and around the city, great for chucking flat pack furniture into(fold down rear seats which aren't standard on the competition). I mentioned my delight with it being a good all rounder in another thread recently; considering we've had about 3 dry days in Scotland over the past year, I can afford to be a of a berk out in the elements.

Unfortunately, the plan has always been to up my mileage this year through moving and changing jobs so I'll no doubt the look out for a vulgar diesel and the F10 might still be on the radar.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Totally - made 10x worse by having an F10 lease before I bought it

And lets be honest the F10 is not the high point in BMW steering feel is it

 

[shifty_uk]

A 2009 A4 is therefore a great buy right now, whereas a 2014 A4 is awful.

Have to agree - chap in work recently bought a 2015 S Line - utter waste. It's amazing what a new grill, rear lights and steering wheel can command.

And lets be honest the F10 is not the high point in BMW steering feel is it

Can't comment as I've never used another BMW for anything more than a quick test drive

I was pleasantly impressed though, considering its size.

 

[Scania]

And lets be honest the F10 is not the high point in BMW steering feel is it

I'm pleased to see you think this, I always thought my brother in laws old f10 was rather crap in that department, I'd assumed it must have been me!

 

[Housey]

The F10 steering is not great, but then the F10 isn't great in terms of set up either. Mine is nose heavy, lacks feel, understeers quite badly when pushed, bit benign (read safe) and frankly isn't that sporty. However, get on top if it and you can make it fly but it's never graceful, you need to take it by the nuts and really slap it about a bit and deal with the understeer. The long wheelbase does mean than you can get it out of shape and sideways and drive it that way easily as it never snaps, it just says "in 2 minutes I will oversteer, get ready and I will make you look a hero".

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think the fact I love the way the F10 drives and handles really highlights how good a driver I'm not.

 

[SDK^]

It means that when it first comes out, it feels fresh and modern compared to the 3 Series which has usually been out for at least 3 years at that point. However it then means that towards the end of its life it begins to feel decidedly long in the tooth before feeling hilariously out dated and a complete waste of tine when, in, say 2015, Audi are still selling a car designed to compete with one that came out 10 years before.

I think you just described the new/old timeline comparison for every car produced.
On the Audi A4 playing catch up to the BMW 3 Series - you can easily argue it the other way around.

 

[danza]

Remember it's all about the 19" rims & S Line suspension combo for the ultimate 'wish I'd bought something a bit softer' factor.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think you just described the new/old timeline comparison for every car produced.
On the Audi A4 playing catch up to the BMW 3 Series - you can easily argue it the other way around.

Well no, you couldn't. E90 platform was 2005 and the B8 platform was 2007. Its fairly obvious then that the B8 was 2 years after rather than 5 years before!

B8 and E90 are of the same generation.

 

[Luggs]

To be honest I don't like that BMW, aftermarket wheels look crap and think looks wise the A5 you posted earlier in the thread is miles ahead.

Yeah, the mileage thing bugged me a little as well, weirdly they do tend to put mileage on their adverts on Autotrader, but not their own site...

The wheels are a sideline business for them, have a huge selection of blingy wheels in their showroom. Needless to say I will not be taking up that optional extra!!

Is it just the wheels that put you off or anything else about the car? That is my sensible option due to alleged high mpg efficient-dynamic engine

 

[[TW]Fox]

That is my sensible option due to alleged high mpg efficient-dynamic engine

If your maths are based on some sort of ridiculously high MPG figure, then think again. None of these engines are doing to do 60-70mpg and frankly if running costs are that crucial that the 'high mpg' is what makes it work then is this really the right car? Whats the point in an efficient car if you need to spend the money saved in fuel on repairs and maintenance?

If you want a car thats cheap to run then buy a car thats cheap to run not an old or high mileage BMW or Audi diesel.

 

[Luggs]

Just because there's an extensive list doesn't mean these aren't standard mod-cons you'd get in a Vauxhall hatchback

You're doing circa 80+ miles a day(looking at the opening post)? Is a 3 series coupe on stiff suspension and aftermarket wheels really what you need? I'd opt for something comfier, perhaps not in the premium brand realm. Octavia?

If mileage isn't a huge concern, have you looked at a 1.8T A4? If your journeys consist largely of motorways and A roads with a steady flow of traffic you'll hit 40mpg.

More 'modern' (if you want to call it that) than the previous gen 3 series IMO which I instantly wrote off as a contender to begin with. I've not looked at the pricing now but at the time, this was cheaper than the equivalent diesel because it's a TFSI but with everything except nav.

Haha, yeah I would not be taking the aftermarket blingy wheels for sure. Yes, I do about 85 miles a day 99% motorway, maybe half of that time is at 70mph 'ish, the other half between 0-30/40mph so economy is important.

I guess I am trying to find a happy medium between pure economy and a little bit of interior luxury due to time I spend in the car. I've had a couple of 3 series company cars in the past (ok, actually a long time ago) and I didn't remember them as having crazy stiff suspension?

And thats a nice looking car you have there!

 

[Luggs]

If your maths are based on some sort of ridiculously high MPG figure, then think again. None of these engines are doing to do 60-70mpg and frankly if running costs are that crucial that the 'high mpg' is what makes it work then is this really the right car? Whats the point in an efficient car if you need to spend the money saved in fuel on repairs and maintenance?

If you want a car thats cheap to run then buy a car thats cheap to run not an old or high mileage BMW or Audi diesel.

Understood, I know not to trust mpg figures as verbatim, but thought they would be somewhat representative? If car A states 15% higher mpg than car B, then that should be the case even if the actual mpg for both cars are significantly less?

OK, I've got a mondeo to test drive and will check that Volvo S60 out too, looks to be a good spec. Thanks for all the feedback, I hate buying cars, I know less about them than I do PC's!!

 

[iaind]

To re-iterate what Fox said, if you really need the low running costs then high mileage premium brands with complicated diesel engines are not the best way forward. While thye might do the MPG you need, the cost of repairs will be high and the likelihood of them occuring due to the age and mileage will be higher

 

[xs2man]

To re-iterate what Fox said, if you really need the low running costs then high mileage premium brands with complicated diesel engines are not the best way forward. While thye might do the MPG you need, the cost of repairs MIGHT be high and the likelihood of them occuring due to the age and mileage MAY be higher

Edited for accuracy.

There are no guarantees that buying a diesel will be any more expensive in maintenance than a petrol equivalent. There is a possibility of higher repair costs when talking about injectors or the like, but even they are pretty rare in my experience.

I have run high mileage diesels for years, and never come across any expense that wouldn't have been just as prevalent / expensive as in a petrol. I have never, for example, had to replace injectors, or a turbo. Which is pretty much always where these arguments stem from. It is also worth noting that many petrol engines now have turbos, so that isn't even that valid an argument for increased costs (such as 1.8T / 2.0T's in the A4's). There is also the DMF vs SMF, but again, this isn't a huge extra expense (a couple hundred quid more usually than a SMF), and petrol "equivalents" to the diesels in this segment often have DMF's anyway, and are almost as likely to need changed at 100k+.

At higher mileages, you are far more likely to need to change brakes / suspension and other similar / related components, than you are the injectors or turbo. And these items will be needing changed regardless of the type of fuel the engine needs. And will cost about the same to do.

Don't be scared into buying a high mileage petrol because it will be "cheaper" to keep on the road. With the sort of mileage you are doing the £700 per year fuel saving will go a LONG way towards offsetting any potential extra expense you might come across.

Although I would be inclined to agree more that a newer, lower mileage, non-premium car would likely be cheaper in the long run for these sorts of miles, as it may break down less, being newer and lower miles. But then again, there is no guarantees of this either. And it might not feel as nice when sitting in it for the 20k per year you are doing.

 

[iaind]

Lets not jump on that "DIESEL ISNT ALWAYS UNRELIABLE" bandwagon stuff again, you repeat it ad nauseum in every thread where someone suggests that an old BMW diesel might not be the cheapest thing in the world to run.

Nobody said buy a petrol, he's doing enough mileage to warrant a diesel certainly. Buying a newer, lower mileage, less premium brand is whats being suggested which WILL cost less to repair

 

[xs2man]

Which MAY cost less to repair.

Of course I repeat it. It is true, and is largely ignored here. Ignored probably isn't the correct word here. But there is a lot of mis-information on this forum about how a high mileage diesel will inevitably break down and cost thousands to repair. Where a petrol equivalent will be much cheaper. Quite contrary to most people I knows experience of running such cars.

To be fair, I don't specify old BMW diesel either. I feel the same about almost any make of car.

I also did agree that a newer, less premium motor might be cheaper. But like I said, no guarantees there either. Unless you buy new, with warranty (higher budget?), or something very small and cheap, that budget isn't getting something that will have any sort of realistic guarantee against costs.

 

[iaind]

Cost of parts alone of premium brands is higher, likely labour costs too if you use specialists or main dealers.

Of course you could have an older higher mileage car and get no problems, but statistically speaking the newer and lower mileage a car, the less likely it is to need repair. So cheaper repairs (like for like) and less likelihood of it needing them.

While "Will cost less" might not be entirely accurate "may cost less" downplays the simple fact of cheaper repairs and sound statistical likelihood.

OP is doing the right thing by looking at Mondeos and Volvos - while there's still a chance of something like a DMF failure, the age and mileage will help mitigate it.

Incidentally, on the point of the DMF - it's no wonder your points are "ignored" as they make little sense. Yes a DMF as a part is only a few hundred quid, but they're not replaced as a matter of course while the clutch is being done. When they fail and need replaced, it's just common sense to replace the clutch at the same time. DMF failures are extremely rare on petrols but pretty common on diesels. So even if your clutch is fine, you still get lumped with an £800-£1000 bill to replace it and the clutch. You miss the point pretty badly on that one.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Its common sense that a car with a turbo, dpf and high pressure injection system is more likely to suffer issues with these items than a car which is not fitted with any of them. Its also common sense that the older a car gets the more likely it is to develop faults.

Your continued failure to grasp this is amusing.

Its not even an anti diesel thing, start fitting petrol engines with high pressure direct injection systems and they then have similar potential.

 

[iaind]

You can buy turbos on ebay for £100 though, so therefore they only cost £100 more to fix than a petrol.