Audi owners in here!

Of course it's all marketing guff really and they're all at it to one degree or another. As for consumer diesel engines, I think it's much of a muchness between Audi and BMW these days when it comes to economy and emissions.

Personally I'm done with diesel anyway after 17 years - back to petrol :)
 
The emissions and economy are just a big race to see who can make the best paper figures. In the real world fuel economy has plateaued over the last 5 years or so. Each big new leap in economy and lower emissions is usually not replicable in the real world.
 
[TW]Fox;26601446 said:
To me it looks like 'Ultra' is simply Audi waking up to BMW's 'Efficient Dynamics' moniker from 7 years ago. Looks like exactly the same thing, a collection of various stuff, some of which they already did anyway, that they can club together under an eco-name.
Click to expand...

Audi have been using the Ultra moniker on their LMP and GT3 cars for several years now.
 
Changing the exhaust on mine again :P

Fitting the pipe i got made before to replace the huge suitcase exhaust that robs me of 5mpg all the time, replacing that with this:

http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/vpe-1142/overview/

Should get rid of the drone, and totally straight through: once I get the CAT mapped out I will be able to roll a golf ball down the manifold all the way to the tailpipes!
 
Vertigo1 said:
Of course it's all marketing guff really and they're all at it to one degree or another. As for consumer diesel engines, I think it's much of a muchness between Audi and BMW these days when it comes to economy and emissions.

Personally I'm done with diesel anyway after 17 years - back to petrol :)
Click to expand...

As Fox said, on paper, yes. In the real world, the BMW wipes the floor with Audi. In my personal experience of owning modern examples of each (although I will admit I have only owned 6 pot BMW diesels, but they got better economy than the 4 pot Audi's and I doubt their 6 pots would out perform their 4 pots in real life economy).
 
Well, okay then. My first A4 was a 143 Avant S-Line. I wasn't using fuelly at the time, just plain old tally book, but IIRC over something like 15k I averaged around 40.6 mpg.

Then I chopped that in for a B8.5 A4 Avant Black Edition 177



Now, that car was in and out of Audi god knows how many times trying to see what the issue was with the fuel economy. So I had actually done about 3 times the miles logged there, but couldn't track it all accurately with Fuelly. But that is pretty much what I got.

Now onto the BMW's, my first be a remapped 335d e91 with around 340 BHP :


Okay, only 1/2 a mile per gallon better than the 177 A4, but the extra 160+ BHP...

Then my current 530d :


A good couple mpg better than the 177, with 258 BHP as standard.

Bearing in mind that I'm the same driver doing similar miles, over similar distances, on similar runs, I don't think there is too much better a way to determine differences in economies between engines.
 
xs2man said:
As Fox said, on paper, yes. In the real world, the BMW wipes the floor with Audi. In my personal experience of owning modern examples of each (although I will admit I have only owned 6 pot BMW diesels, but they got better economy than the 4 pot Audi's and I doubt their 6 pots would out perform their 4 pots in real life economy).
Click to expand...

Really? Do your 6 pot BMW diesels achieve over 60mpg average (door to door) on a long run as that is achievable from the VAG 4 pots.

From the multitude of hire cars I've had the best has been the 1.6 105ps diesel which has managed 66mpg average in 3 different cars, and the 2ltr engine 60-62mpg. The best I've seen from a x20d (I've had 1 and 3 series cars fitted with that engine) has been 60mpg and more typically I get around 58mpg.
 
Alibaba99 said:
Really? Do your 6 pot BMW diesels achieve over 60mpg average (door to door) on a long run as that is achievable from the VAG 4 pots.

From the multitude of hire cars I've had the best has been the 1.6 105ps diesel which has managed 66mpg average in 3 different cars, and the 2ltr engine 60-62mpg. The best I've seen from a x20d (I've had 1 and 3 series cars fitted with that engine) has been 60mpg and more typically I get around 58mpg.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out above, I have had 2 4 pot diesel Audis and 2 6 pot diesel BMW's. The worst average figure came from one of the Audis. The best did, admittedly, come from my first A4, but my 530d is quickly catching up as it breaks in.

The best bang per buck bargain was by far and away my 335d. Better economy than the 177 A4, and 160bhp more.

It could be that I, twice on the trot, managed to get dud engines. However, I think that even if that is likely, I still feel justified in my view that, at least for me, and my experience, that BMW 6 pots are at least as economical, if not more so, than their Audi 4 pot counterparts.

It will take some convincing for me to buy a relatively new Audi diesel in the future, where I'd be more than happy to buy the equivalent BMW.

On a run, door to door figures interest me not one bit. Average figures over thousands of miles, in multiple driving situations, are what actually matter in the real world. Moreover, my 177 was actually WORSE when I took it on the 60 miles, each way, commute to Aberdeen, rather than my normal driving about.
 
Last edited:
xs2man said:
On a run, door to door figures interest me not one bit.
Click to expand...

Whereas for me, it's the only figure I care about.

I couldn't give a stuff if my 530d does 20mpg, 25mpg, 30mpg or whatever mpg when I'm just running about town. It's town work. You can't do 20k driving around town and popping to the shops. It doesnt matter what the fuel economy is because you are doing low miles.

What matters is when you do long journeys - ie, on a run. Thats where I want efficiency. Not around town where all it does is make you feel good to see a bigger number, rather than make any meaningful fuel savings.
 
Alibaba99 said:
Really? Do your 6 pot BMW diesels achieve over 60mpg average (door to door) on a long run as that is achievable from the VAG 4 pots.

From the multitude of hire cars I've had the best has been the 1.6 105ps diesel which has managed 66mpg average in 3 different cars, and the 2ltr engine 60-62mpg. The best I've seen from a x20d (I've had 1 and 3 series cars fitted with that engine) has been 60mpg and more typically I get around 58mpg.
Click to expand...

My 530d does 50-55 mpg on a long run. Did 300 odd miles on Saturday at 52mpg. This is in a big saloon!

Another effort:

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's fine when you are living in a city, or driving to another city. But here in the country, long runs aren't necessarily all at motorway speeds. I often have to slow down for inconvenient obstacles like towns and corners.

Overall driving economy is ALL I care about, as that covers ALL fuel costs. I find it frankly unbelievable that the overall figure doesn't concern you. I understand why on a run figures can be important, but that's not the whole story. Not by a long way.
 
To be honest none of it really concerns me as I don't pick cars on the basis of fuel economy, it is one of the less important attributes to me. I like the fact my car does 50mpg on a long but only because it's pretty cool that something so big and powerful can do that. My other car does 37mpg on a long run and thats all fine and dandy, too.

There are so many other costs of motoring that make the differences in fuel consumption figures look irrelevent. It's always amusing to watch people in 320d coupe's with tyres that cost £1k+ a set obsessing on whether they get this MPG or that MPG.
 
I've always found the 2.0TDi to be a little dissapointing on the mpgeez front. It'll go sky high if your rolling at a maintained speed but if you do any acceleration at all it drop.

A sensible drive door to door for me in my old a3 got 45mpg, if I actually used the power available and put my foot to the floor when getting up to speed it would drop to 30-35mpg.

In my S3 I average 23mpg, down to 17mpg when I rag it :p
 
[TW]Fox;26605884 said:
To be honest none of it really concerns me as I don't pick cars on the basis of fuel economy, it is one of the less important attributes to me. I like the fact my car does 50mpg on a long but only because it's pretty cool that something so big and powerful can do that. My other car does 37mpg on a long run and thats all fine and dandy, too.

There are so many other costs of motoring that make the differences in fuel consumption figures look irrelevent. It's always amusing to watch people in 320d coupe's with tyres that cost £1k+ a set obsessing on whether they get this MPG or that MPG.
Click to expand...

Well, that I don't get either. There is Fuel and Depreciation. These are the two MAJOR costs of motoring nowadays. Yes, tyre costs can be substantial, but they don't run into thousands of pound a year like fuel and depreciation can. Of course, older cars are less susceptible to depreciation, making fuel the NUMBER ONE cost associated with motoring.

Of course, if your doing 10 miles a week to the shops, that might be different. But even if we take the average 10k per annum, at 30 mpg average (as you don't care, that would be typical of a relatively average petrol I would think), you are over £2k per year on fuel. A diesel (@50mpg) coming it at £1150 per year. Tyres should do you 18-24 months easy, so even your £1k tyres are only costing 1/4 of what your fuel is costing. Insurance is insurance, and is based on your circumstances, but my £250 per year is peanuts compared to my £3k+ fuel bill.

Just because you don't think about it, doesn't make it irrelevant.
 
Exactly, so the difference at 10k a year isn't thousands a year, it's not even a thousand a year, is it? Yet the depreciation *is* thousands a year.
 
Yes, that is my point. There is only one expense of car ownership that is more than the cost of the fuel, and that is depreciation, and that reduces over time. Not the :

so many other costs of motoring that make the differences in fuel consumption figures look irrelevent
Click to expand...

that you stated. So fuel economy is indeed a MAJOR consideration when working out the actual cost of running a vehicle. Obviously things like tyres for your 20's comes into it too, but then I'm not huge on the bigger wheels and stuff anymore (despite my 19" 351M's on the 530 of course).

If you are going to make a statement like that, then at least back it up, or even at the very least be consistent. I realise many people on this forum adore your opinion, but you are constantly doing stuff like this. It reminds of...

i_may_not_always_be_right_but_im_never_wrong_bumper_sticker-r77bbe37a5f684b6e943d404fc17bf81d_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
 
What's the recommended VAGCOM solution?

Bought a Fabia a few months back and would like some software to keep an eye on error codes.

Also, need to give the throttle body a clean as it's a bit dirty due to an improperly mounted air filter housing. I understand it's wise to reset TB adaption values after this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom