Real world MPG 2.0TDI

[gregpawley]

Hi was just after some feedback on what real world MPG you guys are getting.
I have a S line 2.0TDI fitted with the 19" upgrade alloys, around town get low 30s on a run get low 40s, best I have had so far is just over 45MPG driving from Plymouth to Stanstead, this was mainly at just below 80MPH on cruise with the last 50 miles down to 50 due to road works and 65MPH due to volume of traffic.

The car has done just over 3k miles with a long term average of 38MPG and average speed of 28MPH. I have tried the obvious, tyre pressures, there is no roof rack fitted, tried different brand fuels, running with the cruise control off or on and the different settings on the MMI but all about the same. I tend to be pretty good with what mileage I get, either matching or beating the quoted MPG on my prvious A4 B8 2.0T petrol.

I have spoken to the dealer and he will check with service and advise on Monday, was just hoping from some feedback from yourself.
The other thing I noticed is that the fuel gauge is none linear, there seems to be about 2 thirds the range in the top half compared to the bottom half of the gauge and this is after what fuel has been used in the filler neck etc.

Any feedback greatly appreciated,

Greg.

[DR_A6]

I would be really interested to hear about this also, just about to buy assuming some others post some reasonable MPG.

[chody]

vw jetta 57 plate 40,000 miles around town get 37 -39 on a run to manchester got about 47mpg as the A6 is a bigger more powerful car and such low milage sounds about right but may improve as the milage goes up, this is my first diesel car and i was disapointed with the milage thought i would get better mpg but it is mostly town driving i do

[gregpawley]

Car gone back to the dealers today for investigation, they admit that the MPG does seem a little low and might improve with mileage but going to run some checks.

The run from Plymouth to the dealers (about 60 miles) is mainly fast A roads 40 to 70mph only got 43MPG, on my previous A4 B8 2.0T could get the same or slightly better, will let you know the results.

[man le-mans]

A6 2.7tdi only just gone passed 11k and i get 34-35mpg round town and 40ish on a run and its auto. my older 57plate A6 2.7tdi would get 40ish round town and 45 mpg or more on a run but manual. on a run in my older car you could get lots more mpg if you was VERY careful. Yours sounds abit low for a 20tdi. The best diesel i had for mpg was my 54 plate mondeo 20tdci 130bhp manual which was only 3mths old when i got it and that did 49 mpg round town and 54mpg on a run doing 80-90ish

[gregpawley]

Just collected the car from the dealers with no faults found, checked and reset settings?? They have said the MPG will improve with miles, and have have asked me to monitor the mileage.
Driving the car there averaged 43MPG drive back similar speeds got 44MPG so no significant improvements.

The book quotes 47.1MPG Urban, 64.2MPG Extra Urban and 57.5MPG combined.

My Previous A4 B8 2.0TFSI quoted figures was obtainable, I cant see the engine loosening up enough to give anywhere near the book figures, and I am sure was getting better mileage when I fist had the car.

Would appreciate any other figures from similarly specified C7s, would anyone recommend me contacting Audi UK direct to get some feedback from them?

[dgarside]

Only got 700 miles on the clock but on a run to work and back with economical right foot I get 40mpg fairly easily. Mixed between A road and motorway, with some stop starting due to commuting traffic. Average at the moment though is 36 mpg.

[pitch3110]

Dont panic to much yet chaps.

The 2.0tdi is a very tight engine indeed. My B8 Multironic was dyer when new but has improved at 10, 20 and 30k. Round town 40ish and a run will see 50+ more often than not.

Ta
Pitch

[dgarside]

Let's hope eh :-)

[nealeb]

Are these MPG numbers taken off the fuel computer? I'm not sure that the one on my A6 is that accurate and is a bit optimistic - don't know how much this varies from car to car. I use figures from tankful-to-tankful fillups. I've now done a bit over 2K miles in my 3.0TDI Quattro and averaged about 40-41MPG from new. Mostly motorway cruising to date, though, although I get the impression that its consumption is better in all conditions than the previous model (same basic spec). Admittedly it spends most of its time in "E" mode with occasional use of paddles to give an overtaking burst.

[pitch3110]

Via DIS which is between 4-7% over actual, Although I have recorded real world 50.8mpg

Ta
Pitch

[ti rich]

Mine is just coming up to 4K miles now. Was averaging 44 ish but suddenly getting much better.

[dgarside]

Mine seems to be slowly creeping up, started at 34 and now at 38 after 1500 miles..

[KAM]

I took delivery of my A6 2.0 TDi about 10 days ago. It replaced a Volvo XC90 which had a simply astonishing thirst for diesel. (I really enjoyed other aspects of that car, but I guess 2.75 tonnes empty and a profile like a large hut isn't the easiest starting condition for high fuel economy!). Having got fed up with spending every second day in a fuel station somewhere I even specified the 75 litre fuel tank on the A6.

So after two days of commuting (20 miles each way, heavy motorway commuter traffic, never above 50mph, start/stop all the way) I set off to drive from Manchester area to Bath, reached Bath, drove back again to Manchester area, and the computer told me I still had 360 miles left. Wow! That was about what the Volvo would tell me as I left a forecourt! (:joke: but you get the idea.)

So far, with still less than 1K on the clock, I seem to be getting mid-40's mpg overall from the A6. Great improvement over the deposed Swede, but nothing like what Audi quoted. I guess these guys measure mpg with zero wind resistance (i.e a stationary car on a rolling road), with everything stripped out (spare wheel, seats) etc and any other way of tilting the table they can find. I'm sure it's not unique to Audi. Some manufacturers will be more adept at it than others.

[dgarside]

Just done a couple of tanks in E 'efficiency' mode with the odd Sport and manual spurts. But overall very easy to get 44/45 mpg with mixed A road and motorway, and 1400 on the clock.

Seems to be slowly creeping up so not worrying at the moment..... After 2 years in a Discovery 3 this mpg is great :-)

[ti rich]

4k miles on the clock now. Done a mix of driving in Eco mode, taking it steady on the Motorway at 70-65mph.

Just filled up - 607 miles done and a range of about 50 miles still showing.

47.6MPG on the computer for this tank and a manual calculation confirms this to be spot on. The car is a manual on 19" wheels.

Given the cold weather 50+ MPG will be possible once the weather warms up a bit more and the engine is a bit more lose. 700 miles on a tank will be possible for sure.

The trip to work this morning (41 mile trip) netted 59.6mpg - the best so far!:biglaugh:

[zis76]

I've done 320 miles recently in my 2.0TDI (biggest round trip so far) and averaged 50mpg, but that was all motorway/A road and I averaged 63mph on the motorway. Better than my BMW 530i, but way off quoted figures (though done well under 1,000 miles so far). May be worth a word with Audi.

[OldBoy Racer]

Just picked up my 2006 A3 2.0 TDi 170 with 85K on clock. On thedrive back from Ipswich (100 miles or so) at 75ish I was getting low 40s when I backed oof to 65-70 it started creeeping up to high 40s.

Read Honest John (Telegraph Motoring) about the discrepancy between real world and quoted figures. Following taken from: http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/RealMpg/Results?manufacturer=audi

Figures for 2004 A3
Engine/ Official Combined/ Real Average/ Real Range
2.0 TDI /60.1 mpg /50.5 mpg/ 49.2–52 mpg
2.0 TDI 140ps/ 64.2 mpg /52.7 mpg /46–58.5 mpg
2.0 TDI 140ps S tronic /57.6 mpg /45.7 mpg /39–52 mpg
2.0 TDI S tronic/ 56.5 mpg/ 46.1 mpg /43–51 mpg

Figures for 2008 A3:
Engine/ Official Combined /Real Average /Real Range
2.0 TDI/ 60.1 mpg /48.2 mpg /44.6–50.2 mpg
2.0 TDI 140ps /64.2 mpg/ 53.2 mpg /47–58.9 mpg
2.0 TDI 140ps S tronic /57.6 mpg /44.7 mpg /41–46.4 mpg

[col66]

i have a 2009 2.0 tdi. it has now got just over 100,000 on it, wen i bought it i was struggling to get 40 mpg, i had it remapped and i still only manage to get 45 mpg out of it, audis fuel average quoted is a joke i think and is self boosted by them, no 1 i know can get what they say

[jbanfie]

I think a lot of this is down to the driving, we've got a Mini Countryman, book MPG combined 57mpg. Now it's passed 10,000 on the clock, and I've replace the E efficiency rated run flats with C rated winter tyres, I easily get 50mpg which I'm happy with.

The best I've done on the 'measurement run' to my kids karate lesson (12 mile round trip done twice a week) is 61.5mpg. This was very dependant on a 'good' run, that is, no undue stopping or starting, very careful use of throttle etc etc

I have no doubt that the manufacturers could prove their statistics to anyone based on the 'industry standard' tests performed, I have even less doubt that they reflect nothing on the journey's we all do everyday.

In the end I'm actually ecstatic with the capabilities of the car, if anyone can get a massive car like the A6 to 50mpg I think they deserve a medal, there just isn't the energy in the fuel.

That said, if you parked your car on the motorway somewhere around 50mph on a calm day when the engine is hot and did a measurement for 1 mile you'd probably get over 100mpg, and there in lies the problem, who does that?

[KAM]

I have no doubt that the manufacturers could prove their statistics to anyone based on the 'industry standard' tests performed, I have even less doubt that they reflect nothing on the journey's we all do everyday.

Hear, hear. And that completely sums it up for all MPG-related threads as far as I'm concerned. Let there be no more.

[jdwoodbury]

After 7k miles mine is averaging 38mpg (I do a lot of long journeys). Best so far was 50mpg on a steady trip from Swindon to Gatwick.

[col66]

so mine doing around 43 mpg around town is good then

[Guest 2]

In the 600 miles I drove a 2.0 TDI 177 multitronic I averaged 47mpg. The engine only had 997 miles when I picked it up and the 600 miles were all motorway.

[Wuffles]

Average 36mpg I think, generally country roads and motorway, no town driving. 12k miles now, so was hoping it'd improve.

[5678]

11k miles on mine now. It's noticeably better with some miles on it. I get around 39-41 in stop start town driving and can stretch it to over 47 when on a ~80mph mway run.

FWIW, I was told Audi would reject any investigation on a car under 10k miles. Also CruiseControl is less efficient than manual as it doesn't use the regeneration.

[KAM]

Also CruiseControl is less efficient than manual as it doesn't use the regeneration.OK, OK, I know I said 6 posts ago, "Let there be no more", but if we're on the subject of general MPG and efficiency issues, rather than detailed complaints about "Audi said this ... and I only get that." ...

I get the impression that my style of driving doesn't really match many others on this forum. For example, the vast handling differences mentioned by some between Efficiency and Dynamic modes in a multitronic don't seem vast to me at all. I don't push the car hard enough frequently enough to appreciate these differences. A casual old duffer like me doesn't drive in the part of the performance curve that demonstrates these differences. Taking 30 seconds to reach 60mph is pretty much the same whether you do it in Efficiency or Dynamic.

However, a few views on maximising mpg from my side of the fence ...

Which gearbox mode? Overall I would say Efficiency, but like all things with mpg, it's not a guarantee. Your own driving style will have much more influence than the gearbox mode. You can waste buckets of fuel in Efficiency mode and you can be frugal in Dynamic. But if the primary aim is to save fuel then my experience is that Efficiency will complement a gentle driving style best.

How is the car loaded? The extent of this was quite a surprise to me. I have a number of things I always carry in the boot: they just live there. Recently there had also been cause to carry a car fridge for several weeks (I know, middle of winter and he adds a fridge! Don't ask!). However I also made some runs with all this gear stripped out. What a difference. Also, I'm a (ahem) bulky individual and I'd be prepared to bet that slim-line drivers could get better mpg than me. Don't carry excess weight. (As my doctor told me, yet again, a few weeks ago.)

To cruise or not to cruise? Both. Running downhill with cruise-control on achieves one thing: it maintains your speed. However it appears to do this by a balance between engine revs and braking. With cruise switched off on the same road allows you to maintain the same speed with zero braking and much lower engine revs. From a control engineering point of view I can understand why Audi may have adopted the approach of balancing two forces, but it certainly doesn't achieve max mpg in that scenario. And that's not its purpose. It's there to hold a speed, and it does that. However what about when you reach the bottom of the hill? Generally I'd suggest engaging cruise again. Cruise in Efficiency is like a very gentle driver. When climbing hills be prepared to take cruise off again and allow your speed to decay slightly if you want max mpg. It takes a lot more fuel to drive uphill at 60mph than to run on the flat at 60mph. Use cruise where it makes sense, but don't set it once at the start of a journey and expect the car to fix everything for you. I can well understand why many people say "Cruise Control is less efficient than manual". I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, but it is definitely not the answer to all fuel problems either.

Finally, I'd love it if manufacturers started putting MPG displays somewhere prominent on the outside of their cars. Everyone knows how fast the fast boys are going. We've all got a sense of speed and can see that little Citröen C1 hurtling past us like a berserk F1 champion. But what we can't see is the 12.3mpg he's getting with his foot flat to the floor. Nor can he see my smug 52.7mpg in my serene A6 as I float along in cushioned silence. I'd love to see contests where everyone wants to be last away from the lights, just to show off how efficient a driver they are :)

[boof]

Fantastic post :)

I'm getting 55 mpg indicated on a 50 mile round trip to work. 20% town and 80% dual carriageway. 2.0 manual TDI.

I've not done an actual pen and paper calculation yet, I'd expect it to be less.

But really, as above, the biggest thing you can do to improve efficiency is change your driving style.

[EvilPostIt]

that little Citröen C1 hurtling past us like a berserk F1 champion. But what we can't see is the 12.3mpg

I suspect your backward capped, bass turned up friend would be as amused by your MPG as you would be of his. Although your slowest off the lights scenario does spark the idea of some sort of alternative to "the fast and the furious" movie franchise, maybe something like "the ample and the economical: live life per 700 mile range at a time"... ;););)

[Wuffles]

Fantastic post :)

I'm getting 55 mpg indicated on a 50 mile round trip to work. 20% town and 80% dual carriageway. 2.0 manual TDI.

But really, as above, the biggest thing you can do to improve efficiency is change your driving style.

2.0 Automatic TDI. I've never had anything close to that and I am not convinced my driving style is so bad as to warrant such a difference.

[boof]

2.0 Automatic TDI. I've never had anything close to that and I am not convinced my driving style is so bad as to warrant such a difference.

automatic....

As above, thats via the DIS as well. I fully expect when the numbers are crunched it will be less in the real world. I'm expecting somewhere between 45 and 50 though.

[Wuffles]

You've lost me.

Mine's via the DIS and it's dismal. Tried changing the car setting from auto to economy (shoot me now) to dynamic back to auto and it doesn't make enough difference. I'm not lugging anything around with me, I rarely use Sport on the gearbox and I was taught to drive by a chauffeur so my driving style isn't particularly erratic. I'm not in the mood to replace 200 quids worth of rubber each time I over-egg the brakes (so I don't). Not racing anyone either.

Car's going in again to have various things fixed - was told today by the Wife that the rubber seal around the driver's door is falling off apparently, plus the knocking from the front and the cruise button erroring when it feels like it, so I'll bring up the economy and see what they reckon. That's if they call me back.

[boof]

You've lost me.

Mine's via the DIS and it's dismal. Tried changing the car setting from auto to economy (shoot me now) to dynamic back to auto and it doesn't make enough difference. I'm not lugging anything around with me, I rarely use Sport on the gearbox and I was taught to drive by a chauffeur so my driving style isn't particularly erratic. I'm not in the mood to replace 200 quids worth of rubber each time I over-egg the brakes (so I don't). Not racing anyone either.

Car's going in again to have various things fixed - was told today by the Wife that the rubber seal around the driver's door is falling off apparently, plus the knocking from the front and the cruise button erroring when it feels like it, so I'll bring up the economy and see what they reckon. That's if they call me back.

You have an automatic. We're not comparing like for like!

I haven't driven the auto c7 but I can't imagine it will be as economical as the manual on a like for like run. Especially around town.

I shift very early - 5th maybe even 6th at 40mph. I'd be (happily) surprised if the auto would do that. You would see the benefit of the auto (7 gears correct?) on a long motorway run but I'm not sure how much it would help through town. I also don't know how the cvt would handle things, where does it 'stick' the revs whilst shifting in the background?

As highlighted by the previous post it's stupidly hard to compare really. The things giving me that indicated figure are (in my opinion ) :

- Manual box
- Very early shifting. I'm usually barely over 1k rpm where I can help it. The engine feels laboured at times but the shift indicator in the dash seems happy. Not sure how I feel about this yet..I also suspect somewhere around 1500-1700 may actually be overall more efficiency but I'm working on that!
- Not sure I ever really rev over 2k.
- 19k on the car so 'worn in'.
- Once out of town my dual carriageway runs, due to traffic, see me sitting at 50-60 fairly steadily. More efficient than sitting at higher speeds.
- Off the throttle as soon as I possibly can. I don't know if it's the engine or the weight in the car but I find practically no engine braking in this car, it's very easy to waft along on overrun for a good while with very little loss of speed.
- No cruise control.

I've only had the car a week and I actually expect to improve on these figures once I get more used to how it drives and where the efficiency is in the rev range. It will also hopefully go up when the warmer weather comes.

As I've mentioned I fully expect to get a real world lower figure. I don't know how much the DIS overreads by or if it's consistent across cars (probably not given the mix of wheel sizes etc?) so it could be some DIS outputs are more optimistic than others. I could get a nasty shock when I do the sums at the end of the tank!

I used to have a BMW 123d. Most forum posts on it were to expect around 40mpg average. 44/45 if you're really trying. I had a 48 average over the life of the car and peaked at over 50 occasionally on a tank full. This was calculated brim to brim (although it's computer was actually spot on).

This is all relative to the commute I do but it shows the variance.

I haven't found much discernible difference between the different driving modes. Other than putting it in economy puts an 'E' next to my gear indicator in the DIS. I imagine I'm not driving the car in a fashion I'd notice much of a difference. I leave it in dynamic or comfort mode usually.

On a mechanical note what does your temp gauge read? If you have a ropey thermostat this could be causing over fuelling. This was common on the 1 series. Unlikely on such a new car but..

[Wuffles]

I see what you meant now, sorry.

The car settings on a multitronic (or whatever they call it) make more of a difference I suspect as it is the car that's deciding when to change gear - it gets to 8th gear pretty quickly, much like I would get a manual into 6th very quickly. In efficiency mode you barely get any power at all from the car in my opinion, and actually makes overtaking on a motorway dangerous, but that's just me.

Funny you should mention the thermostat as we've had the fan kick in on a cold day before now and run long after the car has been turned off, and on another couple of occasions we've had the temp gauge read under a quarter for most of a 30 mile run before now, but I have no idea if this is normal or not.

[skibuddy]

Funny you should mention the thermostat as we've had the fan kick in on a cold day before now and run long after the car has been turned off, and on another couple of occasions we've had the temp gauge read under a quarter for most of a 30 mile run before now, but I have no idea if this is normal or not.

The fan running long after the engine is turned off is because the engine is in the middle of a DPF regeneration, this is normal. The low temperature gauge reading in cold weather is again quite normal due to the termal efficiencies of the engine and the in car heating system. There has been lots of discussion in another thread on this very subject (had a quick but couldn't find the thread).

[Wuffles]

Nice one thanks for that.

[Steve Hut]

I am only starting to get high 40's in my 2.0 Tdi Auto with 8k on the clock. Was running the car in E mode then changed to Comfort as got fed up with having no power to go in gaps on the motorway and last week driving to Manchester got 50mpg riving the same as in E mode. I used to get high 50's in my Passat Manaual and best I got was 64MPG. Don't know how true this is but I have been told that it takes the engine nearly 20k before it becomes loosened up???? I don't think I have changed my driving style between A6 and Passat.

[ti rich]

25K on the clock now. Averaging 44MPG driving like a nun.

Still very disappointed!

[KAM]

Averaging 44MPG driving like a nun. ... on the run? :)

This is not intended as a 'mine is bigger than yours' post, just a very recent comparison of two journeys. Vehicle: A6 2.0 Tdi multitronic with 20K on the the clock; Two adults in vehicle with regular load.

On Saturday I did about 185 miles. Route: M6, then A50 across to the M1 and down to London. Bit of town driving at either end. I was in no rush that day and my top speed was rarely over 60mph. According to the DIS, the end results were an average speed of 50mph, and a consumption of 62.1mpg.

On the Sunday we left London on the return trip but the town driving at that end was much more tortuous. After about an hour we'd crawled about 10 miles through the streets to pick up the M1. Then it was M1-M6 all the way home (no A50 this time). This time I was almost living in lane 3, targetting and achieving ~80mph, where the traffic permitted. The final displayed figures were average speed 49mph and a consumption of 48.7mpg. So the two extremes of the treacle-like urban traffic early on plus the high-speed M-way knocked about 22% off the mpg but didn't make that much difference to the journey time.

As is always the case, these figures actually prove nothing other than as a record of what happened on the days in question. Which is why vehicle agencies brought in so-called "standardised" consumption tests. And we all know what we think of these figures, don't we?

[jbanfie]

That's a really good couple of examples, 62.1 is very good, but at constant 60mph I find it no surprise, what kills us all is stop and start with a heavy car!!!

Interestingly back in 2001, I used to drive from London to Manchester on the same route, from Chiswick round the north circ, up the M1 across the A50 and up the M6 to central Manchester. Car was a 3 litre Jag X-Type petrol, so about the same weight etc. In those days everyone was clamped at 90mph in the fast lane, usual mpg was 28 or 29!!!!!!! Oh how things have changed, what was it called, the Fuel Price Escalator?

Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator)

[KAM]

Wearing an entirely different hat now, I think the FPE was, in retrospect, a good thing and provided a substantial kick to us and the motor industry. Without its effects it's hard to see what it might have taken to get us to pay much serious attention to fuel consumption. As you say, 28-29mpg was normal back then, and here we are nowadays quibbling over decimal points at twice that mpg!

[KAM]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread after more than a month, but I can't resist.
Yesterday afternoon I had been driving mainly A-road then M42 and M6 until we became stationary in the middle of the Brum "rush"-hour at about a quarter past five.
I hadn't been monitoring fuel consumption up to that point but, as we stopped, I changed the MMI display.
And the image below is what I saw ...

19826

Now where on Earth did that average mpg come from?!?!
I know I'm not exactly Vettel/Alonso by nature, but I didn't think I had been nursing things along that much.
Even I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of the displayed information.
If something looks too good to be true ...

[Timothy Nathan]

I'd've thought that quite reasonable at a steady 50mph. If you do nurse it (mine is 3.0 litre) you can easily get the high 60s.

[KAM]

One of these days I'm really going to go for it.
Select a suitable journey, take everything unnecessary out of the car, lose a few kilos from myself as preparation, wash and polish the car to reduce friction, check (and increase) tyre pressures, start with as little fuel as I need, switch everything off, etc and then generally be a right bloody nuisance to everyone else on the road. Then we'll see what we get!

Or else I should just upgrade from a 2.0TDi to a 3.0 and get high sixties easily.

Now which will it be ..., hmmmm....

[Sam]

We are getting reports from motorists that a man has been seen driving his Audi A6 (in the outside lane with his fog lights on at 37mph) on the M42 wearing nothing but a maniacal grin and muttering something about MPG.

When officers searched the vehicle they found it had been completely stripped of its seats, door cards, roof lining and all traces of sound deadening material. The emaciated driver, completely naked and without a single trace of body hair was crouched on an upturned milk crate wedged into the area where his luxury heated seat once sat.

When questioned, the driver, believed to be a member of an online cult forum, said "[...] I once heard that someone's brother's uncle's sister had a car with four wheels and she always got 456MPG. I did some research and found her car also had an engine but as she was in another country I wanted to see if I could better her MPG and set a new UK record."

Stuart, the owner of the cult forum was unavailable when we went to press.

If you saw the Audi or know anyone who once drove a car, please get in touch via our Facebook Page or find us on Twitter, Myspace, Bebo and FriendsReunited

.

[ChuckMountain]

I have just picked up my new Audi A6 2.0TDI Avant S-Line Black Edition Multi-tronic which replaces my outgoing 2010 A6 2.0TDI S-Line SE both from new.

I am very pleased with it so far apart from trying to work out if I have an issue with fuel consumption.

I remember jumping in my old car and it having a range of 535 miles when I first picked it up (as it was the same as my dad's registration number) which obviously varies on how you drive it. On my normal run back from work I could get in the high 40's, 50 at a pinch.

The new one however had a full tank and a range of 385 miles displayed and on the same journey I managed to get 37.8mpg I was in economy mode and I was really nursing it and didn't go over 70mph on the motorway which accounts for 60% of the journey.

I now have 7/8 of a tank left and a range of 335 miles which seems very low.

I realise it is new and a fractionally smaller fuel capacity and will take time to fully run in, but that figure seems daft. The pdi covered 2 miles so can't have influenced it that much.

I know you can change the fuel consumption "average" using VCDS so was wondering if it could have been configured incorrectly at Audi\pdi?

Any recommendations before I ring the garage?

[boof]

I suspect the usual adage of things improving as you put some miles on it will apply. As well as getting used to the car and where the efficiencies in the engine are - they seem a bit higher up the rev range than I've seen before for me.

The range calculator seems to take a while to update. I have in my head it is based on the average of your last 50 miles. So any increases in efficiency whilst driving can take a while to reflect in the range. I'm not convinced it's that accurate anyway! Along with the fuel gauge!

As with every other car I've ever owned the first half of the tank seems to last forever as indicated by the fuel level indicator, with a corresponding optimism from the range calculator before plummeting a bit more realistically over the latter half of the tank. I'm sure there's an engineering explanation for this somewhere!

I'd wait until you have at least a full tank under your belt and see what actual mileage you get out of the tank in both distance and mpg. And go from there. I wouldn't expect great mileage from it whilst new though. A friend of mine picked up an Evoque and his maiden trip home from the garage gave him <10mpg. He'd been warned this would happen though and it's increased with mileage to something far more palatable!

For interest my A6 has 20k on it (manual 2.0 TDI) and I'm brushing 50mpg in the current weather across a tank. This means I'm filling up at around 650-670 miles done - but with another 30-50 still estimated by the computer. I'd hope for more when temperatures improve as start/stop is basically not kicking in at all as well as the increased engine warm up period and drain from the AC.

Everyone will be different but the numbers are there to be achieved.

For what it's worth I don't find the economy mode particularly economical. From other posts here I've learned that it might have more of an effect in conjunction with the multitronic but in a manual the style of driving it wants to enforce doesn't suit me and I find I'm more efficient by far in comfort or dynamic modes (mostly for the throttle response and sensitivity rather than the steering changes).

[chucky]

No point ringing the garage - that's how it is. I have a 1000 miles up now on my new A6 2.0tdi Multi and have got an overall average of 35mpg. My boss has a 2012 with 55,000 miles on it and his overall average is 41 and that's with endless long trips. It's a lovely car with a terrific interior and multi -media set-up, but if you're looking for very good fuel economy a 520d would have been a better bet. On a different note, how's your windnoise around the drivers door?
I have just picked up my new Audi A6 2.0TDI Avant S-Line Black Edition Multi-tronic which replaces my outgoing 2010 A6 2.0TDI S-Line SE both from new.

I am very pleased with it so far apart from trying to work out if I have an issue with fuel consumption.

I remember jumping in my old car and it having a range of 535 miles when I first picked it up (as it was the same as my dad's registration number) which obviously varies on how you drive it. On my normal run back from work I could get in the high 40's, 50 at a pinch.

The new one however had a full tank and a range of 385 miles displayed and on the same journey I managed to get 37.8mpg I was in economy mode and I was really nursing it and didn't go over 70mph on the motorway which accounts for 60% of the journey.

I now have 7/8 of a tank left and a range of 335 miles which seems very low.

I realise it is new and a fractionally smaller fuel capacity and will take time to fully run in, but that figure seems daft. The pdi covered 2 miles so can't have influenced it that much.

I know you can change the fuel consumption "average" using VCDS so was wondering if it could have been configured incorrectly at Audi\pdi?

Any recommendations before I ring the garage?

[Wuffles]

I concur, ringing the garage will get you nowhere (well, from experience). I have a piece of paper from the last time the car was in with a few faults and one of the lines reads "Check MPG issues...all ok at time of testing". Different dealer may be more helpful though.

[ChuckMountain]

The range calculator seems to take a while to update. I have in my head it is based on the average of your last 50 miles. So any increases in efficiency whilst driving can take a while to reflect in the range. I'm not convinced it's that accurate anyway! Along with the fuel gauge!

For interest my A6 has 20k on it (manual 2.0 TDI) and I'm brushing 50mpg in the current weather across a tank. This means I'm filling up at around 650-670 miles done - but with another 30-50 still estimated by the computer. I'd hope for more when temperatures improve as start/stop is basically not kicking in at all as well as the increased engine warm up period and drain from the AC.



Understand about the range calculator but it seemed to respond a bit quicker in old car but will see. Hopefully its just all getting settled in and things will improve. Done just over 100 miles with 7/8 tank so overall range might be ok.

I am sure the new car with its "8" speeds is doing a lower rpm than the manual in 6th on the motorway so I would expect to see a better figure surely. (Assuming its not labouring)

One other thing I noticed is that I did a mile to a local shop and stopped on a hill so the stop\start didn't kick in and the average mpg dropped like a lead balloon, I don't ever remember seeing it do that in the old car.... bizaare.


No point ringing the garage - that's how it is. I have a 1000 miles up now on my new A6 2.0tdi Multi and have got an overall average of 35mpg. My boss has a 2012 with 55,000 miles on it and his overall average is 41 and that's with endless long trips. It's a lovely car with a terrific interior and multi -media set-up, but if you're looking for very good fuel economy a 520d would have been a better bet. On a different note, how's your windnoise around the drivers door?

Thanks, I don't mind having an average of 35-41 I can live with that for "normal" driving, however this ~37 run was really nursing it and it would have made Driving Miss Daisy look like a formula one race. Haven't noticed much noise as have been testing the Bose system out with various base heavy tracks :)

[KAM]

it was the same as my dad's registration number) which obviously varies on how you drive it.At first glance I thought his Dad's registration was changing according to how he drove it. But then I realised I was just being plain awkward!


As with every other car I've ever owned the first half of the tank seems to last forever as indicated by the fuel level indicator, with a corresponding optimism from the range calculator before plummeting a bit more realistically over the latter half of the tank.How very true. The first litre lasts for ages and the last one just gurgles away down the plug. Now, normally you need the best mileage when you're really low on fuel and desperately trying to get home or to a filling station. So why don't they just turn the fuel tank upside down, so that you use the low-economy litres first, and save the good ones for the end, rather than the way they've got it now? Come on, I'm sure all you engineers out there can explain that easily.

[skibuddy]

In MHO the fuel gauge doesn't move down as quickly on a full tank because there must be a couple of litres in the fuel tank filler pipe. Until this is used, the fuel gauge wont start to move.

[ti rich]

Can you give us some insight please into how you are achieving 50mpg over a tank?
I am at 28k, drive slower than a num and stuggle to get 44. Also an manual gearbox.





I suspect the usual adage of things improving as you put some miles on it will apply. As well as getting used to the car and where the efficiencies in the engine are - they seem a bit higher up the rev range than I've seen before for me.

The range calculator seems to take a while to update. I have in my head it is based on the average of your last 50 miles. So any increases in efficiency whilst driving can take a while to reflect in the range. I'm not convinced it's that accurate anyway! Along with the fuel gauge!

As with every other car I've ever owned the first half of the tank seems to last forever as indicated by the fuel level indicator, with a corresponding optimism from the range calculator before plummeting a bit more realistically over the latter half of the tank. I'm sure there's an engineering explanation for this somewhere!

I'd wait until you have at least a full tank under your belt and see what actual mileage you get out of the tank in both distance and mpg. And go from there. I wouldn't expect great mileage from it whilst new though. A friend of mine picked up an Evoque and his maiden trip home from the garage gave him <10mpg. He'd been warned this would happen though and it's increased with mileage to something far more palatable!

For interest my A6 has 20k on it (manual 2.0 TDI) and I'm brushing 50mpg in the current weather across a tank. This means I'm filling up at around 650-670 miles done - but with another 30-50 still estimated by the computer. I'd hope for more when temperatures improve as start/stop is basically not kicking in at all as well as the increased engine warm up period and drain from the AC.

Everyone will be different but the numbers are there to be achieved.

For what it's worth I don't find the economy mode particularly economical. From other posts here I've learned that it might have more of an effect in conjunction with the multitronic but in a manual the style of driving it wants to enforce doesn't suit me and I find I'm more efficient by far in comfort or dynamic modes (mostly for the throttle response and sensitivity rather than the steering changes).

[Whippy53]

Bet it has to do with those nice 19" rims you're rolling on, betya he's on 17's.

[EvilPostIt]

Probably me being dumb but why does bigger alloys mean worse mpg?

[Whippy53]

I'm told it has to do with rolling resistance, plus, many posts complaining about mpg originate from owners with 19" rims, may just be coincidence, but.

[EvilPostIt]

Hmmm, interesting. Will be interesting to find out what the bitdi plus 20s will do.

[boof]

Can you give us some insight please into how you are achieving 50mpg over a tank?
I am at 28k, drive slower than a num and stuggle to get 44. Also an manual gearbox.

As suggested above, yes I'm on 17's.

Real world MPG 2.0TDI - Page 3 (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?128081-Real-world-MPG-2-0TDI&p=785622#post785622)

Real world MPG 2.0TDI - Page 4 (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?128081-Real-world-MPG-2-0TDI&p=785703#post785703)

and for interest :

boom's profile | Fuelly (https://www.fuelly.com/driver/boom/)

[Whippy53]

My personal theory is that the combo that will give the best mpg on a C7 will be;

3.0ltr, (better suited than a 2.0ltr to the size of car)

Non quatro (eliminate friction and losses through the drive train)

17" rims (lessens rolling resistance

Multitronic (allows optimum gearing for the vast majority as well as 'overdrive')

[Timothy Nathan]

My personal theory is that the combo that will give the best mpg on a C7 will be;

3.0ltr, (better suited than a 2.0ltr to the size of car)

Non quatro (eliminate friction and losses through the drive train)

17" rims (lessens rolling resistance

Multitronic (allows optimum gearing for the vast majority as well as 'overdrive')
Well, that is exactly the combination I have...

...there is no difficulty in getting into the sixties if you drive at a steady 55, in the wee hours of the morning where you never accelerate or decelerate, in Economy. Obviously it goes down up hill and off the scale downhill, but the level bits are reliably up there.

I simply don't have the patience to drive like that. I drive at 80 indicated on the motorway and do a lot of driving around the 30 mph 'burbs in heavy traffic, so my average is around 40mpg, but it is very easy to see and show what is possible.

[bmoster]

Interesting set of posts. I have had my new 2.0 Multi for just over 2 weeks and done 650 miles. I am averaging mid 30s. My journey to work is 18.5 miles 14.5 are motorway. I cannot find the economy sweet spot. On a level motorway it does not seem to be much above 30 on the economy bar when you try and keep at a steady 80 mph. I am hoping that it will improve as it loosens up. I have been using it in comfort mode most of time.

[KAM]

I found this interesting diagram in Wikipedia: it was sourced from the US Dept of Energy. It shows the points in a car's energy usage where the losses occur. Obviously the numbers are not absolute, but do give a general relation between the points of energy use (or fuel consumption).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En...ows_in_car.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_flows_in_car.svg)

The first thing that amazed me was the enormous amount of energy loss in the engine itself, over which we as drivers have no control. Apparently this is just the thermodynamics of the system.
If we take the highway driving model, only about 25% of the energy content of the fuel ever gets as far as the drive-train. There are other losses there, and then you reach the three major elements over which we the people do have control: aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and braking. Although these seem relatively small chunks, they have to be seen in proportion. For example about half of the energy that the drive train eventually delivers to the wheels is used overcoming aerodynamics resistance.
Aerodynamics is listed as only 11% of the overall energy waste, but only 20% of the energy content of the fuel made it past the drive-train anyway.

Air resistance is proportional to the cube of speed. The cube!! Remember that when you're doing a steady 80 mph (to take a random example). Compared to 60 mph you're going 1.33 times as fast, which means you require 2.37 times as much energy. More than double! And energy usage doesn't step up in nice regular increments. The cube curve means that the 5mph between 70 and 75 costs you a lot more than the 5mph between 60 and 65.

I just think this diagram illustrates very neatly the areas to concetrate on when looking for good mpg.

[ChuckMountain]

Interesting set of posts. I have had my new 2.0 Multi for just over 2 weeks and done 650 miles. I am averaging mid 30s. My journey to work is 18.5 miles 14.5 are motorway. I cannot find the economy sweet spot. On a level motorway it does not seem to be much above 30 on the economy bar when you try and keep at a steady 80 mph. I am hoping that it will improve as it loosens up. I have been using it in comfort mode most of time.

That's pretty much like my journey to work, in fact spookily enough I saw pretty much the exact car as mine on the way today. What size wheels do you have.


Bet it has to do with those nice 19" rims you're rolling on, betya he's on 17's.

Oops there goes me with the 20" Rotors from the Black Edition...

How much difference does it make has anybody got any worked examples.

I know that Mercedes for example have different emissions based on the wheel size for the same spec car. Wonder how Audi get away with that ....

[boof]

Actually, sorry I have an s-line. So I'm on 18" wheels. 17" in my head from my old car - sorry.

[ti rich]

The wheel size does make a difference (it's actually due to the weight of the wheel/Tyre not so much the size) due to it being part of the unsprung mass. Its the wheel/tyre,brake discs that have to be accelerated and the heavier they are the worse the MPG and cars performance.

A few years back i changed from 16" to 17" wheels on a car and the mpg dropped by about 3 mpg so it is to be expected and i assume the 20" wheels are worse again. So i guess a 5-6 mpg drop is expected in changing from 18" to 20" wheels. The cars book mpg figures would be based on the standard 18" wheels. I note that BMW now show different mpg for the various wheel sizes on some models.

In this context my 44 mpg average doesn't sound so bad. I can and do get 55+ mpg on a trip and have hit 61 mpg in the summer on my 40 mile commute to work but the average with cold starts and over that entire tank is still 44.

[bmoster]

That's pretty much like my journey to work, in fact spookily enough I saw pretty much the exact car as mine on the way today. What size wheels do you have.

I have an S Line with the standard 18s

[johnsimcox]

Did a trip to Nottingham and back yesterday, 275 miles in total, mostly motorway and with 3 adults in the car. Consumption for the trip was 45.5mpg with an average speed for the trip of 55.7 mph. Whilst still not near what Audi claim I am pretty happy and would expect it to improve further once the car gets past 10000 miles (currently 8200). I have a manual SE Avant

[Needmorepower]

Hello all,

New member.

Got my C7 (2.0tdi, Avant, S-Line, 19s) from West London Audi just before Christmas and have put 11k miles on it since (don't ask).

Interested to read some of the figures and reports on here because my mpg has been a source of irritation for me.


Bought the car with a view that 75 mile each way trip (mostly motorway or A road) meant that I might not see the "best" mpg possible but that I should be in the ball park so mentally assumed 50mpg.

I calculate (from all my fuel receipts.... I'm that sad!) that I am getting 43. Now I know it's been cold starts and the bum-warmers have been on a lot but that's just cack. 24% off from manufacturers stats can't be fair. I don't hang around but I drive considerately (as I want the better consumption) and my cruise is set at an indicated 75.


I love the car, just not loving the mpg frankly.


Still, only doing 30K miles a year, won't affect me much!!
:(

[boof]

Hello all,

New member.

Got my C7 (2.0tdi, Avant, S-Line, 19s) from West London Audi just before Christmas and have put 11k miles on it since (don't ask).

Interested to read some of the figures and reports on here because my mpg has been a source of irritation for me.


Bought the car with a view that 75 mile each way trip (mostly motorway or A road) meant that I might not see the "best" mpg possible but that I should be in the ball park so mentally assumed 50mpg.

I calculate (from all my fuel receipts.... I'm that sad!) that I am getting 43. Now I know it's been cold starts and the bum-warmers have been on a lot but that's just cack. 24% off from manufacturers stats can't be fair. I don't hang around but I drive considerately (as I want the better consumption) and my cruise is set at an indicated 75.


I love the car, just not loving the mpg frankly.


Still, only doing 30K miles a year, won't affect me much!!
:(

Ditch cruise control and don't go over indicated 70 (or as low as you're happy with) and see what difference it makes..

I think there are more of us in the fuel receipt calculating club then we'll ever admit to :)

[AGW82]

I now have 30k miles on my 2.0TDI S-Line (20" Wheels) and the MPG isn't great compared to the stated figures. I drive around 150 miles a day (mainly motorway) and average low 40's, but then I believe the extra urban figures quoted are done on a rolling road at 60 something MPH, so if your doing (ahem...) 80 MPH+ then the MPG goes out of the window. If you drive on the A Roads and Motorways at 65MPH you will easily see 50 MPG +. My car did get better as the miles increased though, when i first had it I was only getting mid 30's....

[pitch3110]

As an A5 comparrison, 140 mile trip yesterday stuck to 55 mph with ACC and managed 58.4mpg by the DIS.

You would not hve ilked out any more and the coupe is quite a bit lighter.


Ta
Pitch

[Bloater]

Did 170 miles each way over the weekend on my brand new A6, so no miles on the clock basically.

On the motorway at about 80 on the cruise, I averaged 43.5 mpg each way, that's with some start/stop roads at each end. Sure I could have achieved better with manual inputs, but I was being lazy basically. I was running in efficiency mode, which to be honest had enough pull about it should I have needed it, although for a laugh I did utilise the kickdown at various times, really picks up then.

Not sure if the mpg will improve, after all there is no real "run-in" period on these engines, after all no oil change for god knows how long.

Anyway, I am happy with what I have achieved, so what happens in the future.

Gary

PS - Lovely comfortable stress free motorway cruiser, almost an enjoyable trip.

[pitch3110]

For info my 143 multi A4 improved with every 10k on the clock plus the gearbox hated the cold.

So Bloater I am sure you will see improvements over the coming months.

MMI have also mentioned before that the gearbox does need learning and again improvements will be seem with useage.

Ta
pitch

[Needmorepower]

Ditch cruise control and don't go over indicated 70 (or as low as you're happy with) and see what difference it makes..

I think there are more of us in the fuel receipt calculating club then we'll ever admit to :)



Thanks for the tips but that length of driving means I honestly don't want to ditch the CC (and also makes me wonder if I shouldn't have got the Multitronic!?!) and actually I have found, so far,that an indicated 75 is a better speed.

72/3 on the cc returned low 40's, 75 is now returning mid to slightly high 40s on the long trip. I'll try 71 or so tonight and see if the engine has "run in" anymore and is now better at that speed.



Glad there are others in the fuel receipt club. Assume we all have spreadsheets with graphs yeah?


Yeah???

[Allroad_2013]

Glad there are others in the fuel receipt club. Assume we all have spreadsheets with graphs yeah?


Yeah???

Naaaaa, life's to short :beerchug:

[Timothy Nathan]

life's to short
To's too short :p

[apples12]

Drove my brothers A6 C7 avant with the 2.0tdi 177ps engine mated to the 6 speed manual from birmingham to aberdeen with a fairly heavy foot on roughly 3 quarters of a tank (thats about 380 miles door to door) but boy was it fun!

[johnsimcox]

Interesting to notice that this weekend I was suddenly getting a good 15% better consumption than I have seen recently with the car. What had happened? Spring had arrived and suddenly the ambient temp was up at 20c. Clearly these cars are very air temperature sensitive

[rickerby]

With 5000 miles under its belt my Car (2.0 TDI SLine - standard wheels) now averages upper 40s without trying too hard on a long run. I have kept one of the trip metres going over the life of the car and that shows a lifetime average of 42.5 which seems pretty good to me. Things definitely improve with miles. I think you can forget about getting 64MPG from one of these unless you sit it on a rolling road at a constant 50mph for around 3 weeks.

[bmoster]

Is that is a manual or multi?

[Needmorepower]

Interesting to notice that this weekend I was suddenly getting a good 15% better consumption than I have seen recently with the car. What had happened? Spring had arrived and suddenly the ambient temp was up at 20c. Clearly these cars are very air temperature sensitive


Actually, much the same has happened to me over the last week or two. Some trips have been showing as plus 50mpg on the DIS whereas before the exact same run would struggle to beat 45.
Maybe the bum warmers are realllllllly bad for consumption!

[Wuffles]

Actually, much the same has happened to me over the last week or two. Some trips have been showing as plus 50mpg on the DIS whereas before the exact same run would struggle to beat 45.
Maybe the bum warmers are realllllllly bad for consumption!

Again, manual or multitronic?

I've just done a very sedate 20 miles with an average speed of 45mph and an average mpg of 36.4 in a multitronic in the sunshine.

[Plgaler]

Actually, much the same has happened to me over the last week or two. Some trips have been showing as plus 50mpg on the DIS whereas before the exact same run would struggle to beat 45.
Maybe the bum warmers are realllllllly bad for consumption!

Yep - I'll definitely agree with that, since the weather has warmed up a bit, I'm getting much closer to 50mpg.

[Needmorepower]

Again, manual or multitronic?

I've just done a very sedate 20 miles with an average speed of 45mph and an average mpg of 36.4 in a multitronic in the sunshine.


Sorry wuffles - Manual
Commute to work is 75 miles of M20, M25 and M1. Mostly moving but plenty of stop-start in the roadworks and Dartford. However, roadworks and traffic does mean that when moving you are often only doing 50 - 60mph.


So mpg improving, now if only I could get the sodding DIS to remember what I had displayed and how I like things to look!!!

[Wuffles]

Cheers. Suspected as much :(

[MFGF]

Drove back from Basingstoke yesterday. Warm sunny day, a steady 70 (well, maybe 80) once on the motorways, and I got an indicated 49mpg for the journey.

[Garnet19]

Hi all, just got myself a 7 month old A6 2.0TDI Multitronic Auto with 7k on the clock. covered only 400 miles so far but disappointed in the Mpg already. I do 6 mile each way to work, driving like Miss Daisy in Eco mode and return a very low 40s to be exact 40.5mpg. I'm not impressed at all by the new car, as my old 15 year old 1.9tdi A4 Avant done a super 59mpg on the same journey. After reading the posts previous I now understand that I am not alone in disappointment. How can Audi quote figures like, Urban 47.1 Extra Urban 64.2 & Combined 56.5mpg. I can only dream of hitting them quotes.

[Wuffles]

Unfortunately for us, the people getting really good figures are in manuals - or sometimes, you'll get someone in a 3.0 busting our chops in this thread with high 50s...there should be a law against that kind of taunting.

True though, we stupidly believed the hype a little based on previous VAG engines and the real-world figures we got from them and based our purchase on them. I say again, stupidly.

[Garnet19]

Well I have made a call back to the garage expressing my disappointment with the Mpg so far, they have asked me to drop the car back to them so they can run diagnostic checks, was so looking forward to at least getting mid 50s

[Wuffles]

Been there, done that. "Diagnostic check, all found OK". Let me know if it's different for you as it will give me some ammo.

[Garnet19]

Had a new A7 & A6 both 3.0 Quattro Auto with less than 4k on the clock for a month each, as my old one was in for repair, Got over 50 on runs and Hi 40s around the doors. Thought I would be cleaver and get a 2.0 thinking it would get more Mpg, mmmm what a joke that was.

[skibuddy]

I averaged 57.2 mpg on my 22 mile commute at average speed of 35 mph this morning. Reasonable amount of stop start on route. Cannot grumble too much at that. Dramatically improved with the weather. Now have 15K on the clock. Typically my journey home is much less though, around 48 mpg. Go figure? My previous A4 3.0 TDI only did 38 mpg at best, so vast improvement for me.

[jbanfie]

Couple of things:

1. These new diesel engines need to warm up quick in order to protect the catalytic converter, in order to do this, they are over fuelled meaning on short runs with a cold engine, mpg will be a disaster - which is what everyone sees - and when you do some nice long runs things get better.

2. As there seems to be general agreement that everything is tuned for emission reduction and not economy or power, someone should get a 2.0 chipped and report the results. You may find the cost of chipping could be recouped in 10,000 miles?

[Wuffles]

I averaged 57.2 mpg on my 22 mile commute at average speed of 35 mph this morning. Reasonable amount of stop start on route. Cannot grumble too much at that. Dramatically improved with the weather. Now have 15K on the clock. Typically my journey home is much less though, around 48 mpg. Go figure? My previous A4 3.0 TDI only did 38 mpg at best, so vast improvement for me.

I would be happy with that, but you have a manual 2.0 :(

[EvilPostIt]

If it makes you all feel better i'm getting 30 at best in the BiTDI. But to be fair its not the car you buy for the purpose of economy.

[Wuffles]

Couple of things:

1. These new diesel engines need to warm up quick in order to protect the catalytic converter, in order to do this, they are over fuelled meaning on short runs with a cold engine, mpg will be a disaster - which is what everyone sees - and when you do some nice long runs things get better.

I'm just watching a trend J. Manual and Auto owners come on here moaning about MPG, once the car's done a few miles and the users are figuring out best methods of driving, the manual drivers vanish from this thread reasonably happy with decent (not far from claimed MPG figures), leaving the auto drivers to ponder why they bothered believing the figures obtained for both cars side by side in the brochure.

[richlean]

Couple of things:

2. As there seems to be general agreement that everything is tuned for emission reduction and not economy or power, someone should get a 2.0 chipped and report the results. You may find the cost of chipping could be recouped in 10,000 miles?

I, too am starting to think about a chip/remap for economy. Has anyone else got any experience of this on these engines?

Mine's a manual A4 2.0TDI 143PS, and on a good long motorway run yesterday I reset the trip computer once the engine was fully warm, and managed 54 over the remaining 2 hours at a true 70mph with AC on. If I can really get 10-15% improvement over this, which the plug-in chips claim, I will be happy.

[ti rich]

115 mile trip to Heathrow this morning at 65mph gave 59mpg, just me and a bag in the car. While not bad driving at such low speeds is tiresome.

Last week 500 mile trip to Cornwall fully loaded with 4 people and a huge roofbox at 70-75 gave 40mpg. I guess this is okay too.

31k miles now so fully run in I would hope. Long term average from new still 44mpg driving like Miss Daisy and having no fun.

[Whippy53]

if I can get mid 40's without too much effort and touch 50 on a run I will be over the moon. We will see.

[Passatier3]

Only done 1000 miles so far, so engine has some loosening up to do but on my 20 mile commute on A roads and dual carriage way at 65/70 it's doing 44mpg average which isn't too bad. My Passat was doing 50 on the same run/speed but that was a DSG, which whilst not as smooth as a Multitronic is better as an "auto" for fuel consumption as it's a manual gearbox behind the electronic/mechanical wizardry - in fact economy was slightly better than my previous manual. At the half-way point to work the A6 is actually better by a couple of mpg than the Passat so upon reaching work thought it would at least match it but it doesn't, seems to stick at 44. Also I think I may struggle to improve much, unless really trying, as now that I've passed the 1000 mile mark I'm beginning to explore the performance a bit more! :D

[Steve Hut]

Mine is 6 months old and just been service at 18000miles and getting mid 40s normally on a motorway run, got 38mpg on motorway last night. Best it did was 52mpg but that was sitting at 60mph. Twenty mile trip to work returns 40 mpg. Love the car otherwise. Could just keep it and when its bought and paid for dont have to worry about fuel consumption as much then as outgoings for the car will be less.

New Skoda Superb is looking tempting though????

[JimC64]

My "Real" world figures are around 38mpg stop / start and around town and usually achieve around mid 40's on the motorway when driving normally.........I did a test though for fuel economy as posted in another thread ....see below



Ok, so for those that have heard me saying I have an 80 litre tank in the past.....forget that, it turns out I DO NOT!!

Ask me how I know?...lol

I actually ended up calling Audi and asking them to re confirm exactly what size tank I have....( I'm almost postive the salesman told me 80 litres:zx11:......anyway, they're adamant its 70 litres ) so hopefully thats put that to bed.

How do I know?
Well carrying on from the rest of my tank I decided to run it all through today to see what I could get.

Having managed 750 miles previously and working on approx calculations from before I was estimating I had x amount and could go
for so many miles....lol
It was soooo lucky I was just literally pulling into the garage forecourt as she started to splutter and cough a little!!:1zhelp:

From yesterday 537 miles and there was 205 miles left showing on the DIS when I checked before I started, so I thought lets see........

I really started to drive extra carefully, nearly all motorway, so some 50mph limits, 60mph and 70 mph limits.....I drove anywhere between 58mph - 65mph when I could, usually NOT using cruise control although I did at certain points.

She started off at around 34mpg and quickly started to rise and got up to the 50.4mpg mark fairly quickly, at this point the miles to empty had increased to 255.

I made a conscious decision NOT to use Cruise control and instead when there was a downwards incline I slowly stepped on the gas a little increasing speed by as much as 5 - 10 mph.....similarly when travelling up hill I eased off the gas and reduced speed by anwhere between 5- 10 mph.

At times this worked so well I thought I was never going to finish the tank of fuel....lol

Here's some of the milestones I saw......All of them new for me at least!!

Couldn't believe I actually saw 60mpg!!

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/jaycam0802/60mpg_zps4fcb6ffe.jpg (http://s140.photobucket.com/user/jaycam0802/media/60mpg_zps4fcb6ffe.jpg.html)


The I saw 61.3mpg.....No pic :zx11:
couldn't believe it?

Later as the tank was running through I saw this.....62.6mpg

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/jaycam0802/626mpg_zps2857bb27.jpg (http://s140.photobucket.com/user/jaycam0802/media/626mpg_zps2857bb27.jpg.html)

Getting close to the end and after probably 80 miles or so this popped up on the dash....
64.1mpg....amazing for me as I've never ever got anywhere near that before....

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/jaycam0802/641mpg_zps339cb217.jpg (http://s140.photobucket.com/user/jaycam0802/media/641mpg_zps339cb217.jpg.html)


My DIS2 which I use as for the lifetime of the vehicle and never ever reset it, has jumped from 37.1 up to 38.mpg average

End of the run showed the following figures.....795.5 miles travelled

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/jaycam0802/7955miles_zps5cb68194.jpg (http://s140.photobucket.com/user/jaycam0802/media/7955miles_zps5cb68194.jpg.html)

In conclusion, I reckon that if starting from a very strong point as regards mpg and you drive conservatively, almost hypermiling at times that in excess of 900+ miles would be achievable....

However, it was only an exercise as far as I'm concerned and not one that I intend to repeat again anytime soon.

I swear I could actually count the blades of grass as I went by it seemed so slow at times, generally, I like to bury the foot into the carpet now and again. I may drive sensibly as far as economy goes from time to time and will be keeping an eye on my mpg ( makes sense due to the cost of fuel these days ) but I'll just be driving normally as a general rule

[mongoose88]

Getting mid 50's on a motorway run, mid 40's on stop start urban runs. Thats in a manual.

Offset pedals are a pain though!

[jbanfie]

If it makes you all feel better i'm getting 30 at best in the BiTDI. But to be fair its not the car you buy for the purpose of economy.

If this makes you feel better, my BiTDi:

First 1000 miles 38.2mpg - taking things easy
next 1000 36.1mpg - booting it a lot more
next 1000 38.4mpg - engine getting looser
next 1000 40.4mpg - hurrah!
Current 500 miles since last reset 42.7mpg - did a run to Leeds and back!

On the run up to Leeds I managed over 50mpg taking it steady 75 on the motorway. I destroyed that on the way back overtaking on the A roads - like you do.

It's variable based on journey distance and ambient temperature, my Fiat Panda does the short journeys currently averaging 56.2!!!

[Passatier3]

Not that much better! I put my foot down on the way home and only got around 42! I've bought a Fiat Stilo diesel as a work hack and runabout and that's doing around 53 so between them not too bad! Plan is to use the A6 to commute a couple of days each week and the Stilo the rest of the time and for general running around which the A6 is overkill for.

[Garnet19]

57.2 mpg nice,,, my suspicions are that the computer readout is not correct. It looks like I will have to do it the old fashioned way, fill the tank and calculate. I wont have it I'm only doing 40mpg.

[Wuffles]

That would make it a different readout between the manual and the multitronic then? I would be surprised if the display software between the two were different.

[Garnet19]

Well hope your wrong, hear is the link for todays drive home, My 2012 Audi A6tdi Auto Multitronic Trip Home - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8hnHRzlZQ)

[Passatier3]

Garnet19 - had a look at the vid and given the type of journey reckon that the consumption is about right. You need to be cruising along at about 60 in top gear (pseudo top gear) for a good few miles to achieve anything like a half-decent fuel consumption figure. You seem to be doing quite a bit of stop/start and not going over 40mph. How far is the journey? From cold, a bit of stop/start for the first couple of miles and then fast A roads, after about 8 miles I'm up to an average of between 38 and 40 and after another 12 miles it's around 44. My Passat DSG was less affected by slower, stop/start driving - I reckon that it's the nature of the Multitronic that when going slowly and accelerating that it's quite an inefficient drivetrain when compared with a DSG or manual.

[Garnet19]

oh my god, your not supposed to say that's normal. My 15 year old A4 1.9tdi Avant would be up to 60mpg even from cold. I only do 6 mile to work so no chance of getting it warmed up.

[Passatier3]

oh my god, your not supposed to say that's normal. My 15 year old A4 1.9tdi Avant would be up to 60mpg even from cold. I only do 6 mile to work so no chance of getting it warmed up. Sorry Garnet but based on my own experience so far with my car I reckon that's about right for yours. :( Was your A4 a manual? With a 6 mile run and your type of journey you've got no chance I'm afraid of much improvement. I'm getting 44 over 20 miles and that's been taking it easy during running in. Put my foot down a bit more today and it dropped to 42. OK the cars going to loosen up over a few thousand miles but I'm not expecting a big improvement. Must see how the weight compares between the A6 and the Passat - the A6 is bigger but it uses aluminium in it's construction so I wouldn't have thought there was much in it?

[Whippy53]

I think you'll find the gross weight of the A6 is greater by about 100kg, however, the A6 motor should be more efficient. And I can get 50mpg out of my ole pd140 all day. So where's the big diff?

[Wuffles]

A marketing department somewhere, that's the difference.

[Whippy53]

oh my god, your not supposed to say that's normal. My 15 year old A4 1.9tdi Avant would be up to 60mpg even from cold. I only do 6 mile to work so no chance of getting it warmed up.
Whats it like if you drive it in auto as opposed to Eco?? I think the Eco setting may be more trouble than its worth. Try it and see.

[EvilPostIt]

I must say, I noticed I got better MPG from Comfort than Efficiency.

[birdmansa6]

I do about 10 miles on the motorway in the morning to get into London and from cold to the north circular It says 41mpg. by the time I get to Chelsea another 7 miles or so this has dropped to 31 to 33 mpg. the most I got after a 2 hour motorway run from cold is 47 mpg but that was keeping at 75ish.

The average on the trip from new reads 34.7 mpg


I have 2.0 tdi multi with 8k on the clock

[birdmansa6]

Forgot to mention. I have found I get more MPG from BP or SHELL. than from supermarkets or esso.

[Passatier3]

I do about 10 miles on the motorway in the morning to get into London and from cold to the north circular It says 41mpg. by the time I get to Chelsea another 7 miles or so this has dropped to 31 to 33 mpg. the most I got after a 2 hour motorway run from cold is 47 mpg but that was keeping at 75ish.

The average on the trip from new reads 34.7 mpg


I have 2.0 tdi multi with 8k on the clock Bears out what my thoughts are. Though have to say 47 mpg at 75 is pretty good and again seems to support my view that the Multitronic is fine once you are up to a decent constant speed but it's slower speeds and accelerating from slow speed that seems to kill consumption. Will have a good test for mine soon picking my son up from uni. Round trip of 300 miles of mainly motorway and dual carriageway. Took the Stilo (1.9 diesel) to work today and having stopped for fuel on the way home reset the trip. Artificial I know starting from a warm engine and the computer probably isn't that accurate but for the 10 miles home I averaged 75mpg! Was nearer to 80 until a hill not far from home.

[Kieron Mullan]

After 4 yrs of ownership with a Multitronic (8 pseudo gears), albeit a 2.7TDI in an A5 cab, try turning off your AC when you start from cold and only turn it on when the engine gets up to normal temp and you'll find your MPG improves markedly over your total journey.

Cheers

[Wuffles]

My money would be that the people with concern about MPG won't be running A/C during any kind of "testing". I certainly wouldn't be.

But I take your point.

[Passatier3]

Absolutely. In all my cars I've only ever used the AC to cool down in summer. As for Audi saying leave it set at 22 degrees and on Auto, no way. I've only run my car in the Auto mode (car setting not the AC!) so will have to try the other modes. Whilst the Multitronic is smoother it's a pity in some ways that S-Tronic isn't available on the 2.0 as well as the 3.0 because the perceived/expected increase in economy of going for the 2.0 over the 3.0 doesn't seem to be being realized in practise if going for an auto rather than a manual. I used to smile on my way to work as I wafted past more expensive/bigger cars imagining that they must be concerned about fuel consumption whilst in my Passat I was easily doing an average of 46 - 50 mpg, now I've turned into those drivers! Only joking (I hope!) as now that the car is run in I shall return to my usual 70 - 75.

[Wuffles]

(I could only find the combined figures on the website)

Audi website still states for the 2.0:

56.5 MPG Combined for a 6 speed manual
55.4 MPG Combined for a Multitronic

Sifting through the figures in this thread, I say impossible. According to the vast disparity in the figures people are seeing when comparing a manual to a multi in real life, I'd suggest they'd struggle to even perform figures this close to each other in a lab. Anyone disagree?

Then they state 53.4 and 54.4 MPG combined for a 3.0 Manual and Multitronic respectively. Well that's hardly true is it, the 3.0 drivers are quoting higher figures than the 2.0 drivers aren't they?

Very misleading information when we purchased. And still the same.

[boof]

It's the same for any car though. The tests aren't relevant to real driving. If, in real life, you do any sort of acceleration, use any sort of internal gadgets or so much as see a hill on the horizon then you're going to be out.

You can only use them as a reference amongst manufacturers. And even then you have to understand they're still artificial. How much difference will a multitronic make on their test over a manual? very little I'd guess hence similar numbers. And / or they can code the auto gearbox to be in the sweet spot for efficiency to artificially bolster the figures.

Blame the regulations not the manufacturers I'm afraid.

I'm confident I could do 56.5 combined if I really tried in my manual. I'm averaging 50 as it stands with mild effort. It would be hard though and also depends alot on weather and other traffic.

[Wuffles]

You have missed my point entirely I believe. What you have just stated has been discussed many times, that's not my point.

[JimC64]

[QUOTE=Wuffles;817252
Very misleading information when we purchased. And still the same.[/QUOTE]

I agree...........the figures quoted can only ever be used as a guide and NOT gospel by any means

To put things into perspective, the OEM I usd to work for manufacturing and supplying Asphalt plants quoted that a 2 ton mixer couldachieve a mix cycle of 52 seconds that along with an ambient temp of x degrees moisture etc etc would mean around 120 tons per hour, or thereabouts.

These figures were quoted on plants based in hot exotic countries where it hardly rained for 10 months of the year, if ever.....lol

The customers we were quoting unfortunately were based in Britain, in Lincoln or Scuthorpe, Leeds etc where it is generally cold, wet damp and altogether generally miserable......Of course customers were surprised when they could only achieve perhaps 65 tons per hour output....lol

Its a guide, no more no less and to be taken with a pinch of salt

[Wuffles]

But as a comparison with my point, your OEM would have to be giving figures for two very similar machines, whether they are both misleading is neither here nor there, but one of them would be vastly closer to the figures in real life usage, whereas the other was not. Even though they claimed to be the same. So the buyer would have bought based on the figures being close and would have been rightly disappointed and aggrieved when it turned out he picked the wrong one.

[Passatier3]

As I intimated and Wuffles stated, the concern/complaint, call it what you will, isn't so much that the cars aren't returning the manufacturers quoted consumption (I think we are all savvy enough to know that they are generally unachievable) but more that given that the claimed figures for the manual and Multitronic are very close why is the reality so different? I stayed away from automatics years ago, partly because of their inferior fuel consumption and sapping of performance, but understood, and I'm talking autos with torque converters here, that modern ones were much better because of "locking" etc. My first foray into "automatics" was with my last car, a Passat DSG, which in fact achieved slightly better economy than the manual I had before - suprisingly a look at the VW web-site shows the current Passat DSG as having considerably worse consumption than the manual! I'm still wondering therefore why Audi went with the Multitronic rather than the S-Tronic (DSG)? Surely their own testing would have thrown up what we are finding? Must find out more about the Multitronic CVT gearbox to see how it works and whether there is anything to explain the poorer fuel consumption. Must admit that with my limited driving of the car so far the revs seem to keep pretty low unless booting it but I suppose any increase for a given road speed over the manual will give rise to increased consumption?

[boof]

I answered that in my post above that was dismissed. Wuffles if I'm missing the point please elaborate rather than just dismissing out of hand.

How much difference do you think auto and manual boxes make on the official test cycle? Modern automatics especially. Particularly when the auto box can be fudged in the box ecu and engine management ecu to change gear precisely (or not!) to get the maximum efficiency results on the test which you can't do in a manual box. This will surely elevate the auto boxes results artificially.

That relates even less to real world driving - hence the real world discrepancy.


Comparing that in the isolation of the A6 with other cars you've had experience of is irrelevant unless they share the same platform. And it still comes down to how you drive them.

New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle)

It's so easy to game an automatic box to beat that test over a manual. But also take note the acceleration cycles used - I doubt any of us drive that slowly on the road. If you ever accelerate faster then you're already outwith the boundaries of the test and so will be seeing a worse result.

[Wuffles]

We (well I at least) are asking why. Not how. Not even the technical why that you are giving. It's (well for me at least) a case of them lying - there's no other way to say it. So why did they think that no-one would notice the real world figures being so vastly different from the marketing bumph?

[boof]

I don't think they expect that to be the case. The figures they publish are for the test.

If they sell you the car saying the mpg figures are based on real world driving then it's a different story but I don't think that's the situation.

Presuming they do indeed get those figures on the official test cycle (and I presume these are published and verifiable) then they're not lying.

I agree with you it's daft but it's the tests fault. You could perhaps partition some of the blame on the manufacturers playing the test for maximum results but to be honest that seems fairly reasonable. You want to do the best you can and if the test is so bad to allow it then...

The obvious answer is for the industry to move to publishing real world figures. But..how on earth do you define real world?

[Passatier3]

Boof - reading that Wiki article it looks as though a move to a more realistic test is in the offing. Agree with what you say about the test and that manufacturers exploit it but in doing so they could shoot themselves in the foot. For example you want a 2.0 A6 and you want an auto. The only choice you've got is a Multitronic - word gets round that the fuel consumption is poor - what do you do, quite possibly go elsewhere? No one's commented on my comment regarding why the S-Tronic isn't being used in the 2.0? As I know from personal experience from near identical cars in real world driving the fuel consumption is virtually identical. Even some Audi drivers are concerned about fuel consumption in these times and Audi must know from their own "real world" tests that the Multitronic was never going to come anywhere near the manual and so why choose it? I thought the S-Tronic/DSG was the VAG flagship gearbox? I don't mind the Multitronic but especially with the BE with it's sporty looks etc. I'd have preferred a gearbox to match i.e. the S-tronic rather than one that wafts you along and feels a little strange to me! I even wonder if they got the gearboxes the wrong way round between the 2.0 and 3.0 engines as I would have thought the bigger engine would be more suitable for the Multitronic and the 2.0 the S-Tronic?!!

[boof]

I agree with the box choice, I found it a little odd it wasn't a dsg / s tronic. But who knows. Could be as simple as the upsell. Want the better box? Got to go up the range.

I'm not entirely sure DSG boxes have a good reputation for reliability once the miles are on them. That could be false these days and / or may not apply to the s-tronic boxes (no idea how much difference there is if any from the generic vag dsg boxes) but you could suggest that Audi know the 2.0 diesel will be the big seller of the line (I presume this will be the case, especially company car tax wise) so don't want to have it plagued with high mileage gear box issues. Pure speculation though / a lot of hot air on my part probably.

[Wuffles]

I agree with the box choice, I found it a little odd it wasn't a dsg / s tronic. But who knows. Could be as simple as the upsell. Want the better box? Got to go up the range.

And herein lies the crux of my argument. They didn't make it clear that the Multitronic will not ever match that of the Manual "in the brochure". That's the lie I'm getting at. Not that they cludge the figures, we all know it happens, but the direct comparison in the lab or real world is not being made by them.

[boof]

It's the same answer. The auto box *does* match the manual in the artificial official test cycle they have to perform. I wasn't referring to the odd box choice in the 2.0 in terms of efficiency just that, like Passatier3, I presumed their DSG tech was the top of the tree for their auto boxes. So why is not in the 2.0 A6 when it is in, say, the 2.0 Skoda Superb. Whether that brings you better efficiency, smoother shifts, more reliability etc I don't know. I just thought it was 'the best' so odd for it not to be in their premium brand.

They can't possibly tell you anything else as there is no standard to relate to other than the eu test cycle. I also don't think it's true that the multitronic will never match the manual in real driving.

I could drive my manual everywhere held in gear at 3500 rpm. You'll get better economy out of your multitronic then. It's a hugely difficult thing to quantify. You can say that's not real world, but I can assure you for some people it is!!

Unless Audi specifically sold you the car under the proviso that, in real world terms, the multitronic will match the manual box based on your specific style of driving - then there is no lie. There is no way for audi to make a direct 'real world' comparison as there is no way to clarify what the real world is. The best and closest thing they (and all manufacturers have) is the current test.

I don't think the current test is very good and could do with being shaken up - but there will still be something that attempts to define average real world driving. And for a good chunk of people it will still be wrong.

The only answers are to :

- Test drive yourself.

- Wade through forums like this one.

- Check out fuel aggregator sites like fuelly.com etc

Those are 'real world' experiences. But even then, as this thread as proven, figures fluctuate wildly based on driving style.

Personally I'd love to have a go in a multitronic on my usual route driving in my normal fashion. See how close to my manual figures I get. I think I'd get pretty close. I may well get the chance in future via a loan / courtesy car during sentencing so if I ever do...

I'm not wild about the 50mpg average I'm getting out the A6. I'd be getting more out of a 520d I know for sure. But I was working at somewhere between 45 -> 60 mpg based on the official figures and what I know they have historically translated to in the real world for my driving style on other cars. And I've landed in the middle of that.

[Wuffles]

Right. You have a manual. You are getting 50mpg average and you are unhappy. You could of course drive differently with your manual and perhaps eek a little more out of the mpg. Certainly a lot more than those of us with a pre-programmed gearbox and less flexibility.

We bought ours based on the figures being almost the same as the manual in the brochure, and yet we don't get anywhere near 50mpg. Now try and imagine how "unhappy" some of us multitronic owners are.

Some of us feel a little like we were conned by the massaging of the figures in whichever way you think they did it.

That's it.

It's a pointless argument for me, not least because I am still trying in vain to reject the vehicle after 9 months of faffing about. There's nothing anyone can do about it, but word should certainly get out, and the way to do that is to check forums as you quite rightly say, but without people moaning in them, there's nothing to check. Agreed?

I've had ours for over a year now, there weren't many people bleating about the mpg in the multi when we bought it. I want others to know before they choose a multi over a manual.

[Passatier3]

Whilst we are making different points, all valid, and looking at things from a different angle I do agree that Audi do seem to be, let's say being a bit mischievous :D as regards the Multitronic. As Wuffles says you have no direct control over the gearbox (I wonder what effect using the paddles would have?) in the same way as you do with a manual. I'm not including/advocating coasting downhill, but even driving home in a manual (not Audi) tonight I was coasting up to islands and junctions (only for short distances but it all adds up) on occasions and because I can read the road etc. ahead which the car can't (!) I was I hope making a better choice of gear than an auto ever could as regards economy/load on the engine. It would be interesting boof for you to try a Multitronic but I honestly think that you would struggle/find it impossible to match the figures that you achieve with the manual. By the way, I was checking the brochure for something else and the front wheel drive 3.0 has the Multitronic as well (as well as manual), the 3.0 Quattro the S-Tronic and the BiTDI the Tiptronic. I'm getting 44 mpg at the moment which to be honest I'm not unhappy with but the 50 you're getting would be brilliant.

[Kieron Mullan]

According to a report published by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) in 2013, real world economy figures are 25% higher on average than car manufacturer claims. The gap has increased by 10% from back in 2001, and its the German manufacturers that lead the biggest discrepancies. Data is based on fuel consumption data from nearly half a million private and company cars, BMW has the largest difference between real world and test figures, with a discrepancy of 30%. Worst offenders are:




BMW
30%


Audi
28%


General Motors
27%


Mercedes
26%


Fiat
24%


Ford
24%


Volkswagen
23%


Renault
16%


Peugeot / Citroen (PSA)
15%


Toyota
15%

[tankuk]

Recently did a 300 mile run mainly motorway in early hours of morning and thought I would go for record mpg figures. Got it up to 60 at one point but had to do 53 mph on motorway. Finished journey at 59.1.

Got bored so won't bother doing it again :)

[Wuffles]

Manual?

[tankuk]

Yep 2.0 in economy mode no air con. Quite a lot in boot too.

[daycartes]

I haven't actually counted but I get the distinct impression that the multitronic is the gearbox of choice on these forums and the newbies are still choosing them. i wonder if they are aware of this thread.

I was put off the multitronic by stories about 7/8 plate mechanisms in other threads. I did test drive one and it seemed OK, but I didn't want to be a guinea pig for new technology. Having said that, I'm still ,after 4000 miles trying to get used to the 6 speed box, the 5 speed on our A4 is much better. I have difficulty going over empty roundabouts in 4th gear (or even round them)! I feel that I should be in 2nd but third is fine if there is traffic on the roundabout. The tiptronic is superb though and it's one thing I miss about my previous 2.7 tip. I could even get 47mpg on a run.

[Bloater]

I have followed this thread with interest, and general silence, but need to say something, not that it would help.

Anyone who buys a car and thinks that he will get within 20% of the official figures needs to look at themselves unfortunately. Any knowledge of the official testing will tell you that, with tests of straight line efficiency, gaps taped closed, warm engines, no braking or accelerating etc. In fact nothing like driving in the real world, surely anyone can see that.

Why would Audi therefore do a different test, I. E. Real world and show that really the multi will only achieve 30 to the gallon, when no other manufacturer would, it just won't happen.

Audi have done nothing wrong here. They have performed the standard testing, which are witnessed I believe, and the answer is as published. A small disclaimer usually appears with these figures about it being the official consumption, but I don't recall a statement in the brochure stating that you will ever achieve them.

Whilst I appreciate this may be naughty on behalf of Audi, it's the same for every manufacturer.

Having always owned manuals, I know roughly what to expect from the car, where I live and work and also with my driving style. My brother had an a4 multi and struggled to get it above 30. I had an A4 sline avant multi as a courtesy car, and driving it in a similar manner to my manual, within half an hour it was clear the economy, for me was rubbish. You could easily have determined the same on a test drive as well.

I will never by an auto of any sort, because to date with my style and my driving there isn't a single auto box out there that could. match a manual box, it's a fact and one which to be fairly honest, is plainly obvious.

Until the EU come up with a more representative test this will always be the same, even then you would be unlikely to match it.

I reckon with some effort you could match the test figures, try it. Tape up all panel gaps, turn off all accessories, warm the engine, well run in, get on the motorway, flat, no wind, and drive at 100kmh. When everything is sorted, reset the trip, and half a mile later make note of the economy, and there you go easy. Official testing is not done over 100's of miles, it's done over short distances for a reason.

In short you bought a multi based on figures that you know full well don't and won't ever match reality, and now you are not happy, hmmm.


If you try the short test on the motorway, and don't match or better the figures, then maybe you have grounds for a complaint, unfortunately I think this very unlikely.

All the best, hopefully you get a resolution at some stage, perhaps next time you buy a car, rip out the economy pages and look at what it does over a test drive.

Cheers,

Gary

[Passatier3]

Manual? Did you need to ask! :D

[Wuffles]

In short you bought a multi based on figures that you know full well don't and won't ever match reality, and now you are not happy, hmmm.

No I didn't. I wasn't aware. You seem to think that it's plain as day this this is the case when it's not. It's why I'm arguing the toss so someone like me doesn't fall into the same trap.

Where you comment about taping up the gaps and doing this that and the other to achieve figures that's all well and good, and expected - I'm not that stupid - but they wouldn't have to do as much taping up a manual boxed car. This is my point.

[Wuffles]

All the best, hopefully you get a resolution at some stage, perhaps next time you buy a car, rip out the economy pages and look at what it does over a test drive.

I should also point out that this has no basis in why I'm trying to reject the car by the way, I am not really that bothered about the MPG, I've got more to worry about. I honestly want others to know that the figures are skewed towards the 2.0 being better, and the manual and auto giving more or less the same, when neither is true.

[Passatier3]

Gary - sorry chap but a lot of what you are saying is incorrect. Reading the article linked to earlier it clearly sets out what the testing regime is and this includes starting from a cold engine and whilst the results are clearly not real world they are certainly not carried out in the way you describe i.e. warm engine at a steady speed on a motorway. As we have already said we don't expect to achieve those artificial quoted figures, what we are trying to understand is why the Multitronic is so much worse than the manual when the quoted figures are pretty close. Are there power losses in the transmission, does it rev higher for a given road speed under certain conditions etc? From the table posted you do have to wonder if we have really moved on in the last 10 years or so as regards economy and even emmissions given the fudging in consumption figures and rather makes a farce of the whole Green agenda, lower road fund licences for certain cars etc. Governments are obviously being well and truly whitewashed by the manufacturers!

[tankuk]

Interesting as my next a6 was going to be an auto but hadn't connected the auto with mpg before. Might stick with manual.

[Bloater]

Not read the article, but what I describe is my information on how parts of the test are carried out.

Anyway, I can't answer why the multi is harder to achieve the quoted numbers, but having been driving for 25 years I have yet to come across a non-manual box that doesn't suck engine power, or have dreadful economy.

Even my experiences with flappy paddles, and trying mimic manual changes still results in duff economy.

Guess it highlights the need to have an extended test drive, so that you can see what your driving style means to these things. I'm talking many hours, not the 15 minutes you normally get with the salesman in the back.

I hate to think what I would achieve in the multi, I barely manage 30 in the manual, unless I am going long distance, but then I bought an sline with power and grip, and intend to use it and enjoy it.

Cheers

[Whippy53]

I'm puzzled by this, why would the Multi be less efficient? It is, in mechanical terms, a fairly efficient design. Add to this the fact that Audi refer to it as being "as efficient as a 5 speed" and that it "contributes towards economy" Also I am troubled by the discrepancy between figures, some are saying they are getting near 50 _A6-Chris) and others are getting nothing like that. I for one certainly don't believe the quoted figures are anything other than a fairy story and if I can get 45 ish I'm happy but that still doesn't solve the mystery!

And why Oh why when I turn to the road tests for my info (as I'm sure many people do) do they insist on perpetuating the myth? don't they do their own MPG tests? and if not, why not? All these journos do is trot out the press release info, highly misleading. Personally I think that the characteristics of the Multi suits the A6 and that's why I went for it but if I end up getting 35 mpg I will be upset. Mind you I looked into this on the test (2.0ltr s line avant) and after "exploring the performance characteristics" for 4 hour still managed to get mid 40's. Puzzled? you betcha.

[Passatier3]

Bloater - As regards Autos as said elsewhere I had a manual Passat TDI 140 Estate followed by virtually the same spec. but DSG and got almost the same consumption figures. In fact (driving in auto most of the time) the DSG was giving slightly better figures as it would change gear more often and change up into a higher gear sooner than when I was in manual mode. And at least with the DSG (being essentially a manual box under the skin) you could see what gear the car was in whilst in auto unlike with the Multitronic. Like you I didn't buy the A6 to achieve record economy figures and as stated I'm pretty happy with the 44 achieved so far, given the increased power etc. over the Passat, but fear that figure will now get worse now the car is run in! :D As said earlier for me the S-Tronic/DSG would have been a better choice for me as it does give you the best of both worlds. Whippy - I'm with you as in puzzled! :D

[JimC64]

responses below in bold....


I have followed this thread with interest, and general silence, but need to say something, not that it would help.

Anyone who buys a car and thinks that he will get within 20% of the official figures needs to look at themselves unfortunately!!!
Yes I think you're right.
I see / hear people going on about real world figures etc etc......Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say its some of these people that don't live in the real world.
I mean honestly, all this has been known, talked about discussed for many many years........seriously, you'd have to be a Martian or a newborn NOT to have heard / read / seen this before.



I reckon with some effort you could match the test figures, try it. Tape up all panel gaps, turn off all accessories, warm the engine, well run in, get on the motorway, flat, no wind, and drive at 100kmh. When everything is sorted, reset the trip, and half a mile later make note of the economy, and there you go easy. Official testing is not done over 100's of miles, it's done over short distances for a reason.
Done that.......no taping up panel gaps, had the A/Con 90% of the time, window down slightly as I was smoking and the boot was errrr full tbh.
I did drive mostly very carefully, nearly all motorway and managed 64.1mpg at one point ( albeit briefly ) and 795.5 miles on one tank


In short you bought a multi based on figures that you know full well don't and won't ever match reality, and now you are not happy, hmmm
If you try the short test on the motorway, and don't match or better the figures, then maybe you have grounds for a complaint, unfortunately I think this very unlikely.
All the best, hopefully you get a resolution at some stage, perhaps next time you buy a car, rip out the economy pages and look at what it does over a test drive.
+1 on these comments

Cheers,

Gary

[Johnny31]

As many people are wondering WHY there are so big differences between quoted and real life MPG numbers, look here:
"Fuel consumption figures explained" @ Tutorials - Audi.co.uk (http://www.audi.co.uk/owners-area/tutorials.html)
The amazing bit is that the tests are done on the rolling road - therefore eliminating the biggest contributor to your fuel consumption: AIR RESISTANCE! If you know even the most basic science, you will understand the implications of this: @ 15MPH, it is somewhat comparable, but as you drive faster, the differences are massive!
Furthermore, this explains the problem with multitronic boxes and the difference in MPG figures with manual. Here's where I'm coming from: multitronic is a CVT gearbox. If you read some "proper" analysis (such as http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05001.pdf), you will find that the manual transmissions efficiency averages @ 95% whilst continuously variable transmissions (CVT), have been estimated to have cycle efficiencies of approximately 88%...

[Whippy53]

unless my math is out ( and it normally is) i calculate that equates to around 1.5 mpg difference (give or take) not an alfull lot. Maybe someone can check my figures?

[Johnny31]

unless my math is out ( and it normally is) i calculate that equates to around 1.5 mpg difference (give or take) not an alfull lot. Maybe someone can check my figures?
I'm afraid, it is not that simple: (taken from wikipedia for simplicity (DRAG) :-))
A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower) (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Now, you can see that in the "test" done by Audi, there is no such component which is crazy. Furthermore, when it comes to manual vs multitronic, it is 7% difference in spend on utilised power in the above example... meaning that we're talking about 7% difference applied to the exponential curve - hence there is no "fixed" 1.5 mpg difference.

[Whippy53]

Ok, its just that according to the article,

"Manual transmissions range in efficiency from 87-99%, and fixed value of 95% has been
assumed in this report (independent of gear). An overall 1.5% improvement in transmission
efficiency could correspond to a 0.1 km/L increase in fuel economy [Greenbaum, et al., 1994;
Kluger, et al., 1995; Bishop, et al., 1996]. Continuously variable transmissions (CVT), have been
estimated to have cycle efficiencies of approximately 88% [Weiss et al, 2000]. "

probably me just getting hold of the wrong end of the stick!

[Passatier3]

Johnny and Whippy - in that link earlier (Wiki) it says that in the tests air resistance etc. is allowed for by factoring in some additional drag to the driven wheels, or words to that effect, so whilst the results are still "inaccurate" they are at least allowing for that. Interestingly I did a Google search for Audi CVT and one article, as well as explaining how it works, says that CVT is more fuel efficient than manual!! Saying that the CVT makes better use of the torque characteristics of the engine. So, even more puzzled! :D And for those banging on about quoted figures v real world figures - we know that, we understand that, we are under no illusions etc! :D All we are trying to understand is why the actual difference between Multi and manual given that the quoted figures are so close. If the Multi figure was say 6 mpg. less we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whippy's info. looked like explaining this i.e. the CVT is less efficient but then that piece I found says the opposite! And why are the results for the 3.0 litre the opposite of that for the 2.0?

[Wuffles]

Johnny and Whippy - in that link earlier (Wiki) it says that in the tests air resistance etc. is allowed for by factoring in some additional drag to the driven wheels, or words to that effect, so whilst the results are still "inaccurate" they are at least allowing for that. Interestingly I did a Google search for Audi CVT and one article, as well as explaining how it works, says that CVT is more fuel efficient than manual!! Saying that the CVT makes better use of the torque characteristics of the engine. So, even more puzzled! :D And for those banging on about quoted figures v real world figures - we know that, we understand that, we are under no illusions etc! :D All we are trying to understand is why the actual difference between Multi and manual given that the quoted figures are so close. If the Multi figure was say 6 mpg. less we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whippy's info. looked like explaining this i.e. the CVT is less efficient but then that piece I found says the opposite! And why are the results for the 3.0 litre the opposite of that for the 2.0?

Thank you. Exactly that.

[Johnny31]

The only two things I am suggesting are: a) the test *might* add some additional drag but I guess it is far from the real one, in the context of greater speeds (and probably linear); b) CVT can be *better* for keeping the car in the right RPM range BUT it is still less efficient when transferring power to the wheels (and the MPG difference will be greater depending on the extra work engine performs).
Obviously, my conclusions are not very scientific as I haven't run the actual tests. However, the numbers add up perfectly: if you just look at the artificial tests in identical conditions (like Audi do), you get the small difference - almost the same one that Whippy worked out! But, what you guys see on the road, really supports my theory where manual and auto will be much more apart due to the "variable" introduced by different (and in the test unaccounted for) forces - such as drag.
Anyway, long story short, that's why I opted for 3.0TDI with S-Tronic... :p (of course, that was not the reason, just bragging!)

[Bloater]

Get a manual and a multi, side by side on the motorway and do a parallel test, simples, maintain constant speed, everything is the same, wind drag, road etc, check tyre pressures beforehand and ballast one car to ensure driver weight is the same.

I'd be more concerned with the fact that some get really good, like manual matching economy, others can't, which all things being equal relates driving style and weight of lead in shoes. I can't believe there is that much variability in the manufacture of these units, so all multitronic boxes should be able to produce the same results, in the same conditions, that's the hard part.

[EvilPostIt]

Also bear in mind that in some instances the car are tested in conditions which are impossible to replicate. Read an article on the BBC website recently which stated some test are conducted with Wing Mirrors removed, Alternator and Brake Calipers disconnected! So not just the simple taping up of gaps...

[Passatier3]

Johnny - swine! :D Anyway I got the following from the Audi web-site which explains all - we ain't driving them properly! :D

multitronic transmission

The Audi multitronic transmission combines the responsiveness and fuel efficiency of a manual gearbox with the convenience of an automatic.
More dynamism and less fuel

Thanks to its continuously variable ratios and adaptive map control, multitronic provides seamless acceleration, and always uses the optimum engine speed for the circumstances. Because of this control near to the operating optimum, fuel consumption can in some cases actually be lower than with a manual gearbox.

I'll be in the Audi tomorrow and will drive carefully one way to work see what mpg. I can achieve and with gay abandon the other and then to hell with it!! :D

[thehorse]

I have a 3L Multi Avant and am averaging around 46mpg. On a longer journey 50mpg is pretty easy. Best from a cold start is 62.2mpg on a 40 mile trip into London last month and I got 80.3mpg over 10 miles from a warm start on the A34 recently, though I was using a lorry to move the air out of the way.

I think the multi is pretty good as it keeps the engine at optimal revs and adjusts the drive ratio to suit, I think the mpg discrepancies are due to different driving styles.

Also check your tyre pressures, mine were a fair bit down from what Audi recommend.

[Wuffles]

Comedy, pure hilarity for 2.0 Multi owners.

I have no idea what "I think the mpg discrepancies are due to different driving styles" could possibly mean, but there we are.

[Passatier3]

21 miles to work today, cold start, mainly A roads and dual carriageway - no more than 60 mph, 3 miles of 30 mph limit, couple of hills, few islands - so I reckon a pretty fair test rather than just bimbling down a motorway. Drove as carefully as I could given the constraints of other traffic and got 43 mpg. I've got a fairly light right foot, try to read the road ahead and brake gently (unless forced to!) so don't think I'm ever going to achiveve much more on that route even once the engine has loosened up. Had the car set to Automatic, stop start off and only the radio on. Was hoping to get 45/46 really. With hindsight and the info. I've gleaned from here I'm beginning to wish I'd looked at the 3.0 now!

[tankuk]

So if you want an auto the 3L is better? And if you go for a 2L and care about mpg the manual is better?

[Passatier3]

Well, well, well! Drive home tonight - I'm a fairly gentle driver anyway, except when I'm giving my wife's Mini Cooper S a bit of stick, but when driving home drove as normal i.e. bit harder acceleration and 70 on the dual carriageway. Slightly less hold ups in traffic but when I got to the A road traffic was slower at 45 to 50 than this morning when it was 55 to 60 - I had planned to do 60 to 65. Having being slowed up a bit I stayed in gentle right foot mode until I got home - and the result was just under 49 mpg!! You know what, I'm happy with that! Won't achieve it all the time (hopefully around 45) but knowing under the right conditions it can be economical is good enough for me and a little bit of an apology to Audi from me. :D Whilst the traffic did vary a bit, but not by that much I reckon the biggest factor was starting out at 20 degrees rather than 12 which meant that the engine warmed up quicker. I wonder what temperature they carry the tests out in and given the big fluctuations in temperature over the year in the UK etc. then as well giving different figures for urban/extra urban/combined then they should provide them for different temperatures as well! :D I did have a play with the paddles on the way and noticed that if I went from "manual" to Auto but kept the speed the same that the revs increased a bit. I had my suspicions that the CVT working as it does by operating at the optimum power/gear for a given speed and load may be revving slightly higher in some cases than a manual and this seems to support my theory (totally unscientific of course and I'd like to check again) but if right it would explain why the manual can achieve better figures notwithstanding the power losses than may or may not in the CVT transmission. I love the smoothness of the Multitronic and as said was happy enough with the 44 mpg I'd got a few days ago but took part in this discussion because like Wuffles I was interested in trying to understand why the Multitronic wasn't achieving similar figures to the manual. The manual it seems is still king but the Multi ain't bad! :D

[Whippy53]

Great! Just about encapsulates my thoughts, if I can get 44 ish with 50 a possability I will be over the moon. I'm happy you're happy.

[JimC64]

Well, well, well! Drive home tonight - I'm a fairly gentle driver anyway, except when I'm giving my wife's Mini Cooper S a bit of stick, but when driving home drove as normal i.e. bit harder acceleration and 70 on the dual carriageway. Slightly less hold ups in traffic but when I got to the A road traffic was slower at 45 to 50 than this morning when it was 55 to 60 - I had planned to do 60 to 65. Having being slowed up a bit I stayed in gentle right foot mode until I got home - and the result was just under 49 mpg!! You know what, I'm happy with that! Won't achieve it all the time (hopefully around 45) but knowing under the right conditions it can be economical is good enough for me and a little bit of an apology to Audi from me. :D Whilst the traffic did vary a bit, but not by that much I reckon the biggest factor was starting out at 20 degrees rather than 12 which meant that the engine warmed up quicker. I wonder what temperature they carry the tests out in and given the big fluctuations in temperature over the year in the UK etc. then as well giving different figures for urban/extra urban/combined then they should provide them for different temperatures as well! :D I did have a play with the paddles on the way and noticed that if I went from "manual" to Auto but kept the speed the same that the revs increased a bit. I had my suspicions that the CVT working as it does by operating at the optimum power/gear for a given speed and load may be revving slightly higher in some cases than a manual and this seems to support my theory (totally unscientific of course and I'd like to check again) but if right it would explain why the manual can achieve better figures notwithstanding the power losses than may or may not in the CVT transmission. I love the smoothness of the Multitronic and as said was happy enough with the 44 mpg I'd got a few days ago but took part in this discussion because like Wuffles I was interested in trying to understand why the Multitronic wasn't achieving similar figures to the manual. The manual it seems is still king but the Multi ain't bad! :D

Manual is best Passatier, you're right IMO.

Btw - Can I please ask that you create line breaks when you post?
You make some good posts, but when they're just posted as one lonnnnnnnnnng line of unbroken text it can be hard to follow
Thanks



Great! Just about encapsulates my thoughts, if I can get 44 ish with 50 a possability I will be over the moon. I'm happy you're happy.

Around 38 stop / start around town and mid to high 40's on the long motorway run, driven a little more conservatively and you'll see 50+ for sure Whippy

[Olio]

Hi guys.


Quick question... I'm considering getting a MY14 2.0 TDI SE Multitronic.

I've seen lots of posts about MPG from the 2.0 TDI. I'm currently getting about 40 MPG with a 5-gears 1.6 petrol (Skoda Octavia FSI), which kind of tells you the story of my mostly sedate driving. I'd loathe do do less than that and am expecting high 40 from the A6.

Hopefully that's not a problem?

Thanks

[Wuffles]

I manage high 30s low 40s generally. Couple of times I've managed mid 40s. I've had it in to be checked, lip service paid, "all fine sir". Except they don't call me sir.

Ignore anything from anyone here who drives a manual who will tell you what you should be getting, I have a mutli and that's what I get - fact. I'm not a lead foot either.

This is in an S-Line, no idea if an SE will be better, perhaps it will due to the tyre size.

[Passatier3]

Sorry Jim - It's not by choice as I usually make good use of paragraphs in anything I write because as well as providing good structure it does as you say make reading easier. Sometimes I can by using the Enter key but generally it doesn't work? How do you start a new paragraph - must be something easy but I'm missing it? And by the way why do you write in bold? :D Wuffles - what sort of journeys do you do? As I've said before and again totally unscientific, I just get the feeling that for slower speed journeys, particularly where more frequent acceleration is required from rest and low speed that this where it hurts the Multitronic more i.e. it is revving more? Once cruising fairly steadily though the gap is much, much less. And also I was wondering what effect the tyres have given that I have 20" on mine and the rolling resistance is higher.

[Wuffles]

We live just off the A38 in the countryside. Most journeys consist of 40-50mph country roads, 60mph A38 or motorway where my gps tells me I am perfectly legal. I don't use A/C either. Basically, we're textbook decent mpg.

I could understand it if we lived at the bottom of an ice sheet in the centre of a city.

Anyway, as I said before, it wasn't ever about just the mpg, but it is very disappointing.

[MarkTM]

Am sure that manufacturers figures are possible but a lot comes down to:

1) Driving style
2) Conditions
3) Other numpties on the road driving like Miss Daisy!

On my C6 3.0 quattro have just done 500+ miles and it's returned (on brimmed tank to brimmed tank) just under 52MPG, the last 180 miles saw 56MPG (albeit on puter)

See post 80 here:
Economy Runs - What's the best you've had? - Page 8 (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?145755-Economy-Runs-What-s-the-best-you-ve-had/page8)

So am sure a newer 2.0TDi (albeit broken in with 30k+miles) can acheive/surpass that :Blush:

[Wuffles]

So am sure a newer 2.0TDi (albeit broken in with 30k+miles) can acheive/surpass that :Blush:

I'd like to see someone do that outside of a lab, I genuinely would, but it certainly wouldn't be a Multitronic.

What is an "Alientech Eco Remap"? It sounds like a remap for economy to my simple brain.

[MarkTM]

Are multitronics that much worse than tiptronics when it comes to economy?

I'd not call Manchester to North Somerset (M6/M5) Lab conditions.

Yep it sure is, made about an 8% difference to economy figures overall :biglaugh:

[Wuffles]

You'd have to read the last few pages of this thread about tiptronic vs multi, and my reference to lab conditions was regarding a 2.0 which is what this thread is about.

We seem to have a few 3.0 owners busting in here showing off their healthier mpg :o)

[MarkTM]

Ooops hastily exits left.

Sorry if I've upset anyone :Blush2:

[Wuffles]

I feel like I need a witness to show I'm not driving it in Sport mode everywhere, flying up behind every other vehicle and slamming the brakes on at every opportunity. 'Cos that's what the figures I get seem to suggest. You're Somerset too, not close to Axbridge? ;)

To be honest, if you were ordering a 2.0 multi coming from anything 3.0 you'd be very disappointed with the mpg I think.

[MarkTM]

Burnham on Sea so a mere 9 miles away.

Am toying with the idea of a C7 3.0 A6 BiT in a few years, but one with a Tip.

You got VCDS Wuff? Am considering buying it soon when funds allow.

[Wuffles]

We're near Rooks Bridge...closer than you imagined.

I had some mods done by JBanfie as he was about an hour or so away from me, but we're in the process of trying to get rid of the car - long story in another very long thread - so I didn't bother getting VCDS.

[MarkTM]

Lol yep probs 4-5 miles, I know Rooksbridge well as use Swallows Jaguar there for my XK8

Am guessing Jbanfie's a poster on here as a google didn't bring up anything?

[Wuffles]

Yes he is. Tried a few people from the VCDS map who were more local but didn't get a response. Feel free to pm if you ever fancy a cuppa.

[Passatier3]

We live just off the A38 in the countryside. Most journeys consist of 40-50mph country roads, 60mph A38 or motorway where my gps tells me I am perfectly legal. I don't use A/C either. Basically, we're textbook decent mpg.

I could understand it if we lived at the bottom of an ice sheet in the centre of a city.

Anyway, as I said before, it wasn't ever about just the mpg, but it is very disappointing.

Yes, I can certainly see that you would expect to get better mpg than you are getting. My day to day motoring is a similar mix.

[Kieron Mullan]

So far economy isn't too bad considering its only done 600 miles. 2106721068 And why wont this forum editor allow you to enter new lines - press Return and nothing happens...:zx11:

[Wuffles]

Mine lets me add new lines.

Firefox on a Mac.

Your car a multi or a manual Kieron?

[Kieron Mullan]

Mine lets me add new lines.

Firefox on a Mac.

Your car a multi or a manual Kieron? Don't know what's up with it, tried all ways to add new lines and its not having it...Grrrr. BTW, Manual G/Box Wuffles; I just traded in a 2.7TDI Multi so know that economy is great when cruising on long runs. Best I ever had was 67MPG on the motorway, but short journeys (<20 miles) and/or stop/start town work etc....just kills it, average c.35-38MPG.

[Wuffles]

Try a different browser and see if it still does it. Passatier had the same issue.

[Passatier3]

Yes, I got a rollocking off Jim! :D Found out what the issue was in my case - A/A needed clicking.

[mongoose88]

Got put off Automatics years ago when I had a Peugeot 307 auto which literally drank fuel. You could see the guage dial going down as you drove :( It was also a fortune for road tax due to higher emissions.

I know the A6 multi boxes are far more efficient and have the same emmisions as manual but it seems you will never replicate manual mpg if driving very "conservatively" in a manual.

I thought about getting a multi and for the first while wished i had, due to the offset pedal issue, but I'm used to that now and am happy with the manual. I think the multi would have been nice too, easier to drive but the mpg figures in the manual seem to be better judging by this thread.

Swings and roundabouts i suppose!

[Passatier3]

Years ago I wouldn't have had an automatic either because of the poor fuel consumption and power sapping. But a Passat DSG changed all that, best of both worlds, and as we've said pity they didn't put the S-tronic (DSG) in the 2.0 as well as the 3.0 Quattro.

I'm very pleased with my car though and the Multitronic makes for very relaxed driving. As you can see from previous posts I'm finding the consumption OK but I also have a small manual diesel I use for work sometimes and general running around which does 56 to 60 average which helps. Have to ignore the extra cost though :D but it does reduce the wear and tear on the A6 as well.

As you say, can never match a manual, as you are in complete control, can do a bit of slow speed coasting, miss out gears etc.

[mongoose88]

Years ago I wouldn't have had an automatic either because of the poor fuel consumption and power sapping. But a Passat DSG changed all that, best of both worlds, and as we've said pity they didn't put the S-tronic (DSG) in the 2.0 as well as the 3.0 Quattro.

I'm very pleased with my car though and the Multitronic makes for very relaxed driving. As you can see from previous posts I'm finding the consumption OK but I also have a small manual diesel I use for work sometimes and general running around which does 56 to 60 average which helps. Have to ignore the extra cost though :D but it does reduce the wear and tear on the A6 as well.

As you say, can never match a manual, as you are in complete control, can do a bit of slow speed coasting, miss out gears etc.


Excuse my ignorance but what is the key difference between the S-tronic and the Multi-tronic?

[Passatier3]

No problem, I was aware of DSG gearboxes from my VW experience but it wasn't until I bought an Audi that my eyes were opened to the myriad of different transmissions! :D

S-tronic is the VAG double-clutch "automatic" gearbox. It's basically a manual gearbox (no clutch pedal though) but gear changes are made automatically or sequentially (if "manual" selected) by virtue of electro-mechanical wizardry and two clutches so that the next gear is pre-selected which provides very fast gear changes. Fuel consumption is near identical to a manual in my experience.

What I also like about it is that in either mode, as you slow for islands etc. it changes down through the gears and provides engine braking.

The Multitronic is a Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) gearbox with 8 pseudo gears that can be selected by the flappy paddles or gear selector.

There is also another automatic gearbox called Tiptronic and yet another, R-tronic unique to the R8.

If you want more info. it's on the Audi web-site under Innovation.

[Olio]

Isn't the MPG debate also twisted by the temperatures? With the recent increase in temp over the last month or so, without changing my driving style or usual trips, my MPG has gone up by easily 3-4 MPG.

I'm averaging 42.6 without effort on this tank (reminder, this is my current 1.6 petrol), while LTA is 38-ish.

[Wuffles]

Isn't the MPG debate also twisted by the temperatures? With the recent increase in temp over the last month or so, without changing my driving style or usual trips, my MPG has gone up by easily 3-4 MPG.

I'm averaging 42.6 without effort on this tank (reminder, this is my current 1.6 petrol), while LTA is 38-ish.

Yes that's been acknowledged a number of times in this very thread. The debate has (had) shifted more towards Multitronic figures vs those of the manual box.

[Olio]

I remember reading about it yes, but are all comparisons also taking into account when the MPG was calculated?

True, there seems to be a bias / difference between manual and auto, but I'm suprised it's so significant.

[Wuffles]

Welcome to Multitronic ownership (in September).

[Olio]

Thanks.

I have to admit, my expectations in terms of MPG are clearly not what Audi claims, because 1) My 1.6 Skoda delivers 38.4 MPG long term which is about 91% of the claimed MPG, so if I get between 40 and 50 (for a claimed 56 on the A6) that would be fine, and 2) I think a car like the A6 really benefits from the auto gearbox, and there is neither the option of a petrol (does not exist in UK), nor the 3.0 (financially too big a step), so happy to go with what's left.

Finally, even if it returns 40 MPG instead of 50, for 10k miles (I don't drive that much) that's 50 gallons annual difference, 225 litres, so under £300 a year "theoretical loss". No big deal when you drive a £35k car is it?

[Wuffles]

Thanks.

I have to admit, my expectations in terms of MPG are clearly not what Audi claims, because 1) My 1.6 Skoda delivers 38.4 MPG long term which is about 91% of the claimed MPG, so if I get between 40 and 50 (for a claimed 56 on the A6) that would be fine, and 2) I think a car like the A6 really benefits from the auto gearbox, and there is neither the option of a petrol (does not exist in UK), nor the 3.0 (financially too big a step), so happy to go with what's left.

Finally, even if it returns 40 MPG instead of 50, for 10k miles (I don't drive that much) that's 50 gallons annual difference, 225 litres, so under £300 a year "theoretical loss". No big deal when you drive a £35k car is it?

I take your point, that in your exact situation it's "no big deal". I can't make myself any clearer regarding my point so I'll just leave it.

[Whippy53]

For what it's worth, we know that the 3.0 lt is more economical than the 2.0lt and that (surprisingly perhaps) the manual is better than the multi. having these facts then allows people to make their own decision based on preferences etc. Foe me, I couldn't stretch to the 3.0 ltr and liked the MUlti.

[mongoose88]

Did about 20 miles on the motorway yesterday, kept it just under 70 and got just below 58mpg. It was a very flat run and the temp was 18-19C for the most part.

Today I did 8 miles in stop start traffic, a bit cooler temp and delivered 46mpg.

[Passatier3]

For what it's worth, we know that the 3.0 lt is more economical than the 2.0lt and that (surprisingly perhaps) the manual is better than the multi. having these facts then allows people to make their own decision based on preferences etc. Foe me, I couldn't stretch to the 3.0 ltr and liked the MUlti.

This is exactly the nub of the problem and what we were trying to understand via this thread.

The facts, if you got them from this forum, would allow you to make an informed decision based on your preferences but if you just made a decision based on the quoted (very close) figures, but of course making an allowance for it being nigh on impossible to match them in real life, then you could be disappointed if chosing a Multitronic over a manual.

But for me and my circumstances/car use/driving style etc., as for Olio, all things considered, I'm very happy with the car and happy enough with the fuel consumption.

[Olio]

I take your point, that in your exact situation it's "no big deal". I can't make myself any clearer regarding my point so I'll just leave it.

Wuffles,

Sorry if my post was not really adding to the debate (which definitely exists). I was simply thinking out loud (our writing out loud), convincing myself that I did not order the lemon of the A6 family.

I would love to drive the car and find out I get to near the claimed MPG. It seems that won't happen, and I prefer to see this as a consequence of the Multitronic from the start, and one tht won't break my finances, rather than an expectation of lower running costs which would then bring disappointment.

[skibuddy]

So, based on the real world experiences of forum members how do we rank the following in terms of fuel economy:

a. 2Ltr Manual
b. 2Ltr Multitronic
c. 3Ltr Manual
d. 3Ltr Multironic
d. 3Ltr Tiptronic
e. 3Ltr S Tronic
f. BiTurbo

Anyone care to suggest or is a direct like for like comparison not possible because there are too many variables (e.g. speed, driving style, tyre size, weather etc)?

[Wuffles]

So, based on the real world experiences of forum members how do we rank the following in terms of fuel economy:

a. 2Ltr Manual
b. 2Ltr Multitronic
c. 3Ltr Manual
d. 3Ltr Multironic
d. 3Ltr Tiptronic
e. 3Ltr S Tronic
f. BiTurbo

Anyone care to suggest or is a direct like for like comparison not possible because there are too many variables (e.g. speed, driving style, tyre size, weather etc)?

You'd have to do it based on achieved in real world situations. You're a double D by the way.

[boof]

Anyone care to suggest or is a direct like for like comparison not possible because there are too many variables (e.g. speed, driving style, tyre size, weather etc)?

That bit. Unless we have a significant enough number of people who have driven multiple types of car and transmission in identical circumstances.

I would suggest all we could do would be to come up with a standard way to measure (full tank, paper calculation, brim to brim etc) and have people put up their numbers and look for an overall trend and let people decide for themselves.

I suspect for all cars and transmission types we'll have outliers at both ends of the spectrum. e.g manual users getting awful mpg, multitronic getting very good.

Similar thing to fuelly etc. Though there doesn't seem to be much useful A6 data in there at present and / or a lot of it can be skewed by american responses.

[Olio]

I find spritmonitor.de more appropriate to Euro / UK cars, as it has a better reflection of smaller engines and diesels.

From checking it this morning, the C7 2..0 TDI Multitronic returns about 7 l/100 (about 40 MPG) for the best ones there

See http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/3-Audi/22-A6.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2011&constyear_e=2013&power_s=170&power_e=180&gearing=3&powerunit=2

[Olio]

And by changing only the gearbox to manual, we can see that the best manual stats are around 6 l/100 (about 47 MPG)

So about 47 MPG for the best manuals, and about 40 for the best multi, also seen by checking the "automatic" category, where multi start at around 40/43. (there is a lower one but fuelling data is incorrect, unless one can average 100 MPG over 5k miles)

While I still do not know the reason, it seems there is sufficient evidence of a significant difference in MPG between the manual and multi boxes on this engine.

[Wuffles]

The problem with these things as they are able to be infiltrated by marketing idiots in striped shirts and braces. For all you know I'm a marketing bot from BMW constantly sticking it to the Audi crowd to skew the figures lower.

As Bill Hicks once said..."By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing… kill yourself."

[Whippy53]

There was quite a good article on this issue in this months Car mag, including mention of a court case that Audi recently lost where a customer took them to court (allegedly) because he couldn't get near the advertised figures.I still find it difficult to believe the Multi can be so bad but I guess the evidence don't lie. All I can do is report back once I get my sticky pudgy mitts on mine.

[Whippy53]

The problem with these things as they are able to be infiltrated by marketing idiots in striped shirts and braces. For all you know I'm a marketing bot from BMW constantly sticking it to the Audi crowd to skew the figures lower.

As Bill Hicks once said..."By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing… kill yourself."

yes but with the C7 they were working with a Blue Sky scenario, some had to be the first to leave their vapour trail on it!

[Wuffles]

This is regarding an A3, http://www.am-online.com/news/2013/3/27/fuel-economy-warning-for-audi-advert/32623/ ? Or proper court do you think?

[Whippy53]

Dat's da Puppy!

[Johnny31]

just found a very interesting view on the difference between DIS and calculated MPG (credits to a random Merc driver :-)):
"The computer display is based on the calculated amount of fuel injected into the engine. Its accurate.

What isn't accurate is the tires. Even a few psi can make a measurable difference in rolling distance. Thats why the difference is larger in the cold, the tire diameter shrinks due to the higher density of the air in the tires filling less volume with the same pressure. On top of that, a tire gets smaller as it wears. Slap on a set of new tires and your MPG will instantly jump a few points, even though actual economy doesn't change.
On top of that, the tires balloon out from centrifugal force on the highway. Which will further return worse mileage in city driving."

Never thought about that one really!

[Olio]

Basically the watchdog simply told Audi off because they didn't put the * after their claim, and in very tiny fonts indicated that this was a standard EU test (or whatever wording they use)

Which isn't quite saying Audi and other cars manufacturers have been told off for giving unrealistic figures.

[Goal flag]

I think Audit have already taken note of that complaint. When I picked up my A6 last week there was a poster for one of the Q cars with quoted MPG figures. The MPG disclaimer, about being tested to EU standards etc, was quite prominent in the advert, i.e. certainly not hidden in the small print.

[istate75]

I thought you guys might be interested in my fuel consumption on my brand new 2.0Tdi S line Avant Multi with 19" wheels. Picked it up with just over half a tank in Coventry last Friday and drove it gently back to Rugby. ( I live in Rugby) Pottered around on Saturday and filled it up. Monday, drove to Warrington. Got stuck in horrendous traffic on the M6 due to 2 accidents (lost a good hour), then after Warrington across to Bradford. Stayed in Bradford. Tuesday, Bradford to Pontefract and then home. Wednesday to Burton and back across country (topped up tank). Thursday to Chesterfield and back. Pottered around a bit today (only 10-15 miles at most). I tried to keep to around 75 mph on the motorway, although very bad weather including a thunderstorm and hail slowed everything to a crawl then hit a jam near East Midlands airport losing 30 minutes. Total milage so far is 578 miles. My overall consumtion since 0 miles is showing 39.6mpg.

[Passatier3]

Given the time you spent in jams etc. then that's not too bad really. Without those you would probably have been around the 44 mpg. that I typically get. Once your average has ben hurt by jams etc. it's very difficult/takes a long time to get the average up again.

Knowing that I can get around 45 mpg., given favourable conditions, is good enough for me.

[Passatier3]

And by changing only the gearbox to manual, we can see that the best manual stats are around 6 l/100 (about 47 MPG)

So about 47 MPG for the best manuals, and about 40 for the best multi, also seen by checking the "automatic" category, where multi start at around 40/43. (there is a lower one but fuelling data is incorrect, unless one can average 100 MPG over 5k miles)

While I still do not know the reason, it seems there is sufficient evidence of a significant difference in MPG between the manual and multi boxes on this engine.

Whilst we might not completely agree with the figures (I'm bettering 40 for instance) I think that pretty much sums up what our thoughts are with regard to the manual and Multitronic transmissions. That despite the quoted figures for each being very close under test conditions in reality there is a substantial difference which can pretty safely be laid at the door of how the Multitronic works and possibly power losses in the transmission - I say possibly because there does seem to be some conflicting evidence with regards to that, but personally feel that a CVT can never be as efficient as a manual gearbox, which in itself suffers a slight powerloss.

[newA6]

I have a 2.0 Tdi S line multitronic and was disappointed in barely getting 40mpg, at times - especially in morning on was to work lucky to get 35mpg.
but now, car is 4 months old, 7000 miles and "warmer weather ? " I easily get 42+ to work, often 50 on way home - generally mid 40's is average and I keep a record of mileage, costs and fuel used on spreadsheet and this calculates actual mpg from fuel used fill up to fill up and computer seems accurate....

[dgarside]

So after 6-12 months of a solid 38mpg or there abouts, I decided to try a change in driving style for a few tanks. So for about a 1000 miles I've been driving with a less heavy right foot, slower acceleration but not much change in top end speed. With this bit of change (temporary) my average is now up to 45mpg with a couple of longer trips up to 55mpg (never seen before). This equates to a difference of approx. 100 miles on a tank full (approx, so don't flame me).

Can't say i'll be sticking to this but at least I know how to save money/fuel if need be :-)

BTW - Multitronic 2.0 TDI SLine 20" wheels - 29000 miles.

[mongoose88]

Got 60.3 mpg yesterday. Warm day, mixed driving in town and motorway, total miles just over 100.

Similar run today, only got about 49. Pouring rain and much colder.

[dgarside]

Show off :-) :-) :-)

[Passatier3]

Don't tell Wuffles! Especially if you've got a manual.

And only 49!

[mongoose88]

Don't tell Wuffles! Especially if you've got a manual.

And only 49!

Haha yes its a manual.

Had to put the lights, heater and demisters on today so that dragged the mpg down terribly!:zx11::D

[Wuffles]

I should stop carrying all the associated paperwork from our issues with the car in the boot everywhere. That extra 30 stone is probably bringing the mpg right down.

[Whippy53]

Down to Portsmouth tonight 51mpg.

[Wuffles]

Down to Portsmouth tonight 51mpg.

32.8 tonight on a very spirited drive from Trowbridge to Axbridge. I wonder what it would have been in a 3.0 Multi? Was in Sport most of the journey.

[Plgaler]

Just found this on the Audi website:

Fuel consumption < Secondary < Footer (http://www.audi.co.uk/footer/secondary/CO2.html)

So the Extra urban uses an average speed of 39 mph... over 4.3 miles... Wow, that's a really good test... :banghead:

Explains why all the manufacturers claims are generally not that close to reality, the test is flawed from the outset. I realise driving conditions are very different for all drivers, but 4.3 miles for an extra urban comparison??

Personally I've given up trying to get a good economy out of my 2.0 tdi Multi, I can get just about 52mpg over 180 miles if I drive like a saint, but driving it normally I get about 45mpg. So much for the claimed 56mpg combined or even the laughable 60.1mpg extra urban!

[Passatier3]

You can't really complain at 45mpg from a car of the A6's size, weight and performance with a Multitronic gearbox.

[Plgaler]

You can't really complain at 45mpg from a car of the A6's size, weight and performance with a Multitronic gearbox.

No, in all reality probably not. However I think the test specification is a bit unrealistic, and the manufacturers will just perform to the test spec to grab headlines, which is natural.

I do like my A6 in pretty much every other respect, it's quick and well specified (even though mine is a basic S-Line + Auto) I just feel that this aspect takes some pleasure out of owning the car when I do about 25k miles a year. That much mileage per year causes any fluctuation in fuel price and/or fuel consumption to hit the wallet hard... I do believe it is the right tool for the job though.

In contrast to the moan, I did 31k on the first front set of tyres - now that I am pleased with!

[Passatier3]

As has been said before manufacturers figures should be taken with a pinch of salt and meaningful figures obtained by test driving and forums like this one.

Having said that I bought mine before reading this forum/doing much research, but having had a Passat before expected to get similar consumption figures, but have found that the Multitronic isn't as fuel efficient as the DSG.

Fortunately I don't do as many miles as you (about 12k.) and I've reduced the mileage on the A6 from that by using another car for work a couple of days a week - good job as I've got the 20" tyres on mine!

[Wuffles]

As has been said before manufacturers figures should be taken with a pinch of salt and meaningful figures obtained by test driving and forums like this one.

And has been said before, the figures quoted for the Multi and the Manual should NOT be as close as they are on paper. You were one of the people trying to put that point across before weren't you?

[Passatier3]

I certainly was. :D

[Bash D Bishop]

Don't really understand why people who buy a large car like an A6 are worried about fuel consumption. The only exception would be if you were getting mpg in the 20s when clearly something is wrong. If you are really concerned about consumption then buy a Smart car! :D :p

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

[Plgaler]

Have to disagree.. I bought the A6 because I drive 400 miles a week and I need comfort. But, I'm not made of money, 400 miles costs roughly £50... If the car is having a good day I can get that down a bit, say £45. Over 50 weeks of the year, that's a lot of money - so it does matter.


There's no way on earth I could drive 400 miles in a smart car - just not the right tool for the job imho...

[JimC64]

Have to disagree.. I bought the A6 because I drive 400 miles a week and I need comfort. But, I'm not made of money, 400 miles costs roughly £50... If the car is having a good day I can get that down a bit, say £45. Over 50 weeks of the year, that's a lot of money - so it does matter.


There's no way on earth I could drive 400 miles in a smart car - just not the right tool for the job imho...

If you're gettting 400 miles out of £50 worth of fuel, assuming around £1.45 pp litre that averages out to 52.7 mpg............bloody good mileage!!

As for Bash's comments - I can't see why we can't compromise on having a big car and trying to get decent mpg figures.
Personally I get around 38mpg stop / start & around town and can see high 40's or more on a run without trying too hard.......I've had seriously good figures showing 64.1mpg but its wayyy too boring and just not realistic

I'll stick with the A6 over the Smart car any day....lol

[Bash D Bishop]

Have to disagree.. I bought the A6 because I drive 400 miles a week and I need comfort. But, I'm not made of money, 400 miles costs roughly £50... If the car is having a good day I can get that down a bit, say £45. Over 50 weeks of the year, that's a lot of money - so it does matter.


There's no way on earth I could drive 400 miles in a smart car - just not the right tool for the job imho...

I was being flippant about having a Smart car instead. ;) However, I stand by my comment. Taking the total cost of ownership (depreciation, servicing, insurance, maintenance, etc) of a car such as an A6, an extra £5 per week, IMHO, is not worth worrying about. It is the equivalent of less than a pint and a half of beer a week.

I am not saying that fuel consumption isn't important. Having moved from a Disco 3 where I was lucky to get mid-20s I'm delighted to be getting about 75% more with my 3.0 Allroad. However, I don't get anxious if I get 37 mpg on one run where I've had 45 mpg on a previous one.

As most people known manufacturer fuel figures are a complete joke and have to be taken with an enormous pinch of salt. What Car? have recently started quoting "Real World" mpg where they have been able to calculate it. There are proposals to make the official tests more reflective of real world consumption.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

[Plgaler]

@JimC64 - perhaps that was a bit optimistic - I pay about £1.36/£1.37 per litre (I know I'm lucky there) but I was just showing the £5/week difference - which does seem roughly right.

@Bash, sure I see £5 doesn't sound like much, but over 4 years, and £5 a week, that's £1000! Probably not enough to mean I should have bought a 520d at £3k more, but it's still not peanuts. I agree it's not worth getting to stressed about, and I am definitely better off than in my E46 325ci, which never saw much north of 32mpg.

My surprise (initially) was just how poor a reflection of real life the official tests are, but clearly I'm preaching to the choir :)

[Whippy53]

The argument seems to be not the general consumption but the discrepancy between Multi and manual, which, after reading the Audi blurb is a little puzzling to say the least! I am getting perhaps 40 around toen and up to 50 on arun so I am personally quite happy as this aint a zillion miles from where I was on the old 2.0lt PD Passat and boy is it a better car! But, and it's a big but ( as I say to my missus ) I can see where some people are getting mighty aggrieved at the poor performance of the Multi box against what was promised in the literature. Sweet box though.

[Passatier3]

Argument, argument! This is a reasoned discussion between intelligent people! :D

[Whippy53]

Argument, argument! This is a reasoned discussion between intelligent people! :D

I did of course us the term in its loosest possible way and in no way intended to reflect anything other than my admiration for my fellow forumeers!

[JimC64]

We know Whippy.............just a little leg pulling going on there I think

[afterglow2me]

Hello, fellow forumers & fellow A6 C7 2.0 TDI drivers. :)

My 2 cents on this thread.

Mine is an Avant with the multi box & 17' inch standard allows. It now has circa 21.000km and my fuel long term consumption, from the computer data, is circa 7,2L/100km.
My commuting is an average 45km X 2, way & back, mostly in motorways, with a little bit of slow traffic, sometimes. I don't recall the average speed globally, but I can say that I average circa 130/140km in motorways, I,m not a slow nor a pushy driver & I have no complaints with the car.

My previous car was a Passat Estate 2.0 TDI 170cv common rail injection + dsg + 18' inch allows & for the comparison, my fuel consumption was circa 7,1L/100km & for the last year, i managed to reduce it to 6,9L/100km.

Sorry for the continental figures, but this input comes from the sunny Portugal!

Greetings :)

[newA6]

my car, A6 Avant, 2litre 177 multi box has just done over 10,000 miles, to/from work 15 mile each way I average around 40mpg, on a long motorway trip it's 44-50 depending on pushing or cruising at 60-65, average since new has been 43 mpg which I think is excellent for such a big car.

[Whippy53]

Mines pushing 2.5k now and has averaged 45mpg, happy but not ecstatic. But if I wanted decent figures I would have bought a Polo. Pays yer money etc.

[razor77]

Mines pushing 2.5k now and has averaged 45mpg, happy but not ecstatic. But if I wanted decent figures I would have bought a Polo. Pays yer money etc.

I am pondering what I will get from the Bi-Tdi. I suspect if I can drive it as if it were a 2.0l I could equal 45mpg... I loaned a C7 S6, and even her indoors struggled to get 17MPG, I later learned if we'd taken it out of Dynamic it would have halved the cylinders used and reduced consumption.

[ukgroucho]

My BiTDi Allroad had done nearly 1500 miles now so still a bit early to judge but overall, from new, it's done 34mpg and that is creeping up slowly.

Did about 70 miles on Sunday on rural roads, 20 miles with just me and 50 miles with 4 passengers up into the Cotswold hills. A few manic blasts overtaking etc. but a fair bit of sitting in steady traffic and trundling around Cotswold villages... that averaged 37 mpg for the overall 70 miles.
I have seen 42mpg on a couple of rural road runs where I was mainly just going with the flow and keeping my foot 'relaxed'.
On the other hand if you go out and 'feel the torque' then low 30s (or even high 20s) is more realistic but still pretty respectable for a heavy car.

[johnsimcox]

Done a fair bit of driving in different conditions recently and seen very variable fuel consumption. Trip to Cirencester (80 miles each way mainly M4) with 4 adults, 4 bikes on the roof and boot full of luggage - c34mpg. Trip to Chichester (80 miles each way M25/A3/A27) 2 Adults and 2 bikes on the roof + small amount of luggage - c42mpg. 35 mile trip late at night on mainly urban roads - 52mpg. Last tank 580 miles, 43.1mpg. Interesting to see the effect of weight and changing the aerodynamics of the car has on fuel consumption.

[Bash D Bishop]

I am pondering what I will get from the Bi-Tdi. I suspect if I can drive it as if it were a 2.0l I could equal 45mpg... I loaned a C7 S6, and even her indoors struggled to get 17MPG, I later learned if we'd taken it out of Dynamic it would have halved the cylinders used and reduced consumption.

My 245 PS Allroad did 34mpg over 977 miles at an average speed of 69 mph with a packed boot, and 3 bikes on a towball mounted rack. I have had as much as 45 mpg on a run down the M1 when I was doing 70-80 mph. On Monday I achieved 39 mpg on a run from home to Knutsford. That was with the first part of the journey being on the A68 and A7 until I picked up the M6 at Carlisle. I wasn't hanging about on the A68/A7 bit and was doing a cruise controlled 80 on the M6.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

[Chuck Norris]

I've had my A6 3 litre V6 for a week now and have just spent the time enjoying the engine and how smooth the ride is after everyone telling me that the S line suspension is too hard.

Anyway, trip into my head office today consisted of mostly dual carriageway and motorway (A419, M4, A34 and M3) and I got a pretty good figure. Weather wasn't great so helped slow things down a touch and less sense of urgency than usual.

Is this fairly typical of what I can expect? To be fair it's not a million miles (per gallon) off my previous C220.

Ta
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/08/28/7e7e7ydu.jpg