PDA

View Full Version : Poor MPG - 2.0 TDi



ti rich
24-03-2012, 11:50 AM
I am really, really disappointed with the MPG on my car (2.0 TDi S-Line Manual) . Despite doing long trips (normally on my own) i am struggling to average 43MPG over the full tank. To get this i am keeping to 65mph on the motorways and 55 on the A roads.

When doing long motorway trips at 80mph the average is 38MPG, at 75mph its about 41-42. If i drop the speed to 65mph then it will do about 48mpg (all in efficiency mode)

The car has done almost 8k miles so should be run in. To put this into perspective my old car (BMW 330d AUTO) which is heavier, automatic and had 100 BHP more did better than this.

Is my car normal or is there something wrong?:dunno:

Blackmore Spur
24-03-2012, 12:15 PM
Same car as you with 20" wheels to add to it. Across range of settings and driving conditions managed 33 for first thousand miles; up to nearly 40 now I've done 3k miles. Best I've managed so far is 48k mpg on long run..... Only good thing is it seems to be slowly getting better!

pitch3110
25-03-2012, 10:09 AM
If I could add my bit.......

My B8 143 Multi was shockingly bad and slow when I first had it. Nearly 40k down the road and 50+ can be gained through steady driving.

Pitch

Timothy Nathan
25-03-2012, 10:27 AM
My 3.0 TDI (SE, but I doubt that makes much difference) was indicating 57mpg on the whole motorway run (at 70 mph in "E" on the ACC) from M25 J9 to Coventry yesterday, and that was with a roof box, which must cost some fuel consumption. The car has only done 1200ish miles.

Obviously the trip computer lies a bit, and I haven't done a brim to brim, but it cant be more than, say, 10% off, so that would still be 52 at the most pessimistic.

Generally, I am amazed by the good consumption.

ti rich
26-03-2012, 10:51 AM
This is my point - It appears that the 3.0 TDi's get better Motorway MPG than the 2.0 TDi.

Mine is going back to Audi tomorrow for a few minor things - i will ask them to check it over but i feel its just the way it is.

Eshrules
26-03-2012, 11:28 AM
If you want to improve your MPG, your average MPH needs to be addressed.

Sitting at 55>60 is a decent compromise between speed and economy - if you rag a car around at 80mph it won't return decent fuel consumption figures, diesel or not.

belly2000
26-03-2012, 12:24 PM
I have the same car as you 2.0 Tdi S-Line manual - just passed a 1000 on the clock. My Monday morning commute and Friday commute is 110 motorway miles each way - Averaging 69mph (from on board computer) gets me 49mpg and there's only a 1000 miles on the clock. Also this is in automatic setting not efficiency.

Timothy Nathan
26-03-2012, 12:36 PM
Eshrules,

Far more important than the speed you drive is whether you need to make the journey at all. But this is Motherhood and Apple Pie stuff.

There was a comment from Auto Express on You and Yours just now that a clean car does better mpg than a dirty one (http://mythbustersresults.com/dirty-vs-clean-car).

Piddles
26-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Despite doing long trips (normally on my own) i am struggling to average 43MPG over the full tank. To get this i am keeping to 65mph on the motorways and 55 on the A roads.

Doesn't sound right.

When you take it in ask them to write up what they do to investigate in an attempt not get brushed off with "couldn't find anything, they all do that, gov"

The comparison with the BMW is interesting. Did it have DPF? Diesels generally have taken a significant MPG hit when they're added.

ti rich
27-03-2012, 01:12 PM
If you want to improve your MPG, your average MPH needs to be addressed.

Sitting at 55>60 is a decent compromise between speed and economy - if you rag a car around at 80mph it won't return decent fuel consumption figures, diesel or not.

Thanks but i am very aware of that. I am comparing a heavier car with a larger engine and is an automotic against mine on a mph/mph basis.

As stated at 65mph it will return 50MPG (just about) but the fact is thats really, really poor.

Eshrules
27-03-2012, 01:21 PM
Thanks but i am very aware of that. I am comparing a heavier car with a larger engine and is an automotic against mine on a mph/mph basis.

As stated at 65mph it will return 50MPG (just about) but the fact is thats really, really poor.

What average MPG did you record for the 330d at the same speed(s)? given it's a 2.0 derv pushing just short of 180 bhp, I don't consider 50mpg that bad. In fact, it's pretty close to book values (http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/audi/a6/saloon-2011/50406/)for your model, which rarely happens.

I honestly don't think there's anything massively amiss here.

ti rich
27-03-2012, 01:44 PM
QUOTE=Eshrules;707911]What average MPG did you record for the 330d at the same speed(s)? given it's a 2.0 derv pushing just short of 180 bhp, I don't consider 50mpg that bad. In fact, it's pretty close to book values (http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/audi/a6/saloon-2011/50406/)for your model, which rarely happens.

I honestly don't think there's anything massively amiss here.[/QUOTE]

May be this will help sumate the data. I just would have expected better than this given the offical figures:-


CAR


330D


A6
BHP


280


175
Torque


600nm


380
weight


1535kg


1575
Drive


auto


Manual
MPG @ 65


52


49
MPG @ 70


50


45
MPG @ 75


45


42
MPG @ 80


41


38
Official MPG


42.7


58.7

Timothy Nathan
27-03-2012, 01:49 PM
CAR 330D A6 BHP 280 175 Torque 600nm 380 weight 1535kg 1575 Drive auto Manual MPG @ 65 52 49 MPG @ 70 50 45 MPG @ 75 45 42 MPG @ 80 41 38 Offical MPG 42.7 58.7
Yes, that's really clarified things! :biglaugh:

ti rich
27-03-2012, 01:53 PM
dam formatting!!

that might be a bit clearer now (but only just!!)

Sam
27-03-2012, 02:35 PM
How old was the 330? How many miles had it done? How big were the wheels (how wide were the tyres)? Did it have a DPF? How tall was the final gear?

How old is the A6? How many miles has it done? How big are the wheels (how wide are the tyres)? Does it have a DPF? How tall is the final gear?

You're comparing two completely different cars - or, oranges with apples.

ti rich
27-03-2012, 02:43 PM
How old was the 330? How many miles had it done? How big were the wheels (how wide were the tyres)? Did it have a DPF? How tall was the final gear?

How old is the A6? How many miles has it done? How big are the wheels (how wide are the tyres)? Does it have a DPF? How tall is the final gear?

You're comparing two completely different cars - or, oranges with apples.


Same size wheels and both had DPF. BMW was a 2008 model. So the BMW was heavier, with an automatic gearbox and with 100BHP more yet still returns better MPG.

The fact remains that the Audi has 26% better offical MPG figures but in the real world these are pure fiction.

Sam
27-03-2012, 03:01 PM
How many miles on the BMW vs A6?

Tyre widths/sizes are as important as wheel diameters too.

Your MPG/MPH figures above, are they both a few weeks after each car was purchased or are you comparing your current (2011/12?) A6 figures with those of the outgoing BMW after 3/4 years?

ti rich
27-03-2012, 03:18 PM
How many miles on the BMW vs A6?

Tyre widths/sizes are as important as wheel diameters too.

Your MPG/MPH figures above, are they both a few weeks after each car was purchased or are you comparing your current (2011/12?) A6 figures with those of the outgoing BMW after 3/4 years?

Hi Sam

The BMW returned consist MPG from new until when i sold it at 68K miles. The A6 has now done 8K miles so is "run in" i guess.

The BMW had run flat tyres which are heavier and therefore make the MPG worse, the A6 does not have these. Similar sizes on the width too. Anyway this would be refected in the offical MPG figures.

Car is in the garage today - they are having a look.

Timothy Nathan
27-03-2012, 04:30 PM
It does seem to support the view that more power is more economical on the motorway.

MFGF
27-03-2012, 04:58 PM
I have to say that around 50mpg in real world figures for a car so big is not really really poor. My C6 (albeit slightly heavier and with slightly less power) "only" does around 48mpg at best, but I have been pretty pleased with this. I certainly understand your point about the real world figures not matching the official claimed figures, but these official mpg figures are pure fiction in my opinion! I am hugely impressed that your BMW 330d achieved such high mpg figures - Are you sure it wasn't a 316d with a 330d badge on the boot? ;)

Cheers!

MF.

ti rich
27-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Car back from Audi - nothing wrong. They said MPG may improve after 10k miles. Uploaded engine "data block" to Audi for analysis but all within normal parameters.

MF - the car only returns just under 50MPG if sat at 65mph on cruise. As an average it returns about 42mpg.

MMI software updated and car washed so that's the concelation prize! There is a recall to add extra grease to the MMI button as well!!!

Very, very disappointed with this car - will be my first and last Audi for sure.

ianfarnham
30-03-2012, 05:30 PM
I know this might be more apples and pears but just done 240 miles (A road and motorways) and got an indicated average 57.5mpg (which I know works out about 10% less on tankfull to tankfull) so say 51mpg. And yes I was driving carefully (3.0TDi SLine)

pitch3110
30-03-2012, 05:32 PM
I know this might be more apples and pears but just done 240 miles (A road and motorways) and got an indicated average 57.5mpg (which I know works out about 10% less on tankfull to tankfull) so say 51mpg. And yes I was driving carefully (3.0TDi SLine)

Is that a 205bhp 3.0??

Ta
Pitch

Timothy Nathan
30-03-2012, 05:34 PM
Also remember that tankful to tankful isn't perfect, as the milometer is often out by the same amount as the speedometer, which is permitted to be 10% optimistic, though in mine is about 3%.

ti rich
30-03-2012, 06:16 PM
Well just to add to how bizarre this car is the 41 mile drive to work this morning at 65mph on the motorway and 50ish on the A roads netted...................61MPG. That is very good!!!

But

42 MPG on a long distance cruise @ 70mph is very poor by comparison. I guess the 6th gear just isn't set up for economy cruising at all.

Timothy Nathan
30-03-2012, 09:16 PM
If you think that is bizarre, I always get better mileage London to Birmingham than on the return journey on the same route at the same speeds, often by as much as 10mpg. The prevailing wind is westerly, so that would lead you to expect the opposite.

Go figure, as they say.

Timothy Nathan
30-03-2012, 09:17 PM
*

robob123
31-03-2012, 07:33 AM
That is odd - London to Birmingham, south to north = up hill!!

jbanfie
31-03-2012, 08:06 AM
On the mpg front, it is important to note that wind resistance increases with the square of the speed, so at 70, rather than 50 you have 70^2/50^2 more resistance = 4900/2500 practically a factor of 2!!! This is why a 100bhp anything will easily pass 100mph but a 1000bhp Bugatti Veron will only manage just over 200mph - this was the example I used to explain it to my wife - I think she understood.

So if wind resistance is twice as much at 70mph than 50 then getting 42mpg is actually pretty good.

This may also lead to a new sport here on the forum; where by members drive constantly at 40, 50, 60, 70 and even 80 and record mpg figures to report.

Obviously coefficient of drag and cross sectional area also play a part, but they are all A6's right?

I don't know what others have noticed, but when I first started cruising the motorways back in 2002, everyone charged about at an indicated 90mph, I used to get about 28mpg doing that, no-one seems to do that anymore - can't think why?

ti rich
31-03-2012, 09:07 AM
If you think that is bizarre, I always get better mileage London to Birmingham than on the return journey on the same route at the same speeds, often by as much as 10mpg. The prevailing wind is westerly, so that would lead you to expect the opposite.

Go figure, as they say.

I always get the exact opposite driving Birmingham to London Heathrow. Birmingham is at a higher altitude than London so you really are going down hill to London but up hill on the way back.

Timothy Nathan
31-03-2012, 09:13 AM
Birmingham is at a higher altitude than London so you really are going down hill to London but up hill on the way back.
Birmingham Airport is 250' higher than Heathrow. Over the distance the difference can be 4 litres. I would challenge you to use 4 litres climbing 250'!

ti rich
31-03-2012, 09:36 AM
Tim - I never mentioned Birmingham airport but where I live its 850ft so still a 600ft difference in altitude. For me that makes a difference of 2-3mpg between going and returning.

Timothy Nathan
31-03-2012, 09:54 AM
...and I never mentioned mph :p

The only reason I mentioned BHX is that it's easy to look up the elevation. My trips to B'ham are to the Uni, which is probably roughly the same elevation as BHX, and we actually live on the North Downs, so are higher than LHR, in fact we have glorious views over it, but it's not the end to end hill climb I am talking about.

My experience is that sitting on the M40 NW bound, for any particular speed, I see considerably better average mpg than at the same speed SE bound. I know that this seems odd, but I have seen it too many times to ignore.

ti rich
31-03-2012, 09:58 AM
That really is strange!

I visit Heathrow about every two weeks on average and have done so for 20 years more or less. There must be other factors at play here always better MPG going SE for me.

ianfarnham
31-03-2012, 06:02 PM
Yes - 205bhp fwd set to Eco

oolongroy
02-04-2012, 04:06 PM
I'd love to know how you get on with Audi as I have exactly the same worry. I have a 4 month old 2.0TDi after 2 years with a 2009 2.0TDie and I'm getting about the same mpg as you which I think is totally wrong. My TDie regularly returned 60-65 mpg on long runs and I managed a couple of 72mpg runs when I was averaging 55-65 mph. If I drive the same with this current model I get 45-50mpg. This latest model feels considerably lighter and has stop-start tech so I'm sure something is at fault - even after taking the running-in into account.

5678
02-04-2012, 08:36 PM
Is this not just a case of engines being built with a huge leaning toward getting incredibly high numbers on the approved consumption routes?
Audi have obviously leant towards getting good numbers rather than keeping the book numbers attainable.

ninjabob
02-04-2012, 09:09 PM
Only had mine since 1st March and done under 1000miles - not seen better than 42mpg on the guage so far.

ianfarnham
02-04-2012, 09:14 PM
Someone once told me that there is so much intelligence built into the ECU and engine management systems that manufacturers can programme them to recognise when a car is doing the Standard Euro/government test run and haul all the settings back to minimum fuel use as it goes through the test sequences. Does anyone know if thats really true - it seems feasible and as so much is at stake I wouldn't put it past designers trying to get the very best stats?

5678
02-04-2012, 09:19 PM
Someone once told me that there is so much intelligence built into the ECU and engine management systems that manufacturers can programme them to recognise when a car is doing the Standard Euro/government test run and haul all the settings back to minimum fuel use as it goes through the test sequences. Does anyone know if thats really true - it seems feasible and as so much is at stake I wouldn't put it past designers trying to get the very best stats?

Even if anyone was party to that info, I'd be amazed if they were able to admit it in public.

The cynic in me would not be surprised at anything a manufacturer does to massage consumption figures. With diesels now it's all about the MPG and CO2. Car buyers are obsessed with it to ridiculous levels (as this thread in part shows!)

ti rich
08-04-2012, 12:59 AM
120 mile trip to Heathrow today. Cruise set at 70mph, average speed for the journey was 63mph.

Just managed 50.3mpg.

Getting a bit better as the weather gets warmer but still hoped for better than this.

Two days ago a 250 mile trip back from Cornwall at 80mph resulted in 38mpg.

Timothy Nathan
09-04-2012, 12:10 AM
hmmmm....with very careful driving and continuous use of E, big anticipation not to use the brakes, and Start-Stop always used, I am now getting 50mpg Urban...better than Book!

It's a struggle mind you!

ti rich
09-04-2012, 12:23 AM
Urban I get 35-40mpg driving like a saint. No way could I get near that.

Timothy Nathan
09-04-2012, 12:30 AM
I may be cheating a little, as a fair bit of my Urban is on 40mph roads, and even one stretch of 50, but nonetheless, it's an impressive figure.

ti rich
13-04-2012, 01:07 PM
That is cheating a little!

Drive back from LHR tonight won't be at 70mph so can't do a proper test on this trip.

ti rich
14-04-2012, 03:07 PM
100 odd mile cruise at 85MPH netted 39MPG over the same route.

pitch3110
24-04-2012, 07:25 PM
I have a 2.0 multi on demo next Friday and will get a true one to my 40k B8 as I will take it on the same journeys.

Fact is every manufacturer boasts cookoo figures. If you search 5 series threads folk are moaning about what their cars are not doing. As I said earlier in this thread mine has improved with ever 10k and is also woefully bad when the weather is cold and the stations are selling fuel full of crap to stop I freezing.

Trust me guys as it warms up the cars will get better.

Ta
Pitch

Timothy Nathan
24-04-2012, 08:40 PM
My 3.0 indicates 38mpg at 135mph.

Just saying....:Blush2:

Si T
24-04-2012, 10:25 PM
I'm getting 58 to 62 mpg from my 2.0 tdi se on my 40 mile commute, very happy!

ti rich
25-04-2012, 12:16 AM
I'm getting 58 to 62 mpg from my 2.0 tdi se on my 40 mile commute, very happy!

How?

Brycie
25-04-2012, 01:20 AM
How?

By ripping the seats out, turning the stereo off, taking the spare wheel out etc, etc, etc I would imagine lol. I have the 2.0 TDI & on a 70mph journey, my trip computer said 52mpg from Lancashire to Bedfordshire & 51mpg on the return journey (with Air Con turned off). Apparently there's a sweet spot at which the engine uses less fuel & 70 mph is one of those sweet spots. 80 mph may not be one of those sweet spots as it's over the speed limit, so why would it be?

At the end of the day, you have an S-Line A6, so servicing costs, maintenance costs and fuel consumption should be something you expect to be high & I don't think anyone believes the manufacturers mpg figures, unless you drive everywhere at 56mph with no weight in the car at all, no air con, no electrics on, and no unnecessary braking.

Timothy Nathan
25-04-2012, 08:19 AM
It is possible/easy to get such figures (though I can only speak for the 3.0) by very judicious driving - all the stuff our parents told us about: light acceleration, steady, slow speed, anticipating slowing down and (more importantly) speeding up again, allowing speed to vary with gradient and so on.

If Si's 40 miles is on clear, empty road, without lights or roundabouts, and he drives at 50 mph with steady accelerator pressure then I would expect those figures. Actually, I would expect better, which implies that some of the conditions are not quite met - maybe he drives at 60, or uses cruise control on the hills.

Brycie, there may be peaks of efficiency, but, because air and rolling resistance rises as the square of the speed, I would not expect 70 to be particularly efficient overall (though it is possible that it is marginally better than 65 and 75.)

Si T
25-04-2012, 02:42 PM
The commute is from Monmouth to west of Cardiff on dual carriageway, M4, and a bit or urban. 65-70mph mostly and 50 on the speed restrictions on parts of the M4. Other than driving smoothly/sensibly, I'm not sure I'm doing anything special to get those returns. I also do a regular drive to Windsor 65-75mph, just going with the traffic and not booting it, and I always get high 50s, best was a fraction under 63mpg. TBH I don't see any real difference using the efficiency mode.

I've also got an A2 TDi Sport, and at higher motorway speeds I'd say I get better mpg in the A6, guess it goes to show how technology has moved on...

nealeb
25-04-2012, 09:03 PM
TBH I don't see any real difference using the efficiency mode.

Is that with a manual or automatic? I suspect that efficiency mode might make more difference with an auto as it can play with change points as well as, presumably, tweaking mixture/timing settings for power/economy trade-off.

Si T
25-04-2012, 09:11 PM
It's manual...

ti rich
25-04-2012, 10:54 PM
I agree, driving steady comfort mode allows you to change up earlier and is giving at least the same if not better MPG than efficiency mode.

I would expect the larger wheels on the S-Line to make 3-5mpg difference but I appear to be getting 10mpg less than others driving in a similar mode. My commute home is 20 miles of A roads at 45-50mph and 20 miles of motorway at 65mph changing gear at 1300 - 1500rpm. I could not drive more gentle on the throttle.

nealeb
26-04-2012, 08:28 AM
I don't think that wheel size makes much difference. The bigger rims have lower profile tyres, and the external diameter over the tread stays pretty much the same. I would be surprised if there's much more than one per cent or so difference between them. (As a fully paid-up SOB(*), I threw a quick spreadsheet together a little while ago to calculate overall diameter based on the A6 wheel and tyre options list although I don't have the results any more).

For the first time, I think, I set my car to Auto rather than Efficiency yesterday, with a fair bit of country lane driving. Made a big difference to the feel of the car, but I didn't do enough miles to get a reliable estimate of consumption change. I did notice the "instantaneous" consumption drop to very low figures when I let the ACC accelerate me to cruising speed, but of course it is doing this for a shorter distance than with slower acceleration, which offsets the effect somewhat.

(*) Sad old <removed>. There's a few of us on this forum...

ti rich
26-04-2012, 08:55 AM
Its the weight of the wheel And tyre that makes the differenve - all to do with unsprong mass (the bit that rotates) and it makes a big difference to mpg.

robbyg
26-04-2012, 06:52 PM
I wouldnt have thought wheel/tyre size would make much difference either as the rolling diameter is going to be the same anyway give or take a mm or two.

However, before i ordered my A6 (the delivery wait is killing me) i also looked at the 5 series. BMW quote three mpg values for each car nowadays based on the wheel selection. It seems to make a big difference. Looks like 19s cost you 5-6% more fuel than 17s. 18s cost 3-4% more than 17s.
Maybe the bigger wheels are heavier to accelerate, and the bigger spokes cause more drag?
I suspect the audi brochure figure will always be for the SE on 17' wheels? Who knows what 20' will do!

5 series touring mpg examples:
225/55/R17 / 245/45/R18 / 245/40/R19

520d: 57.6 / 55.4 / 54.3mpg
530d: 51.4 / 49.6 / 48.7mpg
535d: 50.4 / 48.7 / 47.9mpg

Timothy Nathan
26-04-2012, 09:57 PM
:rolleyes: I continue to roll my eyes at the mention of these large wheels.

As far as I can make out;

They are expensive to buy.
They give the car a bone jolting ride.
Their tyres are considerably more expensive.
They perform worse on corners (this from an MX-5 racing friend.)
They create much more road noise.
They are much more prone to kerb damage.
...and now we are told that they give markedly reduced fuel economy.


Are we really so vain that we (and by "we" I mean "you" :D ) are prepared to put up with all this for some perceived cosmetic benefit? I mean, really?

It reminds me of the miniskirts, tank-tops and stilettos worn by the girls of Liverpool in mid-winter.

robbyg
26-04-2012, 10:04 PM
LOL
glad i stuck with the standard Sline 18s.

Timothy Nathan
26-04-2012, 10:06 PM
I'm very glad I stuck with the standard SE 17s. :D

nealeb
27-04-2012, 08:26 AM
Even the SE 17" can be a bit noisy on some surfaces but they are still better than the S line 18" that I test drove - and switching the air suspension in that car to "dynamic" made it even worse:)

I am very surprised that wheel size makes that much difference. OK, so there's a little bit more mass in the rims, offset slightly by lighter tyres, maybe? But that can't amount to much more than a couple of per cent, if that (but does anyone have any actual rim/tyre weight figures?). Moment of inertia will be slightly greater as the mass is nearer the rim than the the centre, so it will need a little more energy to get the wheel rotating. So I have to assume that as you move from a rim/tyre combination with some resilience towards something more akin to a wooden wheel with no give at all, the actual rolling resistance goes up and that's where the biggest increase in consumption comes from.

I'm with Timothy here - why do it?

KAM
27-04-2012, 10:35 AM
To be honest, I'm not enough of a vapour-head to worry over much about my wheels. To me they're the bits at the corner that keep the car off the ground [why is there no smilie for :hanging head in shame:?]
However having seen this recent flurry of posts I did a bit of searching and found, would you believe it, http://www.wheelweights.net/

Now this is an American site and they don't seem to have any Audi A6 wheels listed at all, but nevertheless you do get a good feel for how diameter influences mass. Looking at some other Audi wheels you see things like an 17" A8 at 9.53Kgs compared to a 20" A8 at 12.97Kgs. So a 17.6% increase in diameter results in a 36% increase in mass. I realise these are not absolute comparisons: the wheel design, material and construction will change as well as size. But it's the best I could find.

Warning: there are nearly 4500 wheel weights listed in the spreadsheet downloadable from this site. I anticipate happy times ahead for some people debating the relative merits of large wheels, small wheels, cast wheels, forged wheels, round wheels, square wheels etc ... Enjoy!

Timothy Nathan
27-04-2012, 12:41 PM
Item on mpg on You and Yours on BBC R4 at 12:37 today, will be available on iPlayer.

Apparently German Diesels run closest to book!

MFGF
27-04-2012, 05:23 PM
Seems like I am in the minority here. I have 20" wheels and I think they look great! :) I chose them and would do so again. Each to his own, I suppose :)

MF.

Timothy Nathan
27-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Seems like I am in the minority here.

Sadly not.

MFGF
27-04-2012, 05:29 PM
Sadly not.

In the context of this thread, I certainly seem to be! :)

Timothy Nathan
27-04-2012, 05:52 PM
How many duffle coats do you see girls wearing in downtown Liverpool?

pitch3110
27-04-2012, 06:19 PM
If MPG was all important I would drive a Fiesta.
It is about balance and reward for our hard graft.
My indulgence is watches and you lot would have a field day on me and what that costs.... That's before you get stared on my clothing and footwear!!!

My next (if an A6) will certainly have them 20" beauties. Lov 'em.

Pitch

MFGF
27-04-2012, 11:01 PM
How many duffle coats do you see girls wearing in downtown Liverpool?

I never see any girl wearing more than one ;)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

MFGF
27-04-2012, 11:07 PM
My next (if an A6) will certainly have them 20" beauties. Lov 'em.

Pitch

Aha. A kindred spirit! :)

If we all had exactly the same tastes and preferences, the world would be a less interesting place. Variety is good! :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

pitch3110
27-04-2012, 11:16 PM
Aha. A kindred spirit! :)

If we all had exactly the same tastes and preferences, the world would be a less interesting place. Variety is good! :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hallalujah brother.

Pitch

Timothy Nathan
28-04-2012, 09:46 AM
JAAMOI, and this really is an open question, do you consider that the big wheels bring any benefits other than the good looks?

5678
28-04-2012, 10:07 AM
JAAMOI, and this really is an open question, do you consider that the big wheels bring any benefits other than the good looks?

Personally, on a car such as the A6, I'd say it's 100% cosmetic vanity. This is from someone who has specced 19s too. More expensive tyres, less sidewall for comfort and increased rolling resistance due to extra rubber in contact with the road.

I just think they make the car look much, much better. As I said vanity, but I'm not ashamed of that.

eddiethered
28-04-2012, 10:18 AM
Sorry to move away from wheel size. My mpg after nearly 2 months in a 2.0tdi S Line is 46 mpg (on 18" standard tyres!). I do a 50 mile round trip each day of which about three quarters is on a motorway at 75mph average. Not bad for the size of car but not brilliant either. I use the auto setting which is slightly less economical than economy (I suppose that figures!) but like others I found this felt like plodding along when you needed a bit of power. Auto is a compromise but suits me best. I can get 50 mpg if I do a very steady 65/70 mph average.

ti rich
28-04-2012, 10:56 AM
I wish I had specified 20's now as I feel on reflection that the 19's look too small. I was worried about ride quality but it's fine. Not worried about tyre cost as it's a company car. Coming up to 10k miles now and as the weather gets warmer the mpg is improving slightly. Just done 585 miles on the last tank and still 50 miles remaining.

Timothy Nathan
29-04-2012, 05:07 PM
I find this wheel thing endlessly fascinating. If you look through the threads about people who have ordered or received their pride and joy, they almost invariably mention wheel size, it seems to be an essential piece of information about the car, and most people seem to order bigger wheels, despite the many disadvantages enumerated above.

However, I live in a pretty posh Surrey town/London suburb and there are a good number of recent German cars on the drives. Audis predominate, but there are lots of BMWs and quite a few Mercs.

I would never previously given it a thought, but as a result of this forum I now find myself looking at their wheels, and I notice that the vast majority, let's say >90%, have got perfectly ordinary sized wheels with ordinary tyres.

So, we have the anomaly of the large majority on here ordering big wheels and the vast majority of the burghers of Epsom sticking with standard (indeed, I imagine, not giving it a moment's thought, as I didn't.)

Does that mean that the population on here is far from representative of the car-buying public and, if so, why is that?

ti rich
29-04-2012, 06:28 PM
I think its quite simple to answer that. I am guessing that in your posh area most of the people are of an older age who opt for less sporty and more comfortable cars - hence the smaller wheels. Younger people tend to go for sports editions such as S-line/M-Sport which have larger wheels as standard. That's my theory anyway.

Yes the larger wheels do use more fuel and yes they do make the ride quality worse but to me (and lots of people) they finish the cars looks better. Small wheels in a large wheel arch just isn't right.

To me me its a bit like buying an Armani suit and then getting the shirt/tie from Tesco!!!

That said it's good that we all like different things!

5678
30-04-2012, 07:01 AM
I think ti rich has a point there... would love to see the correlation between wheel size and age! lol!

Timothy Nathan
30-04-2012, 07:39 AM
I think ti rich has a point there... would love to see the correlation between wheel size and age! lol!
That does make sense, and extends the analogy of how people dress - the young bear discomfort for looks, whereas the older prefer more comfortable clothes.

But it also implies that this forum, or fora in general, or the internet, or computers are the preserve of the young and my experience elsewhere does not support that.

5678
30-04-2012, 08:19 AM
That does make sense, and extends the analogy of how people dress - the young bear discomfort for looks, whereas the older prefer more comfortable clothes.

But it also implies that this forum, or fora in general, or the internet, or computers are the preserve of the young and my experience elsewhere does not support that.

I'm not sure that any of us are young enough to fall into the "bear discomfort for looks" category? Unless a few people have a closet high heel fetish? ;)
I'm not sure I can agree on the statement around wheel size suggesting that fora/the internet/computers are the preserve of the young though? Almost every element of my life and family would suggest otherwise. With no offence intended, I think you may be reading too much into it and looking for a trend where one may not really exist. Some people like larger wheels on a car, some people prefer light colour interiors, etc.

If you are looking for a reason as to why larger wheels are now more popular/fashionable than previously, then the manufacturers are the ones to look to. We've now been conditioned to think that an 18" wheel is small!

Timothy Nathan
30-04-2012, 08:25 AM
My original point was that big wheels predominate here, small wheels on the front drives of my neighbours, and the stats, at first look, appear significant.

Just wondering why.

I am not sure that you can blame the manufacturers. The "easiest" choice on my SE (ie no box ticking, no extra payment) was just to accept the 17" wheels. The S comes with 18" wheels, but the whole S thing is pretty much cosmetic anyway (I think that the only operational differences are lower suspension and Xenon?).


I'm not sure that any of us are young enough to fall into the "bear discomfort for looks" category?
I thought that we had agreed that there is no other benefit of large wheels than looks, and no other effect than discomfort in various guises?

5678
30-04-2012, 08:52 AM
My original point was that big wheels predominate here, small wheels on the front drives of my neighbours, and the stats, at first look, appear significant.

Just wondering why.

I am not sure that you can blame the manufacturers. The "easiest" choice on my SE (ie no box ticking, no extra payment) was just to accept the 17" wheels. The S comes with 18" wheels, but the whole S thing is pretty much cosmetic anyway (I think that the only operational differences are lower suspension and Xenon?).


I thought that we had agreed that there is no other benefit of large wheels than looks, and no other effect than discomfort in various guises?

When was the last time you saw a press image with the standard wheels on? I'm not sure I can recall one. Even the SE spec has the optional 20" wheels in the brochure. Having a brief look now, I cannot find a picture of the SE on the standard wheels on the Audi site.

The discomfort for looks comment was on your analogy to how people dress. I can appreciate the parallels with how someone specs their car though.

(IMO, S spec does offer a little more than Xenons and suspension, for me, the seats were vastly superior. Far more comfortable without having to go to the cost of Comfort seats. The rest is cosmetic though as we've agreed.)

Edit: dare I say resale on the S-line would be stronger than the SE too? From looking at lease costs prior to buying, I know that an A4 Black is has far stronger residuals than the SE or S, thus cheaper as a lease prospect. I'd assume that same across the brand.

Timothy Nathan
30-04-2012, 03:29 PM
dare I say resale on the S-line would be stronger than the SE too? From looking at lease costs prior to buying, I know that an A4 Black is has far stronger residuals than the SE or S, thus cheaper as a lease prospect. I'd assume that same across the brand.
Luckily I never sell cars. I buy exactly what I want new, then use it up and eventually throw it away. I've done that all my driving life and have happily had very few, very nice cars.

5678
30-04-2012, 03:33 PM
Luckily I never sell cars. I buy exactly what I want new, then use it up and eventually throw it away. I've done that all my driving life and have happily had very few, very nice cars.

Wow, really? What did you have before the A6 and how long did it last? Did you px it or scrap it? How long do you plan for your A6 to last?

I get bored of my cars far too easily! We normally change at least one of them a year. The A6 is the first car I've bought with the intention of trying to keep for some time as the family work horse.

Timothy Nathan
30-04-2012, 03:42 PM
My previous was a Rover 75 Connoiseur SE Estate. I had it for 9 years and 120k miles when it failed its MOT on broken rear springs.

I could have spent 1000 on getting a car with 700 value, but decided to buy new instead. They did give me PE, but that was part of a deal, rather than any reflection on its value (Mercedes declined to give me anything for it.)

I expect 15 years out of the Audi.

Brycie
30-04-2012, 05:32 PM
Does that mean that the population on here is far from representative of the car-buying public and, if so, why is that?

If I was to have a guess as to why that is, I'd say that the very fact that those of us on this forum have joined a car forum at all, shows we have a stronger than average interest in cars. The Beemers & Mercs on the drives where you are, are most probably owned by somebody who has x to spend on a car & just wants whatever the money will buy, or one like they've seen around town. Maybe they'll add some toys for comfort & practicality like cruise control or heated leather, but would somebody with average interest in driving & cars spend as long speccing a car as one of us? I doubt it.

ninjabob
03-05-2012, 10:44 AM
We are not alone!!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2135617/Fuel-farce-Official-figures-heavily-overstate-cars-mpg.html?ito=newsletter

robob123
03-05-2012, 11:41 AM
According to the list on that link, the A6 actually isn't far off the official figure.

re the wheel size debate, surely resale value is another consideration.

I'm 33 and while you could say that by buying a massive german diesel estate car, I've given up any sportyness in car ownership, the fact is every little helps and that includes 19" alloys and s-line specification.

I would imagine that for many audi owners, the car is just a nice way of getting from a-b. I don't mind admitting that my new audi, being my first new car, is something I'm rather proud to own and drive.

Timothy Nathan
03-05-2012, 11:52 PM
If resale value were an issue, which way would it go?

We have already suggested that most people buy small wheels, whereas petrolheads buy big wheels.

On the used market, you are, I assume, more likely to sell to a "most people" person than a petrolhead.

I'd guess that that person will test drive the car with big wheels and find the ride rough and the road noise high and look elsewhere.

It's certainly why I walked away from the BMW 5GT.

5678
04-05-2012, 07:14 AM
If resale value were an issue, which way would it go?

We have already suggested that most people buy small wheels, whereas petrolheads buy big wheels.

On the used market, you are, I assume, more likely to sell to a "most people" person than a petrolhead.

I'd guess that that person will test drive the car with big wheels and find the ride rough and the road noise high and look elsewhere.

It's certainly why I walked away from the BMW 5GT.

I'd totally disagree with that Timothy.

In my opinion, it people who either want to save money, spend it in other areas or are from the older generation who buy with smaller wheels. I would say that 'most people' buying second hand would go for a car with larger wheels. Perhaps even more so than one that had lots of complex systems to go wrong on an older car.

Hawthorn37
05-05-2012, 08:10 AM
The lifetime, 60k mile average for my C6 2.0tdi Avant Auto was 42.7 mpg. That stayed flat during the 3 years I owned the car, with single trip maximums of 57mpg. So far, 3k on my C7 (same spec) I am getting 41mpg. The car is fantastic, but so far the economy has not impressed, and I suppose I did get a little sucked in to the Audi sales hype on efficient design, and the government figures. The best single trip max so far on the C7 has been 50 mpg, sitting at around 55-60mph on the motorway.

MFGF
05-05-2012, 08:59 AM
I put fuel into mine for the first time yesterday. I drove 527 miles on 60 litres, and most of that was in Efficiency mode on the M6, M42, M40 and M4. I hope the economy gets better as the engine and gearbox bed in and loosen up!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

dgarside
09-05-2012, 02:25 PM
Now got to 8000 miles in mine (Saloon with 20" wheels) and have averaged 36mpg over 3 tanks full and on a trip down to Southend/Leigh-On-Sea from Holmfirth (mainly A1 not M1) the wife (!!! not even me !!!) managed 42 mpg. Car has been in for a health check and they can't find anything wrong, and even said it was getting better than some other cars they'd seen. Must say I was quite peeved off when the service manager tried to tell me the consumption figures quoted couldn't really be achieved, only really on as a comparison to other cars not expected in real world.

Had a conversation about the iPhone, Data SIM and RSAP not working on Blackberry at sametime.... wasn't my favourite conversation or visit to an Audi dealer, and no further forward with any of the problems.

Great front end for the Audi brand... 'don't trust what the sales documentation says about the car'...... hmmmmm

Timothy Nathan
09-05-2012, 06:30 PM
I think that there is nothing the dealers can say. Audi UK are being unresponsive on the issue and the dealers are left to pick up the pieces...

ti rich
09-05-2012, 06:53 PM
On a mission on this tank full. Hope to crack the 600 mile barrier with the warmer weather and some super careful driving!!!

Si T
17-05-2012, 10:58 AM
Just did a trip from Windsor to Cardiff, cruise set to 66mph, slowing to 50mph for a couple of stretches for roadworks, and got 64.5mpg. Car was in efficiency mode, which I think gave a couple of extra mpg...

5678
17-05-2012, 11:14 AM
Quite looking forward to experimenting with my car when it arrives. I do a 400 mile round trip of M6/M6 Toll/M42/M40/M4 around 3 times a month at the moment so will try and record the mpg readings @ specific speeds as the mileage on the car increases.

ti rich
17-05-2012, 12:02 PM
I am on target to get 700 miles on this tankfull, I will kee you updated!

5678
17-05-2012, 12:08 PM
I am on target to get 700 miles on this tankfull, I will kee you updated!

Figures like this seem like crazy talk to me... I'm used to getting around 270 miles from 60 odd litres!

skibuddy
17-05-2012, 12:23 PM
My first tank of fuel has taken me 593 miles across an average speed of 31 mpg.

ti rich
17-05-2012, 12:39 PM
No really. 500 miles done so far and a range of 195 showing. Average of 50.3 mpg on this tank. All trips to work 40 miles each way.

swampey
17-05-2012, 04:22 PM
Firstly anyone that believes the manufactures figures, then more fool them... it has been proven time and time again in the past that these are a guide and carried out under test conditions...

I have a question .....How often do you check your tyre pressures ? It maybe how you drive the car.. heavy right foot... jerky gear changes.. but then we are talking about and Audi A6 which is a heavy car in the first place....Maybe a remap might be something to consider....

End of the day if MPG is such an issue, then I think a Prius might have been a car to have considered in the first place

Si T
17-05-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm on target for 700 miles too... Happy days!

Alann84
17-05-2012, 10:24 PM
I seem to average 550 - 600 per tank which consists of a varied mixture of driving, managed over 700 on a long motorway journey :)

MFGF
17-05-2012, 10:34 PM
No really. 500 miles done so far and a range of 195 showing. Average of 50.3 mpg on this tank. All trips to work 40 miles each way.

What size tank - 65 or 75 litres?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

ti rich
17-05-2012, 10:55 PM
What size tank - 65 or 75 litres?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Only 65 litre. It's took will power mind!

ianfarnham
19-05-2012, 09:15 PM
I've got close to 700+ miles on a 65 litre tank BUT several things have helped. This included around 100 miles around lake district (cold starts and Hardknot/Kirkstone pass hills) and along ride back down the M6 M40 M25 at a steady 65mph. I've concluded the following are very important:

speed - the difference between 70mph+ and 65mph+ is significant
temperature - below 10 degrees C it seems to use much more fuel (its not fuel additives because mpg changes form one day to the next with the same fuel
right foot - if you can feel the car accelerating (eg pulling away, changing lanes on motorway) then FORGET IT - consumption dramatically increases. You need a feather touch (you know all the tricks = allow speed to build up down hills and reduce up hills etc)
Hills are real killers!
in eco mode - although this has no impact on gear ratios when cruising
A/C off
etc.

The indicated MPG varied from 55 to 60 mpg and measured tankful to tankful was 52mpg, PS i've checked the odometer and is less than 1% out. Altogether pretty good for a 3.0 diesel.

But this was all a bit sad - I've now gone back to normal to enjoy the stunning engine performance and returned ~30mpg but shows what can be done.

Guess the only Q is whether the problems reported are all to do with the 2.0 litre?

Timothy Nathan
19-05-2012, 10:44 PM
Guess the only Q is whether the problems reported are all to do with the 2.0 litre?
My experience with the 3.0 matches yours. It does seem to be more economical than the 2.0 ironically.

MFGF
19-05-2012, 11:18 PM
I just got 623 miles from the last tank before the light pinged on. I brimmed it and put 67 litres in, so there were still 8 litres left.

I didn't drive economically, and spent the whole time in Dynamic.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

ti rich
20-05-2012, 09:14 AM
speed - the difference between 70mph+ and 65mph+ is significant
temperature - below 10 degrees C it seems to use much more fuel (its not fuel additives because mpg changes form one day to the next with the same fuel
right foot - if you can feel the car accelerating (eg pulling away, changing lanes on motorway) then FORGET IT - consumption dramatically increases. You need a feather touch (you know all the tricks = allow speed to build up down hills and reduce up hills etc)
Hills are real killers!
in eco mode - although this has no impact on gear ratios when cruising
A/C off
etc.

The indicated MPG varied from 55 to 60 mpg and measured tankful to tankful was 52mpg, PS i've checked the odometer and is less than 1% out. Altogether pretty good for a 3.0 diesel.

But this was all a bit sad - I've now gone back to normal to enjoy the stunning engine performance and returned ~30mpg but shows what can be done.

Guess the only Q is whether the problems reported are all to do with the 2.0 litre?

This backs up my finding as well. I would add that I have to keep the rpm to between 1200-1700rpm to achieve good economy. The 2.0 tdi does have useful torque that low down unlike the wife's 118d BMW which doesn't generate any torque till 1700rpm.

That said if you drive a lot of motorway or A road miles the 3.0 tdi appears to give better MPG.

My final result so far is 645 miles with 35 remaining out of a standard tank. Driving in efficiency mode and like a nun.

Lanky Chris
23-05-2012, 04:24 PM
I actually have a bit of a theory about this, most of my driving has been home to work recently because of back problems and whilst we had all the really wet weather my average consumption on a 14 mile journey was 33mpg (3.0 TDi Quattro) indicated, once it dried up I'm got an indicated 40mpg, now it's a bit warmer I'm getting 42mpg indicated. I wondered whther the drop was down to the automatic brake drying function that is standard on all of the new A6, i.e. most of the journey you are actually burning diesel to dry the brakes, there may also be something to do with the tyres pushing all the water away.

Incidentally I've done the brim-to-brim calculation on all fill ups since I purchased the car and the indicated seems to be reading about 2.3mpg high overall the overall on the computer (I haven't zeroed the long-term memory since I took delivery) shows 38.3 and my figures show 35.98 overall, last six fill ups show 37.6 wih some longer trips to come so hoping to get up above 38 actual which I will be happy with!

ti rich
23-05-2012, 05:04 PM
You could be spot on re brakes. Mine is much worse in the wet.

On a more positive note a drive to Heathrow at 4am today (120 miles) netted 56 mpg @ 65mph. Should be 58 mpg on the way back if Timothy is right. That's more like it -730 mile total range.

Si T
24-05-2012, 03:04 PM
See, I wasn't making it up!!
Still some way to go to beat the 64.5 mpg I got on a c.130 mile route on the M4!

ti rich
24-05-2012, 04:02 PM
See, I wasn't making it up!!
Still some way to go to beat the 64.5 mpg I got on a c.130 mile route on the M4!

At what speed was that out of interest?

Timothy Nathan
24-05-2012, 04:06 PM
I can easily get into the mid to high 60s at 55mph but it's too boring!

I now generally compromise at 49mpg @ 80mph indicated (probably 77 true), which seems very reasonable.

Goatistuta
25-05-2012, 12:46 AM
This fuel consumption issue continues to throw curved balls. Yesterday driving 34 miles home to work ( country lanes and motorway) I got 54mpg from my 2.0 tdi multitronic with the car setup in 'auto' mode. Today with the exact same route, speeds and weather conditions, but with the car setup in 'efficiency' mode, I get 42mpg. Can anybody explain that?

KAM
25-05-2012, 10:21 AM
I can easily get into the mid to high 60s at 55mph ...[KAM-added emphasis]

Wow! I'm genuinely in awe. If you can get high 60s easily, what could you achieve if you tried? 70+ ?

I've only once got over 60 on a journey. It was an MPG record attempt as far as I was concerned going for a PB. Empty vehicle, driver only, quiet motorway, economy mode, every trick I knew, 50-55mph in Lane 1, (HGVs thundering past an A6!). After 150 miles of that I was just about certifiable. It required so much concentration, anticipation and observation.

It was actually incredibly educational. Having to constantly scan all 3 lanes, fore and aft, absorb all the data, and work hard at predicting changes in patterns and positions of other drivers is something I suspect we all claim to do. But that day I realised how much I could improve what I was doing. And quite how many headcases are at loose in Lane 3 of the M6. Couldn't decide which was worse: white-van man, BMW drivers, old men wearing caps.

Who's Audi?
25-05-2012, 01:26 PM
I set my A6 on Efficiency mode all the time, drive around 70 miles round trip and i got 49.6 mpg and thats with cruise control at 70mph.
I'll try it on Auto setting if i get better mpg

ricky_s
25-05-2012, 04:21 PM
I set my A6 on Efficiency mode all the time, drive around 70 miles round trip and i got 49.6 mpg and thats with cruise control at 70mph.
I'll try it on Auto setting if i get better mpg

How odd, I get more than that with my 3 litre!

Who's Audi?
25-05-2012, 04:32 PM
Wow, my car only has 700 miles on the clock lol.

Timothy Nathan
25-05-2012, 07:01 PM
Ok, easily, when emphasised sounds easier than it was, but it was more frustrating than difficult; just driving as you describe, with masses of anticipation, and mostly just on ACC behind lorries doing 56 limited.

But every story seems to be the same....the 3.0 is more fuel economic than the 2.0.

AZO1
26-05-2012, 06:39 PM
Certainly my 3.0 (204PS) is close to 50 mpg on most trips (other than the very shortest journeys) on 'Auto' / 'Efficiency'

nealeb
27-05-2012, 09:52 PM
Don't know about "brake drying" (hadn't heard of that feature before!) but certainly rain increases consumption. I used to see that regularly on my C6 - only casual observation but it probably cost a few MPG typically.

robbyg
28-05-2012, 08:26 PM
brake drying only touches the brakes gently and occasionally.
Bad economy is the drag of the water as the tyre is clearing water away to put the rubber onto the tarmac.

I did 10 miles at 60-70 on soaking wet roads in my last car and measured the average, it was high 20s mpg, i thought the car had a fault. once i overtook the rain back onto dry roads i measured the next 10 and got high 30s again as normal. Must get out more...

Also in rain your lights are on, wipers, maybe heated screen too all taking abit more power.

KAM
30-05-2012, 08:57 AM
New personal best!
(Should there be a separate boasters' thread for this? "Mine is bigger than yours" and all that :) )

Yesterday a round trip of about 195 miles Manchester - Coventry - Manchester finished with an indicated 65.5mpg. During the first half of the journey the 'in-flight' display actually peaked at 70.3 at one point. The southbound trip had two (intentional) stops at services where I met colleagues to receive and pass-on some equipment. There was also about 4-5 miles of A roads with traffic lights, junctions, etc at the Coventry end with about 6 hours stop there. It was the usual approach for this type of attempt: economy, ~55mph on cruise (with tweaks up and down as required) etc. However this time I did have a half-full boot of relatively lightweight stuff (no paving slabs!) and I had the air-con on. On the other hand traffic flow was very, very fortunate - almost continuous with no unanticipated sharp braking.

Anyway, enough of this. I think I'll start driving normally now that I know what can be achieved.

(Oh, for reference, 2.0 TDi SE multitronic which passed the 7K mark during the journey)

5678
30-05-2012, 09:04 AM
The details of the test route are...


Urban Cycle
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20oC to 30oC on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerating and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50km/h), average speed 12mph (19km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4km).
Extra-Urban Cycle
This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75mph (120km/h), average speed is 39mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3miles (7km).
Combined Fuel Consumption Figure
The combined figure presented is for the urban and extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.

This is so far from how people actually drive it's all a little irrelevant!

ti rich
30-05-2012, 09:49 AM
On target to get over 700 miles on this tankful, really pleased with that. The warmer weather and some shell fuel appear to be helping a lot.

KAM
30-05-2012, 10:22 AM
This is so far from how people actually drive it's all a little irrelevant!In order to provide some manufacturer-to-manufacturer model-to-model comparison this standard has been agreed upon. As you say, it's clearly not a manufactuer/model-to-real life comparison. At least there is some kind of standard! I would guess some manufacturer could deliberately engineer and optimise their car to excel at this test, but presumably that would result in compromises elsewhere.

[ And isn't that why we buy an Audi? It's not because of any one single factor - speed, economy, colour, shape, image, comfort, value etc. It's the balance and weighting and importance that's given to all these. Audi give these issues broadly the same attention that we do. Their compromises are the same compromises that we would make. Their car 'profile' fits our requirements better than BMW, Merc, Ford, Lexus, Toyota etc. Hence we buy Audi. ]

5678
30-05-2012, 10:27 AM
I can imagine the cars that get submitted for test have been tested to be as optimal as possible. Minimal fluids, no optional extras, and everything running at 100% efficiency.

In this day and age it appears that MPG is of far more concern than anything else! For me, it was one of the lowest priorities when selecting between a F10 5/C7 A6/E class.

Timothy Nathan
30-05-2012, 11:34 AM
It must be very difficult for both the manufacturers and the dealers to cope with the different demands of different customers. It seems that so many of my priorities are so different from so many others on here, that it is almost a surprise that we have chosen the same car.

For example, I am only interested in the comfort and capabilities, not one jot interested in what it looks like from the outside - to the extent that I didn't even care what colour it was, but the inside has to be just right.

I guess that the market is segmented to some extent - by size, doors and sportiness - but not by these other things which seem to me to be more relevant.

KAM
30-05-2012, 02:00 PM
not one jot interested in what it looks like from the outside - to the extent that I didn't even care what colour it was, but the inside has to be just right.Snap!

craigski
30-05-2012, 10:33 PM
I used to run a BMW 335d which returned an amazing average of 43mpg, I now have a 2012 A6 2.0 TDI 177 ps and must admit that the average MPG falls far short of the official Audi figures.
N.B just sold a 2010 S5 damn they drink the fuel 27mpg on a run wallet buster!

ti rich
05-06-2012, 10:02 PM
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/evansrj/IMG-20120531-00030.jpg

OK, very pleased with this effort. 707 miles on a standard tank with another 10 left!

robbyg
05-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Radio 1, at your age?.....

ti rich
05-06-2012, 11:06 PM
Radio 1, at your age?.....

Err yes. Since when does music have an age limit!!!!

robbyg
06-06-2012, 06:37 PM
Err yes. Since when does music have an age limit!!!!

LOL, only joking, no idea how old you are either. just repeating what my dad would say at anything other than R2...;)

JimC64
06-06-2012, 07:29 PM
hi there, just a quickie, as I'm sure I postedbeofre something similar. I travelled around 637 miles one day and had around 90 left in the tank when I refuelled..........DIS said IF I travelled the same journey in the same driving style I could achieve 915 miles!!

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/jaycam0802/A6mpg.jpg

Ok so I know there's a big difference between what might be and actually is, but even so............driving in an economical manner can achieve really good results, even if its boring as he ll

KAM
07-06-2012, 07:22 AM
Ah-ha. Now we know the secret. It's the common theme between JimC64 and ti rich. It's Radio 1.
Sorry, but there are some economy steps I will not be taking.

neilos100
07-06-2012, 08:25 AM
I think also that the age of all your cars had a lot to do with the economy you are getting....I'll bet when they have all done over 10k miles you'll see the economy get much better....the engine will have loosened up as well as all the other moving parts....should make a big difference....:thumbup:

Sent from my HTC One X using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2

Timothy Nathan
07-06-2012, 09:03 AM
Isn't it obvious? Radios 3 and 4 are much heavier than Radio 1, which, when I were a lad, was called "The Light Programme".

The gnomes of Ingolstadt put in all that effort to reduce weight, and hence fuel consumption, and than you spoil it all by listening to weighty programming:p

JimC64
07-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Ah-ha. Now we know the secret. It's the common theme between JimC64 and ti rich. It's Radio 1.
Sorry, but there are some economy steps I will not be taking.

Lol....re the comments on Radio 1

I'm usually to be found out n about in Scotland these days and generally listen to Real Radio / Clyde / Capital maybe , but during that time I was down south a lot. Rather than faffng arounda lot Radio 1 was the easy choice...............either that or put a CD in I guess....lol

Neilos makes a good point about the newer engines with veery low miles................they do loosen off with age to perform much better.

ti rich
07-06-2012, 01:47 PM
Ah-ha. Now we know the secret. It's the common theme between JimC64 and ti rich. It's Radio 1.
Sorry, but there are some economy steps I will not be taking.

Indeed - image what's possible if I listened to radio 2 or 4. Car is loosing up but weather also warmer so difficult to pinpoint the reason.

Timothy Nathan
07-06-2012, 01:59 PM
weather also warmer
Blimey. Oldbury must have quite a micro-climate.

ti rich
07-06-2012, 02:14 PM
Blimey. Oldbury must have quite a micro-climate.

Agree, not warmer today but temperatures were warmer when I got 707 miles. Actually with a bit more effort sure I could hit 750 miles as the trip back from Gatwick was at a fairly high speed once I got off the M25. Two hours on the M25 to do about 40 miles can't have helped MPG either.

nealeb
07-06-2012, 07:00 PM
I've just been looking back at some old fuel consumption spreadsheets from my previous two A6s.

First was a 2.5TDI Quattro Avant (sorry - don't know which model), owned from new 2002-2006, and which did a bit over 85K miles. There is a small improvement in consumption over the first 5-8K miles or so, but only a couple of MPG, and there are other periods where it dipped down to the original level (maybe my driving style varied?). Lifetime average a tad under 37MPG.

Second was a 3.0TDI Quattro Avant (C6, I think), owned from new 2006-2011, and which did about 60K miles. There is no discernible improvement in consumption from new, or if there is then it is lost in the noise. Overall lifetime average 35.5MPG.

Current car is a 3.0TDI Quattro Avant (you might see a pattern emerging here...), new 2012, and for which I only have the numbers typed up to April, about 3K miles. Not surprisingly, no obvious pattern formed yet but lifetime average to date 38.4MPG.

First two were manual, current is S-tronic. Don't know if it's down to the gearbox or the new "economy" design features but that looks like a 10% or so improvement to date. However, I have now retired and have moved to a rather different part of the country so typical journeys will be different and certainly the roads are, so I'm not sure how valid future comparisons will be.

The other thing that is very clear from looking at the graphs is how much consumption can vary between successive tankfuls - 3-4MPG differences are quite typical, so comparing results from successive tankfuls isn't very useful - you really need to average across a fair few tankfuls. My graphs actually show "tank by tank" and "smoothed" values, just to be able to extract useful information.

ti rich
08-06-2012, 02:18 PM
The other thing that is very clear from looking at the graphs is how much consumption can vary between successive tankfuls - 3-4MPG differences are quite typical, so comparing results from successive tankfuls isn't very useful - you really need to average across a fair few tankfuls. My graphs actually show "tank by tank" and "smoothed" values, just to be able to extract useful information.

It's sad i know but i do a similar thing too.........................

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/evansrj/audi20TDimpg.jpg

It does show a trend for an improvement from new but some of that is due to the weather as well.

Mr Incredible
09-06-2012, 09:32 PM
An interesting read! I take delivery of my new vehicle in the next week or so. A6 C7 2.0 TDi Multitronic SE. I'll report back with my own findings.

I have to admit that it was the reported MPG in the "official" figures (I know it doesn't reflect necessarily on day to day driving styles) that added to my enthusiasm for getting a new A6. I have a 1999 (V) reg 2.4 SE (the V6 Petrol), with 129k on the clock. I've been tracking my mpg in detail for about a year now ever since I found a great app for my Android! I've averaged nearly 35mpg overall. On the motorway at 70mph the onboard trip reports I average about 38, traffic depending. I doubt my driving style will change, so it will be interesting to do a comparison.

Perhaps a daft question because I think I know the answer, do new cars need "running in" like they used to do many years ago? (YOu can see I don't get a new vehicle that often!!)

robbyg
10-06-2012, 08:33 PM
re running in for A6, see here, i put a manual extract in a few weeks ago:
http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?132894-Running-in-Method

dgarside
29-06-2012, 09:30 AM
Well I hate to say it, but this is one of those cars which is very dependant on driving style. Under normal driving, automatic config, I normally get around 38mpg (10000k on clock, double figure tanks of fuel). I've just done the same commute in E with slightly less heavy right foot and over a few tanks got closer to 48mpg, on a run I've also easily reached over 50mpg.

I think my average is going to be closer to 38 than the 50, but the heavy right foot does make a massive difference..... At least for me ;-)

tankuk
30-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Managed 53 mpg on a 100 mile trip on my new avant. This was mainly doing around 50-55. Bit of a one off as I wouldn't normally drive like that but was interested in what it could do.

I don't suppose anyone knows what the optimum speed actually is? (avant 2.0 tdi se)

KAM
02-07-2012, 08:26 AM
I don't know about an 'optimum speed' but there's no question that how you get to that optimum speed has a massive influence. Let's say the oft-quoted 56mph was the sweet spot. Do you get to that by racing from a standing start in 3secs? Do you break heavily after over-shooting the mark and hitting 70mph by mistake? Do you try to maintain that, even when going up hills or round corners, and do you take some advantage of Mother Nature when coming down hills? Bear in mind that every change of direction is an acceleration (even at a steady speed) and therefore requires a force and energy. And the energy has to come from somewhere ...

5678
02-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Brand new car, 2.0 Multi, now up to 950 miles. around 800 of those on the motorway at around 0.9 leptons. The rest in city centre stop start traffic. I've got around 38mpg on the long term computer.

Quite happy with that really. It's still half the consumption that I'm used to!

Who's Audi?
02-07-2012, 01:10 PM
This weekend i'll be driving down to London and back (round trip of 600 miles). I will be setting the Cruise Control for 70mph and Efficiency Mode and a full tank of Diesel. Lets see what MPG i'll get with 90% Motorway.

ti rich
02-07-2012, 01:23 PM
This weekend i'll be driving down to London and back (round trip of 600 miles). I will be setting the Cruise Control for 70mph and Efficiency Mode and a full tank of Diesel. Lets see what MPG i'll get with 90% Motorway.


52 - 50MPG is my guess!

skibuddy
04-07-2012, 03:28 PM
What's the lowest anyone has taken the miles remaining to empty on the fuel computer. How low dare you go?

Brycie
04-07-2012, 04:19 PM
On a few of my cars I've done around 25 miles after the range hit 0.

DR_A6
04-07-2012, 08:07 PM
I did about 8 miles once it showed zero miles on the dash. The last segment on the fuel tank guage went red, then after a few more miles flashed. When I filled up I was only able to get 61 litres in and that was to the brim so there must be a fair bit of slack. Not sure I would test it though!

My mpg is about 45 - 48 with a gentle commute and about 600 miles on the clock. I have been careful though!

johnsimcox
04-07-2012, 08:16 PM
This weekend i'll be driving down to London and back (round trip of 600 miles). I will be setting the Cruise Control for 70mph and Efficiency Mode and a full tank of Diesel. Lets see what MPG i'll get with 90% Motorway.

You may find it more economical not using Cruise Control. When a car a driven without cruise control a driver will often allow the speed to rise above their "cruising speed" on a down hill section and then delay the application of the accelerator on an uphill section until the car has slowed to an unacceptable point. Cruise Control will maintain the speed no matter what, applying the brakes to slow the car on downhill (CC tends not to use the engine to slow the car as a driver would) and accelerating to maintain the programmed speed regardless of the conditions and with no thought to economy (ie full acceleration).

s555
05-07-2012, 09:53 PM
I too am disappointed with the actual vs claimed MPG.

To be fair to Audi, they are not allowed to say anything other than the official EU figures, which are a standard test run on a rolling road.

However, if you have an early brochure, they forgot to put the asterisk explaining that, so presented the EU figures as achievable.

The achievable figures are so far away from the EU that I raised it with Audi. They gave me 750 quid to say sorry.

5678
06-07-2012, 07:11 AM
I too am disappointed with the actual vs claimed MPG.

To be fair to Audi, they are not allowed to say anything other than the official EU figures, which are a standard test run on a rolling road.

However, if you have an early brochure, they forgot to put the asterisk explaining that, so presented the EU figures as achievable.

The achievable figures are so far away from the EU that I raised it with Audi. They gave me 750 quid to say sorry.

Have you got any more info on this apology payment? I'll have some of that!

Eshrules
06-07-2012, 07:48 AM
I too am disappointed with the actual vs claimed MPG.

To be fair to Audi, they are not allowed to say anything other than the official EU figures, which are a standard test run on a rolling road.

However, if you have an early brochure, they forgot to put the asterisk explaining that, so presented the EU figures as achievable.

The achievable figures are so far away from the EU that I raised it with Audi. They gave me 750 quid to say sorry.

I hope you didn't sign a non disclosure...

s555
06-07-2012, 08:00 AM
Have you got any more info on this apology payment? I'll have some of that!

If you ordered prior to around December 2011, you might get somewhere, have a look to see if you still have the brochure. If not, I can send you a PDF or a scan.

If you ordered after that, they corrected the brochure to include a disclaimer stating that the EU figures are not real world. They will use this to defend themselves, and why not, it's in black and white.

I was originally told not to worry about MPG until the car was run in, so if yours is below 4000 or so, expect some resistance, but if over, speak to your Audi centre and then Audi UK.

They will want to do a fuel test, one of them is a 250 mile or so run brim to brim, but when their mechs can't get anywhere near the 67 mpg or whatever it is extra urban, your case is made. So long as you ordered before the brochure change that is!

I roughly worked out that the difference between what I was expecting to pay for fuel and what I would actually be paying for fuel, over 3 years, was about 750, but do your own sums and don't be greedy ;-)

KAM
06-07-2012, 08:21 AM
...see if you still have the brochure...It changed between the June 2011 and July 2011 editions of the brochure. Both clearly contain the appropriate caveat text regarding the nature of fuel consumption figures. However in June the table containing the technical data did not have a superscript number following 'fuel consumption' (to specifically reference the caveat) whereas this appeared in the July edition.

I have to be honest - my sympathies are with Audi and the dealer in this case. I think that Audi had made their intentions completely clear, and the purpose of the advisory text was not materially changed by the absence of a superscript reference number. This was not an attempt to deceive or mislead, it was a simple typo which was corrected at the earliest opportunity. I'd have chased you off my forecourt and told you to come back with your lawyer if you felt you had a case in contract law here! Although you got your 750, I'd guess that actually came out of the pocket of the next poor customer who didn't get quite such a good discount on whatever his purchase was. You really think the dealer gave you this money? Yeah, right!

s555
06-07-2012, 09:06 AM
I hope you didn't sign a non disclosure...

I was expecting one, but no. Slapping on an NDA makes it hush money, an admission of guilt in many people's view. They paid it as "good will".

I would normally show some respect for the deal and keep quiet, but I have learned from this forum that Audi are very inconsistent when it comes to dealing with multiple customers with the very same problem. How can they justify paying one customer a couple of grand compensation and the other a free boot liner?

s555
06-07-2012, 09:18 AM
It changed between the June 2011 and July 2011 editions of the brochure. Both clearly contain the appropriate caveat text regarding the nature of fuel consumption figures. However in June the table containing the technical data did not have a superscript number following 'fuel consumption' (to specifically reference the caveat) whereas this appeared in the July edition.

I have to be honest - my sympathies are with Audi and the dealer in this case. I think that Audi had made their intentions completely clear, and the purpose of the advisory text was not materially changed by the absence of a superscript reference number. This was not an attempt to deceive or mislead, it was a simple typo which was corrected at the earliest opportunity. I'd have chased you off my forecourt and told you to come back with your lawyer if you felt you had a case in contract law here! Although you got your 750, I'd guess that actually came out of the pocket of the next poor customer who didn't get quite such a good discount on whatever his purchase was. You really think the dealer gave you this money? Yeah, right!

It is not my concern where the money came from. If they try to take it off the next customer, he will then find he can buy the same product cheaper elsewhere and take his business there. The internet is very good at finding out those dealers who are holding something back.

These are 40K+ cars, the customers expect 40 grand worth of quality, not just from the car but from the people selling them.

I wonder if you have the balls to tell us which dealer you work for... "chase you off my forecourt".. for 750 on a 40K motor? What fantastic customer service that is, I'll take my business elsewhere thank you!

What is amusing, in the context of your argument, is that originally I didn't notice the brochure error. I just phoned up to find out if there was something wrong with my car due to the large discrepancy between published and actual MPG. They tried to play hard ball by hiding behind the caveat in the brochure. I looked at the brochure I had, realised the caveat was missing, and slapped them straight back in the face with it. Game, set and match.

I am not sure you are correct with your timeline regarding this error. It was missing in a number of editions, at least as early as April.

The way that these "incorrect" brochures read is that the text relating to EU tests are relevant to the CO2 only. In the later editions of the brochure, not only did they add the asterisk next to MPG, they also added more text to specifically state the MPG may not be achievable in the real world.

I have taken the liberty of attaching some examples.

1727417275

Eshrules
06-07-2012, 12:18 PM
It changed between the June 2011 and July 2011 editions of the brochure. Both clearly contain the appropriate caveat text regarding the nature of fuel consumption figures. However in June the table containing the technical data did not have a superscript number following 'fuel consumption' (to specifically reference the caveat) whereas this appeared in the July edition.

I have to be honest - my sympathies are with Audi and the dealer in this case. I think that Audi had made their intentions completely clear, and the purpose of the advisory text was not materially changed by the absence of a superscript reference number. This was not an attempt to deceive or mislead, it was a simple typo which was corrected at the earliest opportunity. I'd have chased you off my forecourt and told you to come back with your lawyer if you felt you had a case in contract law here! Although you got your 750, I'd guess that actually came out of the pocket of the next poor customer who didn't get quite such a good discount on whatever his purchase was. You really think the dealer gave you this money? Yeah, right!

I disagree.

Audi aren't in the habit of dishing cash out willy nilly, the fact that they've offered s555 750 as a goodwill gesture shows a conscience on Audi's part and, given the cost of his car have probably reenforced their reputation and secured return custom as a result.

So in the big scheme of things, 750 is nothing.

I've met folk like you before though, that did indeed chase me of their forecourt. It made my day when the vehicle was returned to the very same forecourt, on the back of a lowloader in exchange for a complete refund.

That's the thing about customer service - look after a customer and it'll pay dividends, annoy him and you can rest assured he'll destroy your reputation.

KAM
06-07-2012, 07:14 PM
Oops, it looks like me and my symbolic forecourt from which I would have chased you were taken as being literal. Where's the damned :metaphor: smiley when you need one? Honest, guv, I've never been in the trade!
But honestly, did you really expect to achieve the published figures? I guess customer service is difficult when the dealer is faced with someone in a 40K+ car who argues over about 70p a day. I'd be careful about assigning Audi's motives, as eshrules did, to a conscience. Maybe it was more "how do we get rid of this ....?"

The 'timeline' issue wasn't intended as that. I happen to have two copies of the brochure, June and July, as I stated. All I mentioned was what is in them. I didn't suggest anything that led up to June or happened post-July.

But I have to give you thumbs-up for the mental image of someone being chased off a forecourt and shouting back over their shoulder "I'll take my business elsewhere!" :)

s555
06-07-2012, 08:00 PM
I had a suspicion kam was being metaphorical after posting, but then eshrules ran with it too....

It is not the money. It is the principle. And yes, there was very much a sense of them paying me to go away. But to beat any corporate at their own game of "read the small print" is always satisfying.

I never expected to get the figures quoted, but they claim something like 67mpg and you would be lucky to get 47.

And what really peeved me is after I got the chat about these not being real world, I watched their promo video where "real owners" talk about how they get 50 mpg on their daily commute. How? I can only imagine their daily commute is on a rolling road also. Downhill. With a tail wind.

tankuk
06-07-2012, 08:34 PM
I got 52 mpg doing 54 mph with only 500 miles on the clock in a new avant. It was just a test to see what it could do. Given up because it's boring and do mid to low 40s mpg. Will do another test in about 5000 miles when run in.

ti rich
06-07-2012, 10:35 PM
Actually i DO expect to get near the official figures. I got within 5% in my last BMW so why not in the Audi. My driving style has actually become more economical since getting this car yet I still cant get within 25% of the Audi figures. So are they wrong, has the tests changed or is it me?


Mmmmmm.................2 years, 4 months till this goes, not that i am counting.

s555
07-07-2012, 07:12 AM
Actually i DO expect to get near the official figures. I got within 5% in my last BMW so why not in the Audi. My driving style has actually become more economical since getting this car yet I still cant get within 25% of the Audi figures. So are they wrong, has the tests changed or is it me?


Mmmmmm.................2 years, 4 months till this goes, not that i am counting.

I don't think there s anything wrong with the test results, these are performed by Belgians in lab coats, not Audi themselves as I understand.

But, as with any predictable test, the manufacturers have designed their cars for the test rather than the real world. You can't blame them, the output of the test decides if millions of company drivers are allowed the car, or can afford it.

The same happened with NCAP. All of the side impact bars and extra airbags are positioned for the predictable collisions in the test.

All in all though, cars are much more efficient now than they were and they are certainly safer, so the tests are having a positive effect. So I suppose that is a good thing overall.

Even if it does allow car manufacturers to claim the EU "forces" them to advertise MPG they know is unacheivable on the roads.

a8toa6convert
07-07-2012, 08:21 AM
My 3.0tdi quattro is getting closer to its official figures than most other recent cars I've driven. Just over 40mpg driving from Teignmouth to Exeter and back, up and over the Haldon hills.

The 2.0tdi must be particularly suited to the official test conditions/unsuited to real world conditions ?

5678
08-07-2012, 09:38 AM
The 2.0tdi must be particularly suited to the official test conditions/unsuited to real world conditions ?

This is the crux of it IMO. They've built it for headline figures and not real world results.

I feel a little cheated. But I won't lose any sleep. 1000 miles now sees my long term showing just under 39mpg.

robob123
08-07-2012, 09:40 AM
My long term after 3000 ish miles is 38, but I tend to put my foot down on long drives and also have a daily short trip to work. Not bad, but sounds like it would have been better with a 3l.

MFGF
08-07-2012, 09:56 AM
Over the first 4000 miles, mine is showing an average of 42mpg. A lot of these miles have been covered in Dynamic mode, and with some enjoyment :-) I have not been driving like a nun :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

KAM
08-07-2012, 05:40 PM
If Audi quote a, say 0-60mph figure, I think we'd all assume that was an achievable target. It is not a guarantee that every time you leave home you'll be doing 60 within x.x seconds. To get that performance you'd have to drive accordingly under the right conditions.
I think mpg data has to be viewed in a similar light. It's not a guarantee. It's a statement of what can be achieved. And I'd agree with it. It can be achieved. I have done it and bettered it. However it's a matter of driving accordingly under the right conditions. Do I achieve it all the time? No.

I happen to think my A6 has got the best possible balance of characteristics and features for me - that's why I got it. Could any one of these features have been bettered in another vehicle? Yes. But that required a compromise in other areas that I wasn't prepared to make. Let's be honest, we're all bloody fortunate to be driving A6 C7s, they're great cars, and if the worst we've got to complain about is seen on this forum we really live charmed lives.

robob123
08-07-2012, 06:28 PM
Agree, if it was mpg we were bothered about we'd have bought Prius'. For me it's just the niggling feeling I could have got a basic 3.0l se for the price of my 2.0l sline with a couple bits. Do still love the car though.

Chris
08-07-2012, 08:01 PM
I thought I'd add my comment to this as I have a A5 177 out at the minute.

Mpg is poor but I assume this is down to only having 2000 miles and the engine isn't loosened up yet.

Today's journey of 56.8 miles at 65mph in 6th and Dynamic resulted in 43.4 mpg - err I get 44.4mpg in my 3.0 TDi quattro auto A6.

Having a look at the long range computer '2' the average over 2351.3 miles is 40.9mpg.

What do I care - it's not my car ;)

Ps - do any of you a6 bods have an alert in your DIS when you need to take a break? This appeared this morning but I was only driving for about 20 minutes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dgarside
08-07-2012, 08:28 PM
Just done a trip down from Holmfirth to St Ives in what can only be described as 'bad' weather and just filled up after a few days of tootling around :) 650 miles to the tank, so to be honest mor than happy with that and sure it could have been better under nicer weather. 10k miles on clock, on and off use of CC.

MFGF
08-07-2012, 11:31 PM
do any of you a6 bods have an alert in your DIS when you need to take a break? This appeared this morning but I was only driving for about 20 minutes?

nope - never seen that, Chris.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Chris
08-07-2012, 11:36 PM
Must be a 8T chassis thing then - its in the manual and displayed a cup of coffee in the DIS

If it comes up tomorrow again before I hand the car back I'll take a picture ;)

http://img.tapatalk.com/5284f8d9-0b06-3890.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/5284f8dc-0b92-d860.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jdwoodbury
09-07-2012, 06:24 AM
Clearly if you had bought the car for mpg reasons your going to be disappointed in the early days with the real world. I genuinely believe however that it should vastly improve with decent mileage under the wheels....still not 67 mpg mind.

I did not buy the car for mpg, just that it was the best price point for the specification I wanted, my last 2 cars have been approx 20mpg so anything is a bonus!

To put this into perspective my wife had a new VW Polo 1.2TDi in 2011, this was the brand new engine, again figures quoted at up to 80mpg. In reality we were getting mid to high 50's on a long run and it was dull and slow, to think of getting into the 60's with the A6 on a real road seems incomprehensible.

johnsimcox
09-07-2012, 07:25 AM
Must be a 8T chassis thing then - its in the manual and displayed a cup of coffee in the DIS

If it comes up tomorrow again before I hand the car back I'll take a picture ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to the manual and the May 2012 A6 brochure it does have this feature but not yet experienced it so can't say if it is there. On previous Audi's there was a system that used to go off after 2 hours, this one seems to be based on steering input amongst other things - note the warning about how it may get confused.

Timothy Nathan
09-07-2012, 03:38 PM
I sometimes get one that says my driving is too sharp and should dull it down with a couple of brandies...is that the one?

s555
09-07-2012, 07:58 PM
The best I ever got was 45.1 on a long Sunday afternoon trip on the motorways. A bit of stop start and a bit of fun, but average recorded speed was 56.

The car had 2600 miles on it then.

Of course, over very short distances this can be improved upon if you drive like you have the last gallon of fuel on the planet in the tank, but this isn't realistic and not how the car is tested either.

Relative to my ex Freelander 2, the Audi is very frugal indeed. I am not disappointed with the relative efficiency, just the fact it is nowhere near what was "promised"

Chris
09-07-2012, 08:14 PM
Bit more careful today - kept the ADS in Eco and managed 50.4 mpg on the same 56.8 mile journey.

Hawthorn37
09-07-2012, 10:17 PM
Bit more careful today - kept the ADS in Eco and managed 50.4 mpg on the same 56.8 mile journey.

I've just topped 6300 in my 4-month old A6 Avant 2.0TDi. Average overall is 44.6mpg which is improving. First 4k was 42.5mpg, making the last 2300 miles 48.8mpg. I've not altered car set up, or driving style, journey mix etc., so I assume the car is loosening up. My previuos A6 covered 60k with 42.7mpg overall, so an improvement of 15% - which I'm happy about. PLUS it's a great car to drive, improving even the c6 model.

timk81
11-07-2012, 08:10 PM
I have a question slightly related to this. There are 3 mpg reading in my car (2005 SE 2.0l). One is the current/right here right now reading. The other 2 seem to be averages but they can differ hugely, sometimes by 30mpg. The only thing I can see between them is a little 1 or 2 above them. Can anyone shed any light on this please?

johnsimcox
11-07-2012, 10:14 PM
I have a question slightly related to this. There are 3 mpg reading in my car (2005 SE 2.0l). One is the current/right here right now reading. The other 2 seem to be averages but they can differ hugely, sometimes by 30mpg. The only thing I can see between them is a little 1 or 2 above them. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
The one with a 1 is the current trip mpg, allows for up to 2 hour stops before resetting. The one with a 2 is a long term mpg (also duration and miles) and shows values since last being reset which might be since you got the car if has never been reset

Who's Audi?
12-07-2012, 12:09 PM
Well the OBC said I got 53.4mpg going down to London and the coming home it said 54mpg.

Is that good enough?

stevewsmall
12-07-2012, 12:48 PM
have had your injectors replace?, I got 2-3 mpg improvement on my 07 2.0 TDi

johnsimcox
12-07-2012, 08:48 PM
have had your injectors replace?, I got 2-3 mpg improvement on my 07 2.0 TDi
Unlikely anyone with a C7 will have injectors replaced unlessz they were found to be faulty

Chris
12-07-2012, 09:07 PM
have had your injectors replace?, I got 2-3 mpg improvement on my 07 2.0 TDi

Pd engines only - c7 is cr - wrong section and wrong thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

timk81
20-07-2012, 11:46 PM
I've just measured the average mpg on a normal fill of €80. As I arrived home it read at 65mpg. Calculated actual mpg is 50. Would many of you find the computer is so far out? I reset it when I filled up.

5678
21-07-2012, 07:33 AM
Well, I've done two full tanks of fuel now. Average miles for those is 470 each. Long term is still around 39mpg.

ti rich
21-07-2012, 08:15 AM
I have found the computer to be very accurate. Are you resetting the long term fuel consumption when you fill up?

johnsimcox
21-07-2012, 08:18 AM
I've just measured the average mpg on a normal fill of €80. As I arrived home it read at 65mpg. Calculated actual mpg is 50. Would many of you find the computer is so far out? I reset it when I filled up.
How did you calculate the 50? I am assuming the 65 is the journey average shown on either the MPG screen on the short journey screen. If 65 comes off the Long Term screen then it is very strange and well outside the normal levels of optimism these have, unless it has been reset in the meantime. I guess another ay of looking at this is how many miles do you get from a tankful. On my first two tanks I have got over 500 from each and much of my driving is short journeys. This is on a par (or possibly slightly better) with my previous C6 TDie and that had less power than (134 vs 177) so I am not complaining

johnsimcox
21-07-2012, 08:34 AM
I have found the computer to be very accurate. Are you resetting the long term fuel consumption when you fill up?
Just done the sums on mine. I have used 25 gallons (almost exactly) to do just over 1000 miles so give or take we are talking 40mpg and the long term average calculated by the car over the same period was 40.4 so I would concur the computer is pretty accurate.

Lanky Chris
21-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Last five tanks of my 245ps 3.0 TDi have come out as an actual 40mpg, now up to 10k miles. Had to go down to Farnborough for a meeting and ended up on a busy but moving M25 and M3 and the trip computer showed 57mpg for the trip!

cip82
24-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Hi,,bought a used audi a6 from september last year with 7k miles,now it has 18k. had same problem when i bought the car,but after a few thousands miles i pull out from Gatwick to heathrow at 60-65 miles/hour an average of 62.4mpg i was impressed and that was in dynamic mode. the engine finally streched out. you will never pu;; out the consumption from audi website. my is 2 litre tdi

ti rich
09-08-2012, 08:21 PM
Well mine has improved and has now averaged 43.5mpg from new. Still way below expectations . On 16k miles now so well run in.

Someone smacked into my Audi on a car park and it's gone in for repair (the guy admitted liability thankfully). I have been given a 61 plate BMW 330d loan car similar to what i had before but with the updated 245BHP engine. It's an automatic and heavier than the manual A6 i own. Driving on the same route to work, at the same speeds on cruise control i am getting exactly the same MPG as the A6. The A6 has official combined MPG figures of about 58, the BMW 45.6 and yet in the real world on the same test route they achieve the same MPG.

Make your own assessment but i really feel that the Audi MPG figures are very highly optimistic while the BMW figures are fully achievable.

Blackmore Spur
09-08-2012, 09:52 PM
7000 miles and 9 months later in my A6 2.0TDi SLine with 20" wheels. MPG averaging at around 37 and never made it beyond 46. I really am not a mad driver and whilst there is little motorway cruising, these figures are really poor. Disappointed A6 driver... Thinking of next car already!

Goatistuta
10-08-2012, 12:31 AM
7,000 on the clock now in my A6 S-line auto 2.0 tdi. Average is showing 47mpg and my 34 mile journey to work on A roads and motorway is usually between 50 and 52.

Who's Audi?
05-09-2012, 01:38 PM
3400 on the clock - got 54 mpg from North East to Rotherham and back.

5678
05-09-2012, 01:48 PM
I'm at 2600 now and can easily get 44-45 on a mway run now. Had a chat with the service dept manager at my local dealer and he said they've had a few people moaning about consumption figures on the new 2.0tdi, they have been told not to deal with anything until 10,000 miles!

I've got an A4 with the same engine in at the mo, also on 2600 miles. It's noticeably looser though, I guess as a demo/loaner it's had the **** kicked out of it from day one though!

Chris
05-09-2012, 04:45 PM
I've got an A4 with the same engine in at the mo, also on 2600 miles. It's noticeably looser though, I guess as a demo/loaner it's had the **** kicked out of it from day one though!

The A4 is lighter than the A6 so expect it to be quicker.

Rsheen
08-09-2012, 07:39 PM
I have a 3.0 tdi s tronic quattro avant. It has now done 1,300 miles. If I drive it like my grannie at 55 to 60 on the motorway and only breath on the throttle elsewhere i will get 42 mpg and that is at least 85% motorway work. This figure is actual (brimming at pump) the dis says 44mpg for comparison
My old A4 1.9 tdi with 153,000 on clock driven in the same manner gives a staggering 70 mpg that 's why i cannot bring myself to part with it. Bottom line is A 6 is crap on fuel! Don't get me wrong the performance can be amazing and it can pass everything in the road except a filling station!

groundshine
20-09-2012, 12:39 PM
I picked up my new A6 2.0 TDI Sline with 20" alloys last week, in my first week of commuting (95% mway) at 75mpg max I am getting 39mpg....compared to the book figures (47mpg for urban, 56mpg combined) this is very poor, I understand that this may improve as the car is run in but I was expecting to get in the 50s.....my 3 yr old A4 2.0 TDI was giving me 49mpg for the same journey (driving far more spirited). I cant imagine the delta between the actual and book figures being down to driving style and 'loose engine', some of it yes, I am still within my 14 day get out of deal period, question is do I ditch the A6 and get my A4 back?

foxy367
20-09-2012, 12:45 PM
The 20"s won't help matters, My wife's A1 started life getting roughly 40mpg this is now 12 months old and has 8,000miles on the clock and 45mpg is easily achievable. I know the A6 is a different engine car etc but would still expect an increase of a similar percentage if not more as it runs in. I think its difficult to say until its fully run in (approx 10k plus) before you can gauge the real world consumption. I presume your A4 didn't have 20" wheels?

groundshine
20-09-2012, 01:08 PM
The A4 had 18"s and was the 143ps model, mpg acheived was close to book figures, I suppose I have been spoilt a bit with mpg on the last one, but then this is a bigger car and my fault for being drawn to the 20"s it came with when I was introduced to it in the showroom.....I am a sucker for a good looker.....I will ease off the as a little I guess which my wife will probably be happy with now we have a 7 month old.

Still not impressed with Audi's rediculous mpg claims in the press and documentation, you must have to drive at 56 mph on a long mway run all day without carrying passengers and not braking to get anywhere near the extra urban heights of the 64mpg claimed......

Here's hoping I can get near 45mpg at least as the car is run in......or my wallet is going to take a pounding, thanks for the advice

johnsimcox
20-09-2012, 01:40 PM
The A4 had 18"s and was the 143ps model, mpg acheived was close to book figures, I suppose I have been spoilt a bit with mpg on the last one, but then this is a bigger car and my fault for being drawn to the 20"s it came with when I was introduced to it in the showroom.....I am a sucker for a good looker.....I will ease off the as a little I guess which my wife will probably be happy with now we have a 7 month old.

Still not impressed with Audi's rediculous mpg claims in the press and documentation, you must have to drive at 56 mph on a long mway run all day without carrying passengers and not braking to get anywhere near the extra urban heights of the 64mpg claimed......

Here's hoping I can get near 45mpg at least as the car is run in......or my wallet is going to take a pounding, thanks for the advice

It can easily take 5000 miles for the engine to "run in" and mpg improvement (of up to 20%) right up 10k miles is not unknown. Certainly after 400 miles you car will still be very tight. you don't say if the car is auto or manual but auto's seem to be suffering even more from poor fuel consumption initially. Unfortunately the EU demands a certain regime for fuel consumption tests which is totally unrealistic to normal life. As it also impacts the official CO2 emissions and thus the ultimate saleability of the car, manufacturers are now programming the car to deliver exceptional results in the tests (even easier to do with an auto gearbox) and increasingly customers will complain that they are not getting anywhere close to the published figures

groundshine
20-09-2012, 05:20 PM
Thanks for the info, I have been reading up on the Which site about the EU testing regimes as a result, 'Which' have their own calculator based on their results, for the new A6 2.0 TDI under my driving conditions it is predicting 52mpg combined.....I would be very happy with that. My A6 and previous A4 are both manual....I will give it a few thousand miles and see what improvements are made, if its in the region of 20% as you state then I will be looking at high 40's which is a lot better

skibuddy
20-09-2012, 06:42 PM
My 2.0ltr TDI seems most comfortable at around 50 mph. If I am not paying attention this is what it seems to naturally settle at. Speeds greater than 50 mph seem to be pushing the car and I see a noticeable drop in fuel economy as a consequence of having to step on the gas peddle to hold at 60 mph or above for example. I am guessing that a 3.0 ltr TDI will more happily sit at 60 mph, 70 mph or 80 mph and that is why it appears to give better mpg at these speeds as a consequence. My 20 mile journey to work on A and B roads typically averages 52 mpg, best ever is 56 mpg. That is with me challenging myself to try and get the best mpg I can. Journey home is typically less for some reason, although no material differences in speed, distance or duration (same route but in opposite direction). Currently experimenting with whether it is better to accelerate more quickly through the gears to reach the desired speed, or keep the gas peddle light and take longer to get up to cruising speed (consequence is longer to change through the gears). Not really noticed any significant difference in achievable mpg based on whether in Economy, Auto or Dynamic mode. I know that dynamic mode is by far the most rewarding to drive in.

robob123
28-09-2012, 11:00 AM
I have a 2l 177 manual, and it also,cruises comfortably at 50..... Until I change up into 5th or even 6th gear. Mine would be at less than 1700 rpm if I tried to cruise at 50 6th gear; verging on engine cruelty IMO.

robbyg
29-09-2012, 02:22 PM
I have a 2l 177 manual, and it also,cruises comfortably at 50..... Until I change up into 5th or even 6th gear. Mine would be at less than 1700 rpm if I tried to cruise at 50 6th gear; verging on engine cruelty IMO.
Mine (i know a cylinder is slightly different) cruises at just under 1400rpm in 8th at 70mph. Under gentle acceleration it changes itself UP at less than 1500rpm every time. I think modern engines are tuned to be happy operating at low revs.
It pulls well from 1200 rpm with no labouring.

I am just back from a week in France and managed the following in comfort mode:
100 miles at 70mph i got 56mpg! same journey out and back so cant be gradient of wind related.
300 miles cruising around 80mph i got 44.5mpg
200 miles cruising around 85mph i got 42mpg
100 miles cruising at 100mph (with 3 blasts to 140mph) i got 34mpg.
All verified as within 2 or 3 mpg by measuring from fill ups. Computer is showing 41mpg long term since new now. I am very pleased with that. I guess the air suspension auto lowering helps a little at higher speeds.

cip82
22-10-2012, 11:56 AM
Hi everybody, i bought my new shape audi A6 in april with 7000 miles. i was very dissapointed about the fuel consumption until a month ago.
since then i drive town and motorways combined,and had a trip in europe about 4000 miles. Now i have 30.000 miles and i can say that the engine it runs perfect. two days ago i drive from wembley to kingston thru town at about 30 mph. with 4th gear the average consumption it was 50.2 mpg. on motorway gatwick to heathrow i was driving at 60mph( 100 km/h) and i was getting about 64.3 mpg. i was amazed. the consumption has improved. the figures from audi consumption i supoze that they are in almost perfect condition driving in town at 30mph(48 km/h) 48mpg. and outside if you drive at 60mph you can get very close to these figures. My advice is to have some pacience until 20.000- 30.000 milesonly until then you can say that the engine has a smooth running and you can get the most out of him.. ooohh by the way after i bought the car until 20.000 miles i had the feeling that the engine is tide,has no power it was feelig like having 140 bhp not 177. now is strech out and is accelerating very smoooth and you can feel the power at your foot. hope that was helpful.

5678
22-10-2012, 12:21 PM
Hi everybody, i bought my new shape audi A6 in april with 7000 miles. i was very dissapointed about the fuel consumption until a month ago.
since then i drive town and motorways combined,and had a trip in europe about 4000 miles. Now i have 30.000 miles and i can say that the engine it runs perfect. two days ago i drive from wembley to kingston thru town at about 30 mph. with 4th gear the average consumption it was 50.2 mpg. on motorway gatwick to heathrow i was driving at 60mph( 100 km/h) and i was getting about 64.3 mpg. i was amazed. the consumption has improved. the figures from audi consumption i supoze that they are in almost perfect condition driving in town at 30mph(48 km/h) 48mpg. and outside if you drive at 60mph you can get very close to these figures. My advice is to have some pacience until 20.000- 30.000 milesonly until then you can say that the engine has a smooth running and you can get the most out of him.. ooohh by the way after i bought the car until 20.000 miles i had the feeling that the engine is tide,has no power it was feelig like having 140 bhp not 177. now is strech out and is accelerating very smoooth and you can feel the power at your foot. hope that was helpful.

That's very interesting.

I've got 4500 miles on mine now and the engine is noticeable quicker and smoother than it was new. Over that distance my trip show 34.5mpg. I do tend to do lots of short trips and drive rather briskly.

I will be able to post some more information about the power being produced next week though with graphs to back it up.

cip82
22-10-2012, 07:53 PM
That's very interesting.

I've got 4500 miles on mine now and the engine is noticeable quicker and smoother than it was new. Over that distance my trip show 34.5mpg. I do tend to do lots of short trips and drive rather briskly.

I will be able to post some more information about the power being produced next week though with graphs to back it up.

Believe me it wil improve power consumption. When the engine is new i could say is stifht. in time he will loosen up.