Problems with used A6 Low MPG...Engine feels like 140Bhp ..it has 10.000 miles

[cip82]

hi,just bought an used A6 from september last year. I am amazed by the consumption the best that i could come up was 36 mpg in town .,,40mpg combined and 55mpg on motorway at 60 miles/hour and audi gives a consumption of 47 in town ,,58 combined and 64 out,,the car has 10.000 miles 177bhp but it feel like the old audi 140 bhp,,i will go to check that out. and other thing the car tyres are bridgestone and the spare wheel is continental..anything strange in that ??? someone else come up with that ??/ how can i find out with what tyres come out from factory ???

[MFGF]

You will not get the inflated mpg figures quoted by Audi - they are obtained in unrealistic conditions that do not reflect normal road conditions. Is it possible the car is in Efficiency mode? Mine feels quite lethargic in Efficiency, but is quick enough to induce a wide grin in Dynamic mode.

The spare on my C7 is a space saver - I haven't checked whether it is the same brand as the normal tyres. Mine came with Pirellis - I must check the spare when I get home :)

MF.

[JimC64]

hi,just bought an used A6 from september last year. I am amazed by the consumption the best that i could come up was 36 mpg in town .,,40mpg combined and 55mpg on motorway at 60 miles/hour and audi gives a consumption of 47 in town ,,58 combined and 64 out,,the car has 10.000 miles 177bhp but it feel like the old audi 140 bhp,,i will go to check that out. and other thing the car tyres are bridgestone and the spare wheel is continental..anything strange in that ??? someone else come up with that ??/ how can i find out with what tyres come out from factory ???

The figures you managed to achieve are about right I'd say tbh

[cip82]

yeeaaah dont think this are the real figures it should get close to the audi consumption.
i supoze ...the car is new,,even the engine feels a litle bit tide...doesnt feel like you get all the power he can give.
i speake with audi and they said that bethen 10.000 -20.000 miles the engine should run in his normal parameters...but i dont believe them ...we should see. yesterday been with a volvo v70 D3 that is 2 litre TDi around 163 bhp automatique ...the acceleration was unbilivible...comparing with my audy laisy. i am going to test another used audi with mileage close to mine to see if it is the same.,i will let you know. sorry for mistakes in my speach. Anyone feel free to write opinions or sugestions. by the way i wont to ask audi to run a power test and to see the injection numbers.

[Guest 2]

The A6 is a heavy car so it won't feel as spritely as you would think with a 2.0 TDi (no offence of course to 2.0 owners) and IMO needs the bigger engine to shift the weight.

[robob123]

I've moved from an a4 b7 170 2.0 to my current 2.0 a6 c8 177 and would say the a6 is noticeably more powerful than the a4. It's acceleration is more precise and throughout the speed range, and there is much more low down torque. I certainly wouldn't report lack of power as a complaint. The fuel consumption is a worry though. As people on the other thread say, it seems to be all about how you drive. I did a 50 mile trip today, nice weather. On the way there, easily getting 60mpg for miles at a time, but was driving really steadily, however putting my foot down coming home, was lucky if the chart was above 40mpg at all. Having read lots of these posts, now wonder if I should have gone for the 3.0l? The problem is that logic, leads one to the inevitable conclusion that only the bi turbo will do, and it's at least £20k more!

[Timothy Nathan]

I remain convinced that the 3.0 TDi is the way to go. It performs beautifully, is delightfully smooth and quiet, has plenty of acceleration (not as much as the BiTDi, but most people don't need that much) and is very economical.

Having said that, all the reviews suggested the 2.0. I really don't understand why.

[5678]

The real world trends that people are reporting do tally up with Audi's own (urban) figures at least... the 2.0 multi lists at 46.3mpg and the 3.0 multi at 47.9.

Logic completely dictates that a more powerful engine needs to work less and thus use less fuel.

But... Is it the right purchase for everyone? I guess it depends on circumstances. If you can afford/justify the extra money for the 3.0, then without doubt the 3.0 is the way to go. More refined, powerful and economic in some circumstances.

Another but... is a few MPG difference really worth getting concerned over? The current list price difference between an Avant S line 2.0 multi and 3.0 multi is £4100.
If we look at an annual mileage of 15000, over 3 years being 45000, with a gallon of diesel taken at £6.58 (£1.45/l) then:
35mpg would cost £8464
40mpg would cost £7406
50mpg would cost £5925

So 15mpg difference over 3 years is an extra £2500 ish. Still less than the £4100 extra outlay (and even more if the car is on finance and interest is being paid.)

At 30000 miles over the 3 years then it's obviously even less significant.
35mpg = £5643
40mpg = £4937
50mpg = £3950

So only £1700 ish over 3 years.

On a tangent, I've just worked out that 30000 miles in my 650 costs me around £9500 in fuel! If I've got any of this wrong please do point it out!

[Timothy Nathan]

The logical extension to that argument is to buy a Fiat Panda. My point is that you can have a much nicer car, which is smoother, quieter, performs better and has better fuel economy. I agree that it costs more but hey!

[5678]

The logical extension to that argument is to buy a Fiat Panda. My point is that you can have a much nicer car, which is smoother, quieter, performs better and has better fuel economy. I agree that it costs more but hey!

Logical? Really? You have an interesting take on logic there!

The logical extension to your reason for buying a 3.0 is to buy a RR Phantom... It costs a bit more but hey! ;)

[Timothy Nathan]

Do they do a Phantom Estate now? I must take a look! :D

[5678]

Do they do a Phantom Estate now? I must take a look! :D

Ha! I can't imagine the market segment for one of those being too big ;)

But equally, the same response applies to your suggestion of a Panda! (Although I did nearly buy a Panda 100hp once!)

[robob123]

I now wish I'd gone for the 3.0l, but I' fairly confident I wouldn't have got a new one (even an se) for less that £30k, the price my new reasonably well specified 2.0l hit the drive at. That said, I'm guessing the numbers of 2.0l out there means the 3.0l will hold their value a bit better, so have to consider that. Maybe next time!

Btw what's the insurance and road tax difference?

[MFGF]

The other as yet unmentioned factor for some when choosing a 2.0 over a 3.0 TDi is the published CO2 emissions value. For anyone who has a company car, this has an impact on the Benefit In Kind tax they pay. Many will also have fuel cards and would suffer a double-whammy BIK tax hike for a 3.0 over a 2.0, as the car's CO2 figure also drives the BIK tax for the fuel.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD