Quattro or not to Quattro

[Morrellski]

Hi,

new to the site and hoping for a bit of advise. I am shortly going to order a new A6 avant black edition with tech pack, towbar, smartphone interface and dimming mirrors but am struggling to choose between the front wheel drive or the Quattro 2.0 ultra engine.

What is is the likely difference in mpg? Is the Quattro worth it?

Also, do you think I am missing any essential options from the spec above?

Thanks in advance.

[jmagee]

If you're towing I'd say Quattro.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[Adamski_03]

Welcome to the site, I have a BE saloon 2L ultra great car mpg is generally between 43 and 52 mpg. Can't comment on the Quattro at the moment but I pick mine up on 3rd Sept so will know after that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morrellski]

Sorry should of mentioned the tow bar is not for towing. Just for a bike rack.

[ukgroucho]

If you can afford the quattro then the difference in MPG is not going to be a deal breaker.

It will, however, drive like a different car to the FWD version. It should feel much more planted, you'll never get wheel spin issues when hauling it out of side roads (esp. in the wet) and you'll be able to say that you have an Audi quattro :)

Best idea would be to see if you can test drive both back to back but I appreciate that can be hard to set up.

[B5NUT]

I've just got rid of my front wheel drive C7 and have ordered a quattro. Personally prefer the quattro drive system, the only downside is there is a impact in the mpg & performance on the 2.0TDI. I would test drive both cars and make your own mind up, but try and test drive both cars in the wet if you can.

I think you have a good spec, there is so much basic kit on the A6 these days you don't need many more options. I've also gone for tech pack & smartphone interface, was not that bothered about the dimming mirrors, was more interested in the seats and the rear view camera.

[AT.]

What is is the likely difference in mpg? Is the Quattro worth it?

IMHO, all the current and former A6 models were designed with an AWD. This is quite a unique thing in this price range, as most of the cars (including most of the other Audi models) were designed as FWD or RWD. In general, all the cars are acting the best with the original drive method. The reason is simple, if a car was designed with FWD/RWD, then the additional AWD will add additional weight, with a limited four wheel drive capability only. However if a car was designed with AWD, then it will loose driving skills with a FWD, mostly, if we are talking about a large and heavy premium car.

IMHO if you have the ability to buy the best drive configuration then you will feel the superior 3.0TDI/Quattro drive. If you have a limited budget, then I think, a bigger engine, and a FWD could be a better solution then a small engine/Quattro drive combination.

[Morrellski]

I could go to the 218ps 3.0 but not the more powerful model. Not sure whether the extra 30hp is worth the cash but happy to take some advise on it.

What mpg are people getting from the 2.0 Quattro?

Also is it possible to have the reversing camera without having to have the whole parking pack?

[HAWKS]

I've owned fwd, Rwd an Quattro drive types of all makes an models.
I think once you have driven a Quattro, I think that will seal it for you.

[B5NUT]

It's not just the BHP but also the torque of the engine, the 3.0 would be better to go for if you have the extra spare cash, but I found the 2.0 fine for my needs.

You have to have the parking pack.

[M1tchy]

I have to agree with HAWKS, Once you have driven Quattro it will seal things for you and you won't look back. I didn't so much notice it on my test drives or even day to day, but when I drive a works car I really can feel the difference now.

Got a rear wheel drive kit car under construction which will be interesting when it's done [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AT.]

I could go to the 218ps 3.0 but not the more powerful model. Not sure whether the extra 30hp is worth the cash but happy to take some advise on it.

The 218ps 3.0 will be all right.


Also is it possible to have the reversing camera without having to have the whole parking pack?

I think, you can retrofit the reversing camera into the MY2016 model too, as I did it in my MY2012.

[John Rotaru]

Performance-wise, Quattro is faster at acceleration.

I read that the new version of A6 (that will come in 18 months or so) will ONLY have quattro transmission. That tells a lot about what's best ;)

[Adamski_03]

I can't wait roll on the 2nd September [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Philipdayton]

I had the same choice to make and went for a Quattro.
Last 2 cars have been a FWD Alfa 159, RWD C Class estate and the quattro is by far the best set up.
Initial accelleration 0-30 is very quick for a 2.0 as it gets the power down so efficiently, obviously its not a 'fast' car but quick enough for most (clearly i wouldn't turn down a Bi TDI)

[drewetm]

I have the 2.0 Black Edition Quattro. TBH it would have been good if it had been the 3.0 , but this time round the option was 2.0 quattro or 3.0 FWD. I did try both.

I don't regret the decision at all . The Quattro system adds something to the driving experience that quite honestly I now wouldn't want to lose, I would rather sacrifice the power. The 2.0 actually is quite responsive , fuel Economy at 6 months / 4000 miles is 38MPG. Thats not what it said in the book!!

[Philipdayton]

Me too, only 1500 miles in but averaging 37 on a tank. To be fair my C250cdi only averaged 39 so I'm not that miffed. Still ****** that the figures are so far off that claimed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Adamski_03]

39 is off I thought my ultra engine was well below the 64.5 stated averaging 45 ish. I think the mathematical dept at Audi must sniff the fuel before submitting the figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmagee]

No economy figures are anywhere near right. My Vauxhall insignia 2.0 cdti gets 44mpg so from a Quattro I'd be pretty pleased with 39 mpg.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[Adamski_03]

No economy figures are anywhere near right. My Vauxhall insignia 2.0 cdti gets 44mpg so from a Quattro I'd be pretty pleased with 39 mpg.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

To be honest if I am going to get 39 it's not that dissimilar to what I get now and by all accounts well worth it if Quattro is as good as it's supposed to be [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Rotaru]

It massively depends on the driving style and conditions. My average (2.0 quattro) after 6k miles is 36MPG, but I've seen 57MPG a few times on relaxed 65-70mph long drives, and usually 45-48MPG on long motorway drives where I'm setting the adaptive cruise at 80-85.

[Morrellski]

Thanks for all the info. Much appreciated. I had expected that the figures that are quoted would be bull. How does the Quattro figures compare to the fwd figures. Am I right in thinking it will be able a 5mpg loss with the Quattro?

How long does the 2.0 engine take to loosen up and return best economy?

[ukgroucho]

Can't comment on the FWD 2.0 TDi numbers but my BiTdi allroad averages 37 MPG - and allroads are 'worse' than avant or saloons with the same engineas they are a little heavier and ride higher by default. I've seen low 50's on a very steady motorway cruse and regular motorway cruising is low to mid 40s.

I'd expect a 3.0 TDi 218 quattro to soundly beat that figure (37 MPG average) - and be more "drivable" than the 2.0 TDi quattro as the extra torque will mean that making progress is easier, you can get access to adequate acceleration without having to downshift as much or rev the engine as much. This is why the numbers returned by the 3.0 engines are relatively impressive compared with the 2.0 TDi models - and also seem to be a bit closer to the manufacturers claims.

[AT.]

I'd expect a 3.0 TDi 218 quattro to soundly beat that figure (37 MPG average) - and be more "drivable" than the 2.0 TDi quattro as the extra torque will mean that making progress is easier, you can get access to adequate acceleration without having to downshift as much or rev the engine as much. This is why the numbers returned by the 3.0 engines are relatively impressive compared with the 2.0 TDi models - and also seem to be a bit closer to the manufacturers claims.

Totally agree with you. With such cars, the smaller engines will raise the fuel consumption, against to the optimal engines. I think, the A6 transmission/gearbox/mechanics were designed with the 3.0TDI/automatic gearbox combo. All the bigger engines can give you a better feeling, but not necessary better driving experience while the smaller engines will always be too weaks to move a such big chassis, and therefore they will have a relatively or absolutely higher fuel consumption.

For example, I drove last week for a long non-city related route with an average of 22.6(!) MPG, which included highways and poor quality rural roads. If I use my car in city roads only, then with very small routes, the maximum MPG could be aobut 36.7 MPG, but usually the city consumption is about 31-32 MPG.

If you are interested in the fuel consumption, I think, it could be useful for you to check the actual fuel consumtions here:

Diesel consumption: Audi - A6 - Spritmonitor.de (https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/3-Audi/22-A6.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2011&powerunit=2)

[Morrellski]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm leaning towards the 2.0 Quattro as a compromise. This is meant to be the comfortable economical car. Have a m135i for the more spirited drives.

[Chesterfield313]

Can't comment on the FWD 2.0 TDi numbers but my BiTdi allroad averages 37 MPG - and allroads are 'worse' than avant or saloons with the same engineas they are a little heavier and ride higher by default. I've seen low 50's on a very steady motorway cruse and regular motorway cruising is low to mid 40s.

I'd expect a 3.0 TDi 218 quattro to soundly beat that figure (37 MPG average) - and be more "drivable" than the 2.0 TDi quattro as the extra torque will mean that making progress is easier, you can get access to adequate acceleration without having to downshift as much or rev the engine as much. This is why the numbers returned by the 3.0 engines are relatively impressive compared with the 2.0 TDi models - and also seem to be a bit closer to the manufacturers claims.

It really is dependant on driving style and proportion of motorway to urban. My last 30,000 miles in my BiTdi are averaging 40.8 mpg. I accelerate hard almost everywhere, too much fun not to. I do regular launch controls on quiet roads, my son loves them. But, I also cruise at 70-75 everywhere on the motorway and do quite a lot of motorway miles. I also put on cruise in 30 mph areas where I can. Just find it too hard to concentrate on every camera or police car, especially unmarked ones, so find it easier. Was difficult at first, but then after a few weeks it just felt normal, and the affect on mpg surprised me. First 20,000 miles were 35.3, now 40.8.

[Splash]

I also saw considerable improvements in MPG at around 20,000 miles. It's difficult to be precise given the optimistic calculation done by the car, coupled with my smaller knobbly tyres that overread mileage by 5%. My MPG has increased from about 40 to about 45 (call that 42 to allow for the smaller wheels). OK, there's a high amount of motorway in that but I only lift for mobile speed cameras as the smaller tyres allow for extra margin at the speed threshold. Hypothetically 80 displayed is probably 76, 85 is 80 etc.

In my test drive I was underwhelmed by the 208, but in hindsight perhaps because I was experimenting Economy drive select mode as I don't like to wrag anyone's factory fresh car - even a demonstrator. Long-term, I'm perfectly happy with my decision to opt for a 245, and don't believe the 218 would feel much different - particularly if it put out more than 218PS by some magic... ;)

[Adamski_03]

Picked up my new car today 2ltr Quattro and 38.9 mpg on its first run so happy with that as I'm sure it will improve as it goes on. However managed to break 60 mpg in my 2ltr ultra driving to trade it in typical. Lol


Sent from my iPhone

[PADDCOMP]

I was just about to post asking this very question.
I'm quite price limited so I ordered an A6 2.0 TDI Ultra SE Executive S-TRONIC saloon, about 5 weeks ago on the best personal lease deal I could find.
The finance paper work just came in for signature, but I couldn't resist looking at the latest deals. Looks like Audi have released some Quattro models at similar price points to the FWD models, £10-15 per month more.
This means cancelling my current order and starting again, adding 6 weeks to my delivery date.
Reading how good quattro is doesn't help, lol.

[Morrellski]

I'd be interested on opinions to how good the Quattro is compared to the fwd 2.0. Probably going to place the order in the next few days and leaning towards the Quattro. Do people think it's worth the extra cash and the drop in mpg.

[Adamski_03]

Only had mine 1 day, but the Quattro sits so well on the road on bends, totally different when pulling away from standing too. No wheel spin at all it just goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morrellski]

Well thanks for all the advice guys, I have now placed my order for a 2.0 Quattro black edition avant, with tow bar, tech pack, smartphone interface and dimming Mirrors. Should be arriving in November.

[Lazyoaf]

Quattro is great to have, but will reduce your fuel consumption by around 10 to 15% and increase your rear tyre wear by knocking off circa 5k miles from the life. Having said all that, Have the quattro if you do low miles as fuel really isnt a factor for you

[Morrellski]

How are those that have the 2.0 Quattro finding the fuel economy?

[jasonvaughan]

Had my new 2.0 Quattro for 3 weeks now and just approaching 1k miles. Today managed about 52MPG (according to the avg mpg display) which is the best I've had. This was on a mixed run of fairly busy A roads so only doing 40/50mph with some shortish bursts of 70mph together with a bit of stop/start traffic. This is my first 4 wheel drive car and really notice the difference in how the Quattro gets the power on the ground whereas in my previous 200bhp FWD car it was always on the edge of wheel spin when pulling away sharpish.

[Adamski_03]

How are those that have the 2.0 Quattro finding the fuel economy?

I'm only around 700 miles in and averaging around 40 mpg with mixed driving. I've selected Economy mode so I can coast, which is interesting. Then knock it into sports when I need to move. Happy with it so far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B5NUT]

I've only got 328 miles on the clock and getting around 41MPG, but if you have concerns about MPG then just get the ultra model.

[Dutch Paddy]

Took delivery of my 2017 A6 Avant Ultra 190 Quattro DSG on January 3rd. Can't say much yet about fuel consumption but it is a dream to drive, so different from my precious A6 with fwd. The way it grips the road is fenominal and so far I am delighted with it. It's currently averaging around 6ltrs for 100k but I'm sure these are not realistic figures yet with only 3K klmtrs on the clock.

[NewAudi]

You will be surprised how accurate the OBD is. On my 2014 BiTdi the best I've ever got was 5.6 l/100km (50mpg) and the worst 11.6 l/100km (24mpg) when doing pedal to the metal for 800 km (500mls).

My avg since new is 37mpg. Not bad considering that about 90% of my driving is on motorways and with lots of 130+ mph miles.

[istate75]

I've only got 328 miles on the clock and getting around 41MPG, but if you have concerns about MPG then just get the ultra model.

My previous C7 was a 2.0Tdi FWD S Line Multi Avant and I managed to average 45-47 mpg by the time I sold it. It started at mid 30's mpg when new. Most of my travel is motorway, sitting at around 75mph. I think the multi gearbox was power hungry, keeping the mpg down.

My present one is a 3.0Tdi BE Quattro Avant (272). I'm now at 3k miles and it started around 34mpg on the first tankful, but has already improved to 39mpg. If I end up with low 40's I'll be very happy as it is so much better than my previous one.

[Dutch Paddy]

540km today, Dublin and back, mixed N-roads and a little motorway, averaged 48.5mpg, delighted with that after only 4K kmtrs on clock in total. Car setting was 'auto' and roads are hilly especially closer to home.