Real world MPG 2.0TDI

[EvilPostIt]

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

In my Bi-TDI coming back from Paris last week I managed 45mpg with a pretty well packed boot and I wasnt taking it particularly easily, very rarely dipped below 75mph. 4k miles on mine now and I have noticed it loosen up within the last couple of thousand miles. I was even driving it in dynamic mode as I seem to get better mpg on longer drives with it. Probably more a driving style thing I imagine.

[daycartes]

As a comparison, then, I travelled across to France on Monday did 560 miles on clear roads (yes I know it was Bank Holiday) and travelled at the respective speed limits in a 2.0 TDI and obtained 50 mpg. It would seem from that, that the 3.0l in whatever form is not much thirstier.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Whippy53]

All supports my theory that the three litre is the more economic option with such a big car, best I managed going down through France was 47mpg. Hardly seen that since though.

[EvilPostIt]

Probably best to mention that mine is an Avant and was loaded with more that the saloon would manage plus the fact there were 2 adults and 2 children in the car.

[Goal flag]

I've just managed to go over 700 miles with the last tank of diesel in my 2.0 tdi, manual saloon. The inboard computer was saying I had another 15 miles left in the tank as well. I filled the tank just before a run from Chester to Birmingham airport and back. Then used the rest for my daily 12 mile commute which a mix of 25% stop-start A roads and 75% motorway driving @ between 65 and 75mph.

I reset the 'Long term' memory 3 tanks of fuel ago and so far my mpg average is 49.6mpg. I'm more than happy with that mpg figure

[daycartes]

Probably best to mention that mine is an Avant and was loaded with more that the saloon would manage plus the fact there were 2 adults and 2 children in the car.

Probably best to mention, to make the comparisons more objective, that we were two up with fairly light luggage and a dog (small) in a saloon. Return journey with a bit more luggage and the same two people but slightly heavier returned 52mpg! Did manage to get 70 mpg once though...
22182

[ScottyA6]

Never driven the 2 Litre Tdi but My Old 3 Litre TDI A8 Quattro (D3) would happily return over 40 on a run and mid thirties average. The 2013 A6 with the 3 litre and quattro that I test drove over a weekend turned in 46.3 over the entire time I had it which included short hops up town, there and back to Mums 40 miles away and the usual 'testing' that goes with a demonstrator. It had 2K on the clock so with 10 or 20K I can only think it would get better.

[nickc65]

Never driven the 2 Litre Tdi but My Old 3 Litre TDI A8 Quattro (D3) would happily return over 40 on a run and mid thirties average. The 2013 A6 with the 3 litre and quattro that I test drove over a weekend turned in 46.3 over the entire time I had it which included short hops up town, there and back to Mums 40 miles away and the usual 'testing' that goes with a demonstrator. It had 2K on the clock so with 10 or 20K I can only think it would get better.

Recently did some slow runs around the M25, and usual 20 odd mile run to work and back with usual stops for dropping off my son at nursery, and wife at railway station. At fill up I calculated I did an average of 53.4 mpg in my 2L Tdi. There were not many chances to go fast on M25 travels (accounted for 300 miles of the 650) but when I could I was cruising at 75-80 along with the flow of traffic. I'm amazed that this is pretty close to what was shown on the long term trip (0.7 mpg optimistic), and on one of the good trips the short term was showing 57.8 mpg on the return trip of approx 85 miles, with town traffic at both ends. Mine has now got 21K on the clock so it was seem that they do get better with a few miles on the clock.:Blush:

[Wuffles]

Recently did some slow runs around the M25, and usual 20 odd mile run to work and back with usual stops for dropping off my son at nursery, and wife at railway station. At fill up I calculated I did an average of 53.4 mpg in my 2L Tdi. There were not many chances to go fast on M25 travels (accounted for 300 miles of the 650) but when I could I was cruising at 75-80 along with the flow of traffic. I'm amazed that this is pretty close to what was shown on the long term trip (0.7 mpg optimistic), and on one of the good trips the short term was showing 57.8 mpg on the return trip of approx 85 miles, with town traffic at both ends. Mine has now got 21K on the clock so it was seem that they do get better with a few miles on the clock.:Blush:

I'd love to be wrong, but the difference is the 3.0 Quattro was quite possibly an auto, and yours I'd warrant is a manual?

[nickc65]

Spot on - it is a manual, and I also very rarely use the cruise control, which also seems to adversely effect the mpg

[Olio]

OK, so I've done 800 miles on my new 2.0 TDI multi, and I found something interesting regarding MPG...

When I drive along, trying to maintain constant speed (say 50 mph), the instant consumption is say between 6 and 7 l/100 (forgot how much, that's not important). But when I engage the cruise control, at the same speed, the instant figures drop significantly (say to 4/4.5 l/100) and I can see the revs lower.

The speed doesn't change of course, but the engine is about 200 rpm lower, and fuel use changes accordingly.

Has anybody noticed that?

[Passatier3]

I rarely use the cruise-control and have done about 4k. miles now.

Interestingly enough on a previous post someone had noted that using the CC was giving worse consumption (higher speed, around 70 mph IIRC). The thinking being that it was always accelerating to maintain speed whereas if driving without it you'd probably let the speed drop a bit if going uphill and then gradually accelerate again.

I think you need to try it over a longer run at 50 mph but it is interesting that you noted a drop in revs. It's a pity that you can't see in D (except in Sport mode) what gear is being selected in each case but it must be that using CC is selecting a higher gear at that speed.

[MarkTM]

This article (albeit North American) is interesting

Does cruise control help gas mileage? - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-tips/does-cruise-control-help-gas-mileage/article4217142/)

I've always found that I can drive more economically than any cruise system I've driven, purely as I can coast down hills and up to impending traffic jams.

Appreciate that no standard cruise system actually knows where your brakes are (unless it has a built-in emergency avoidance system)

[A6ian]

OK, so I've done 800 miles on my new 2.0 TDI multi, and I found something interesting regarding MPG...

When I drive along, trying to maintain constant speed (say 50 mph), the instant consumption is say between 6 and 7 l/100 (forgot how much, that's not important). But when I engage the cruise control, at the same speed, the instant figures drop significantly (say to 4/4.5 l/100) and I can see the revs lower.



So basically you're finding that it's more economical with cruise? and if the figures you give are somewhere near accurate then it's a big difference. 6 litres used per 100km (46mpg) against 4.5 ltrs per 100 km (62 mpg) is a massive difference. i've taken the worst senario from your approx figures.

[Olio]

Figures are approximate because of 1) my memory and 2) the fact that I just read them on the bar graph!

But the difference is about that, yes. There's more than 1 l/100 in it. I am tempted to believe this is the reason why multi and manual have so different MPG.

[A6ian]

I'll be happy if I get something near the lowest of those figures from my manual when i get it :)

[Passatier3]

Having read that article in the link that Mark posted where it mentioned that the CC might choose to change down a gear (torque convertor type gearbox) I realised in my post I'd been a bit of a pillock :Blush2: when I said that it's a pity that you can't see what gear you are in when in D forgetting that it's a variable transmission.

But what prompted me to say that is that when in Sport the gear is displayed. But why is that, I thought it was only when in "manual" or using the paddles that the pseudo gears were selected and displayed?

[Tripletrouble]

So, here's my real world MPG figures.
I've driven 2500 miles since buying the car and have averaged 45.6mpg with a high of 55.6 and a low of 39.
My last car was a 2009 Mondeo 2.2 Titanium X and my overall average for the 3 years I owned it was 37mpg so the Audi is almost 9mpg better on average.
I'm happy with that.

[Wuffles]

So, here's my real world MPG figures.
I've driven 2500 miles since buying the car and have averaged 45.6mpg with a high of 55.6 and a low of 39.
My last car was a 2009 Mondeo 2.2 Titanium X and my overall average for the 3 years I owned it was 37mpg so the Audi is almost 9mpg better on average.
I'm happy with that.

When did you get it?

[Tripletrouble]

29th October this year.

[onionman100]

I too have a 2012 c7 2.0tdi avant with 19" wheels and have 15k now and the fuel economy is averaging 29-30 around town & 40-45 mpg tops on a run.. Even if I drive it frugally it's still the same ... So I don't think it gets better with more miles on the clock.

My last B7 2.0tdi avant auto was giving me an average of 38-40 and 50mpg on a run. But then it's a lot smaller and only had the 143bhp engine whilst the A6 is very big and has the 177 Bhp ...so the weight & size make a big difference I suppose

[Whippy53]

I'm getting 32 town and 35 on a run. Got worse when the weather got cold.

[C172s]

I am getting 34-38 around town on my Multitronic C7. I used to get similar on a 143ps tdi manual B8 A4, so I'm happy that I have an auto with more power that can deliver. Most of my driving is around town.

When the official mpg figures were published they were done in a controlled environment. Using average temperatures of 15 degrees, low resistance tyres on a smooth rolling platform etc.

i feel our roads here in the UK don't help our case, they are in a generally poor condition and differ materially, which I feel has an effect on MPG by a small percent as well as the temperature which affects not only the engines, but the tyres and road surface conditions. They create something different to the testing bay.

There are officially worse manufacturers out there with regards to MPG claims.

[Passatier3]

Just goes to show again the big difference between the manual and the Multitronic and those figures are now that we are in the colder weather - 55mpg wow - I've never been anywhere near that!

No wonder Audi are now offering a new auto.

I'm currently getting 38/39 and if really taking it easy around 43.

[Wuffles]

Just goes to show again the big difference between the manual and the Multitronic and those figures are now that we are in the colder weather - 55mpg wow - I've never been anywhere near that!

No wonder Audi are now offering a new auto.

I'm currently getting 38/39 and if really taking it easy around 43.

I wasn't going to bite at "When the official mpg figures were published they were done in a controlled environment. Using average temperatures of 15 degrees, low resistance tyres on a smooth rolling platform etc.", glad someone else did, a bit.

Bet the 3.0 drivers are laughing their heads off at this thread.

[Passatier3]

As I've stated elsewhere this is one of the few cars that I didn't do my research on before buying. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the car, but if I was looking now I'd definitely be looking at a 3.0 litre.

[Olio]

The price differential between a 2.0 and a 3.0 is such that you can't justify it with better economy.

I'm a bit (a tiny bit) annoyed that the multi is worse than expected (wich was worse than claimed MPG), but in the end it's a bigger better car than my previous one, and fuel costs are similar, so...

If I had a choice now, I'd wait for the Ultra, or the normal 2.0 with a different auto (tiptronic?)

I do many short trips, and get about 47 MPG on a 8 mile commute on country roads, or 30-32 on a 5 mile rush hour commute in town, both starting on a cold engine.

The car hasn't got 2000 miles yet.

[Wuffles]

The price differential between a 2.0 and a 3.0 is such that you can't justify it with better economy.

It's the residuals too remember, and the increase in power. Each to their own of course but my thoughts are mirrored exactly by what Passatier said. My Wife bought the car, I didn't take any interest in it until things started going wrong.

If the brochure wasn't SO skewed towards the Multi 2.0 over the manual and the 3.0 autos (and my experiences of other 2.0 VAG engines/gearboxes wasn't so different from this one) we'd have bought a 3.0 without a doubt.

Walking away now. This has been done to death in this thread and I should have kept my mouth shut.

[Passatier3]

The price differential between a 2.0 and a 3.0 is such that you can't justify it with better economy.

I'm a bit (a tiny bit) annoyed that the multi is worse than expected (wich was worse than claimed MPG), but in the end it's a bigger better car than my previous one, and fuel costs are similar, so...

If I had a choice now, I'd wait for the Ultra, or the normal 2.0 with a different auto (tiptronic?)

I do many short trips, and get about 47 MPG on a 8 mile commute on country roads, or 30-32 on a 5 mile rush hour commute in town, both starting on a cold engine.

The car hasn't got 2000 miles yet.

You're dead right Olio! As well as there not being that much difference in fuel economy it would be because I've bought another car for work/running about, the V6 engine and the bit more grunt.

I don't even know how much the 3.0 litre is over the 2.0.

[Tripletrouble]

£4k for the lower power 3.0, around £13k for the Bi curious.

[johnsimcox]

I wasn't going to bite at "When the official mpg figures were published they were done in a controlled environment. Using average temperatures of 15 degrees, low resistance tyres on a smooth rolling platform etc.", glad someone else did, a bit.

Bet the 3.0 drivers are laughing their heads off at this thread.
If only it were as low as 15C, it is actually requited to be between 20 and 30 degrees and the car must have done more than 1800 miles before it is tested. The urban figures are determined over 2.5 mies and done from a cold start, but clearly with an ambient temp of over 20 this is hardly a real cold start, and a maximum of 31mph and average of 12mph. The extra urban is down straight afterwards and done over 4.5 miles with a maximum of 75mph and an average of 39mph. The combined is a merger of the two figures. All is explained here The fuel consumption testing scheme (http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp) . But based on this data it is little wonder that the real life data is so far a drift from the published data and for those with multitronic gearboxes as there are no fixed ratios driving style has a big impact, although in theory the multitronic should at a steady speed and on a level surface do better than a fixed ratio gearbox (auto or manual) as it able to achieve a much higher theoretical gear ratio

[MarkTM]

Am sure I commented previously that I've never failed to achieve or surpass manufacturers quoted figures for both urban and extra urban, the only notable exception being a Vauxhall Insignia I had on hire for a week in 2011...that was so far off it was ridiculous. Not clearly down to my driving style based on previous results...however in most cases it I'd say that was the reason. So if your car is unladen (excepting you) with correct tyre pressures and oil/oil level then it is in the main down to driving style...so coasting up to motorway delays and achieving 999MPG or keeping your foot o the gas and braking at the last possible moment. That said I've achieved 40MPG on my 17yr old 4.0l V8 (80 MPG in real terms as LPG costs half the price).

[C172s]

If only it were as low as 15C, it is actually requited to be between 20 and 30 degrees and the car must have done more than 1800 miles before it is tested. The urban figures are determined over 2.5 mies and done from a cold start, but clearly with an ambient temp of over 20 this is hardly a real cold start, and a maximum of 31mph and average of 12mph. The extra urban is down straight afterwards and done over 4.5 miles with a maximum of 75mph and an average of 39mph. The combined is a merger of the two figures. All is explained here The fuel consumption testing scheme (http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp) . But based on this data it is little wonder that the real life data is so far a drift from the published data and for those with multitronic gearboxes as there are no fixed ratios driving style has a big impact, although in theory the multitronic should at a steady speed and on a level surface do better than a fixed ratio gearbox (auto or manual) as it able to achieve a much higher theoretical gear ratio


My friendly and usually reliable source must have been wrong with the ambient 15 degrees. He is all things Audi, brought me to the brand 10 years ago, As I almost bought my first BMW. My Apologies to you all for that inaccuracy as I didn't doubt him. Talking of BMW, they have even higher margins of inaccuracies. Surprise surprise.

Having said all of this, I didn't buy an A6 multitronic because I was concerned about MPG. The fact that manufacturers are able to quote low figures for emissions and attractive mpgs shows what the car is capable of in test conditions. All to be taken with a pinch of salt, but keeps my road tax low as far as emissions are concerned.

Having similar mpgs around town to my old manual B8 as mentioned is pretty good. The highest I got on my 143ps B8 2 litre tdi was 60.4 mpg. I was driving very slow. Very smooth, and sensible and the car had 19000 miles on it. I'm surprised I didn't get flashed from behind for driving that slow. Lol. I have yet to apply that to my A6.

The 3.0 litre (204) multitronic isn't much different performance wise to the 2 litre 177 multitronic albeit 1 second difference in acceleration times as the multitronic cannot handle more than that. I couldn't justify purchasing that, however the 3.0 245 with s tronic is a different beast altogether never mind the bi tdi. (If only my wife understood;-))

[passman]

I wasn't going to bite at "When the official mpg figures were published they were done in a controlled environment. Using average temperatures of 15 degrees, low resistance tyres on a smooth rolling platform etc.", glad someone else did, a bit.

Bet the 3.0 drivers are laughing their heads off at this thread.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[passman]

Sorry fat fingers on my phone. I was going to say yes we are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[MarkTM]

This C6 driver is...sowwy :(

[Guest 2]

Remember C6 and C7 engines are completely different so can't really be compared!!

[Wuffles]

Remember C6 and C7 engines are completely different so can't really be compared!!

I think he was just passing comment on his being a 3.0, running with the fun.

[Guest 2]

I think he was just passing comment on his being a 3.0, running with the fun.

I mean the whole thread :p

[MarkTM]

Remember C6 and C7 engines are completely different so can't really be compared!!
Am aware, also that a C7 Quattro is apparently more economical than my C6, TBH was shocked by the similar thread on the C6 forum and what 2.0 drivers of that build were getting, so clearly not a lot's improved. Thanks Wuff :D

[Guest 2]

Am aware, also that a C7 quattro is apparently more economical than my C6, TBH was shocked by the similar thread on the C6 forum and what 2.0 drivers of that build were getting, so clearly not a lot's improved. Thanks Wuff :D

Fixed that for you ;)

[MarkTM]

Windows 8 does it automatically and can't honestly be @rsed to correct....now all you have to try to remember is to type limousine instead of saloon, or else call an avant an estate :biglaugh:

[k6rff]

My three month old 2.0 Tdi s line was initially very tight. The first 500 averaged around 24 - but I always run-in carefully for 4000 - gradually increasing throughout. Now just past 2k and ran Kent to Wiltshire and return last weekend. Got 43 outbound (80-90) but returned 51.5 back around 65-75 in traffic. Best yet but I'm finding I have to drive it quite differently to the TT Tdi.

[MarkTM]

Got 43 outbound (80-90) but returned 51.5 back around 65-75 in traffic. Best yet but I'm finding I have to drive it quite differently to the TT Tdi. Allegedly officer :Blush:

[Passatier3]

Resurrecting quite an old thread but this is the definitive fuel thread! :D

Anyway, coming back the 10 miles from my mothers, having started with engine slightly warm as been there a few hours, mainly a winding A road with some dual carriageway and a small town, I just decided to check the fuel consumption and it had averaged 55 mpg which elicited a wow!

As we've said the ambient temperature makes a big difference and of course no heater/AC on either just music. Well impressed with that. Got 5k. on the clock now.

[C172s]

2409924100
In Support of Passatier and a few of the Above Posts. These are figures on urban driving on a 2.0 TDi multitronic Black Edition Saloon on 20's. Mainly the school Run as you can see by the times of day on short runs in and around town. Its a different driving style, mainly smooth but it works and does as it says on the tin. Ambient temp definitely has a lot to do with it. I tend to leave the engine running for 5-10 mins before I drive off to achieve these figures from cold starts.

[Plgaler]

Although the weather is improving, and I bet that's helping, I found something interesting...

By using the "individual" settings in the car menu, and changing the gearbox to auto, and the stewing to dynamic, I seem to have gained about 3-5mpg extra.

I drive a 400 miles per week in two journeys, and have gone from about 43/44mpg to 49/51mpg.

I know the weather is probably having an impact, but I think it's the steering. Dynamic mode obviously makes the steering heavier, which in turn means less corrections, using less energy.

I'd be interested to know if anyone can get a similar benefit by trying the same??

I also wonder if there's a collection of settings that Audi used to get the claimed figures ;) !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cunny678]

I will be changing up from a passat 2.0 CR tdi and was just wondering if there would be much of a reduction in mpg on a new C7 2.0 tdi? On the 25 mile run to work its all motorway and in summer I can get circa 60 mpg at 70 mph. It's not a bluemotion so I thought I may get mid 50's in a be A6 ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 2]

Did you read all this thread?

[cunny678]

Did you read all this thread?

No! Should I delete my post :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

No! Should I delete my post :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In that case, no you probably won't get those figures.

[cunny678]

In that case, no you probably won't get those figures.

Am I going to be miles out? Just looking at working out the cost to change vehicles and most of my driving is motorway. The govt figures for the passat and A6 look very close so I had hoped the Mway figures would be close!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plgaler]

I wouldn't expect much more than 40mpg on a 25 mile run, it'll barely get warm... It's a much bigger car than a passat..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

2nd hand (old stock) Multitronic, manual or one of the new fangled "Super Duper" ones?

[cunny678]

2nd hand (old stock) Multitronic, manual or one of the new fangled "Super Duper" ones?

Was looking a buying virtually new or even new. Maybe even an ultra! Pretty sure it will be a manual as I have had problems with virtually every auto I have owned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cunny678]

I wouldn't expect much more than 40mpg on a 25 mile run, it'll barely get warm... It's a much bigger car than a passat..


I don't think there is a great deal in it size wise, although I am sure it is probably heavier. It takes the passat a while to warm up in winter when I would struggle to get 55 on the same run.

If its only doing 40 mpg at a steady 70 that would hit the wallet:)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

Manual is better, Ultra no idea, will probably be a different thread, which means less for you to read through when it starts.

This thread is more about (now) Multitronic owners (like my Wife) moaning about the figures being waaay off compared to the manual figures, whereas Audi say they are about the same in the brochure.

And each and every time it gets brought up, some bright spark starts spouting about how "you can never trust the figures stated by the manufacturer...lab conditions...blah blah" but missing the point about the manual vs multi debate.

[cunny678]

Cheers for the heads up Wuffles. Will keep my eye out for real world figs for manual Ultra's when they start to appear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Passatier3]

Despite what I reported today, for good, consistent fuel consumption it's got to be a manual or S-tronic as in the Ultra.

Steady motorway use shouldn't be too bad but with the Multitronic as soon as you use any sort of acceleration the fuel consumption in my experience gets hurt big time due to the higher revs than would be the case with a manual or S-tronic.

[C172s]

Despite what I reported today, for good, consistent fuel consumption it's got to be a manual or S-tronic as in the Ultra.

Steady motorway use shouldn't be too bad but with the Multitronic as soon as you use any sort of acceleration the fuel consumption in my experience gets hurt big time due to the higher revs than would be the case with a manual or S-tronic.

Audi Claim that the Ultra not Only has a New Engine, but that the S Tronic has been completely re-designed to reduce friction hence better fuel consumption.

Time will tell, and I'm sure the Ultra whether Manual or S Tronic will deliver better consumption figures, over the current 177 Manual and multitronic.


Will keep my eye out for real world figs for manual Ultra's when they start to appear


Audi have not yet released the Ultra manual A6 and claim it will appear later in 2014, so it could be sometime before we hear of MPG figures on the manual as the engines adjust, but hopefully well get the figures on the S Tronic much sooner to give us a good good idea on what the manual might be like.

All we do now is wait.

[Olio]

My 2.0 Multi now has 4.5k on it and over the week end, with a much nicer temperature, the MPG has improved drastically.

For the first time on a 7 miles trip through some villages I got nearly 60 MPG, compared to the usual 47-48. A longer trip to Chester Zoo also returned higher MPG.

The mile range still indicates 555 miles in the tank (65 litres), as it normally does when full, although I've done nearly 100 miles already.

My commute is what kills the average. In the morning and evening, my 4-5 miles through town returns 20-25 mpg :(

[tadziak]

My 2.0 Multi now has 4.5k on it and over the week end, with a much nicer temperature, the MPG has improved drastically.

For the first time on a 7 miles trip through some villages I got nearly 60 MPG, compared to the usual 47-48. A longer trip to Chester Zoo also returned higher MPG.

The mile range still indicates 555 miles in the tank (65 litres), as it normally does when full, although I've done nearly 100 miles already.

My commute is what kills the average. In the morning and evening, my 4-5 miles through town returns 20-25 mpg :(

My average is 43 MPG so far. Best I can get on a longer route is around 51 MPG (with an average speed around 65 mph. I'm not happy with it comparing to my old Passat.

[cunny678]

My average is 43 MPG so far. Best I can get on a longer route is around 51 MPG (with an average speed around 65 mph. I'm not happy with it comparing to my old Passat.

Is that a manual or multi?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nickc65]

Mine's at nearly 30K now, and on my daily commute to work on a warm (ish as it's England) day I am typically showing between 52 and 58 MPG for a 15 mile journey, mostly in built up areas (30 or 40mph). The better weather and increased mileage seems to make a huge difference to the results you get from these engines.

[Wuffles]

Mine's at nearly 30K now, and on my daily commute to work on a warm (ish as it's England) day I am typically showing between 52 and 58 MPG for a 15 mile journey, mostly in built up areas (30 or 40mph). The better weather and increased mileage seems to make a huge difference to the results you get from these engines.

To save the inevitable question asked every time, can people please stipulate manual or multi? I'm going to call this one as a manual though from those figures.

[Passatier3]

I'm with you there, on both counts!

And what do peeps realistically expect from a car as big and powerful as the A6! Mine's (Multi) not falling that far short of my previous Passats (manual and DSG) so I'm happy enough.

[tadziak]

Is that a manual or multi?

Multitronic 2.0. The car has so far a bit lesst than 10 000 miles on the clock. I'm only quoting what the onboard computer shows - I did not try to calculate it myself.

[Rust bucket]

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

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

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

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

My 2010 a6 170 tdi manual (35k miles) is drinking diesel. I bought it June 2013 and regularly averaged 50-55 on a long run without too much trouble. Then in November something changed. I don't know what changed but since then I'm struggling to get 40 mpg on a long motorway run at 65 mpg and being very careful through the gears. It's been to audi twice. First time it was serviced and they found no faults. This made no difference so took it back. This time they replaced G450 exhaust gas temp sensor but this has made no difference either (why wasn't this spotted at service?!). I have been monitoring fuel mpg from tank fill to tank fill for ten weeks now and the ave mpg is 37 way below manufacturers claimed figs. I'm about to write to audi to complain as derby audi are now fobbing me off "they're all like that sir" and "the computer says there's nothing wrong with it". "See what happens when the weather warms up" etc.

Any ideas?

[Guest 2]

Remember engines between the C6 and C7 are completely different!!

Audi will do nothing as there is obviously something wrong. Consider taking it to a different dealer, also consider your tyre pressures/brand.

[Rust bucket]

Remember engines between the C6 and C7 are completely different!!

Audi will do nothing as there is obviously something wrong. Consider taking it to a different dealer, also consider your tyre pressures/brand.


Thanks chris, four brand new Pirelli pzero's fitted in January (ouch!). I'm keeping a fuel diary and notes of conversations. I'm convinced something is not right. I'm going to ask a technician to accompany me on a drive and then give derby audi one last chance to fix it. I can't help but feel they're fobbing me off until the warranty runs out.

[AGW82]

Just watched the latest episode of 5th Gear on Sky, they did a piece on MPG for new cars, apparently there will be a new test in 2015 that should give more realistic results.. they also said on average you should knock 20% off any figure quoted in the brochure for the real world results..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ScottyA6]

I had to drive down the M1 last Saturday morning and back from North Yorks and although that involves miles of 50 mph and because of holiday traffic there was no room for quick blasts my 245 Quattro returned 46.1 mpg over the journey. I hadn't been thinking about economy and thought that was bloody good for a big powerful car.

[Rust bucket]

I had to drive down the M1 last Saturday morning and back from North Yorks and although that involves miles of 50 mph and because of holiday traffic there was no room for quick blasts my 245 Quattro returned 46.1 mpg over the journey. I hadn't been thinking about economy and thought that was bloody good for a big powerful car.

Thanks Scotty that makes me feel much better!:aargh4:

Over a similar journey I would expect to get mid fifties MPG before November 2013. In fact, I took the family to Devon last summer and, loaded up to the gunnels and with a roof box fiitted, I managed 47.8 mpg average on the OBC travelling between 70 and 80 mph. That's not bad for a big heavy car. Since November 2013, the OBC struggles to get over 40mpg and real tank fill to tank fill mpg is averaging 36-37 mpg and this is driving like the pope at no more than 65 mph on the motorway.

Interestingly, if I increase my mph to 70-80 mph the mpg does not appear to be affected. This suggests to me that the problem could be:

1) Drag induced (a binding brake, wheel bearing, final drive etc)
2) an incorrect fuel/air mixture (blocked air filter, spurious results from a sensor, leaking injector seal, error in ECU code)
3) a heavier than normal electrical load causing the alternater to work harder (caused by a short circuit somewhere?)
4) combination of factors above
5) a gap in the space time continuum or punishment for pulling the legs off spiders in a past life.

I am surprised that having reported it twice to Audi and the second time it was booked in to deal with this specific problem they cannot find a fault. I also cannot understand why they haven't test driven it to cooberate my results either. Now I have queried it for the third time, I am effectively being told they're not interested!

Does anyone have any ideas what the fault could be?

[AGW82]

Thanks Scotty that makes me feel much better!:aargh4:

Over a similar journey I would expect to get mid fifties MPG before November 2013. In fact, I took the family to Devon last summer and, loaded up to the gunnels and with a roof box fiitted, I managed 47.8 mpg average on the OBC travelling between 70 and 80 mph. That's not bad for a big heavy car. Since November 2013, the OBC struggles to get over 40mpg and real tank fill to tank fill mpg is averaging 36-37 mpg and this is driving like the pope at no more than 65 mph on the motorway.

Interestingly, if I increase my mph to 70-80 mph the mpg does not appear to be affected. This suggests to me that the problem could be:

1) Drag induced (a binding brake, wheel bearing, final drive etc)
2) an incorrect fuel/air mixture (blocked air filter, spurious results from a sensor, leaking injector seal, error in ECU code)
3) a heavier than normal electrical load causing the alternater to work harder (caused by a short circuit somewhere?)
4) combination of factors above
5) a gap in the space time continuum or punishment for pulling the legs off spiders in a past life.

I am surprised that having reported it twice to Audi and the second time it was booked in to deal with this specific problem they cannot find a fault. I also cannot understand why they haven't test driven it to cooberate my results either. Now I have queried it for the third time, I am effectively being told they're not interested!

Does anyone have any ideas what the fault could be?

You could get your own VCDS scan done, if nothing else it would give you piece of mind that Audi aren't trying to fob you off.. it will also show the state of the DPF which could could possibly be causing you MPG problems.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Rob Hamer]

I've had my 2.0TDI SE Multi Avant for 5 months and 3500 miles. On a long run last weekend I got (from the OBC) an average of 51mpg averaging 75-85 on the motorway and a bit of stop start town driving. The long term average which I've not reset is showing 40.5mpg. The car is used for a variety of school runs and longer trips to see relatives.

I've come from a 3 year old XC90 that averaged 29mpg so I have no complaints with the fuel economy of the Audi.

[Rust bucket]

Cheers.

Where do I get a VCDS from and how much do they cost?

[Wuffles]

You could try this map to try and find someone locally: VCDS User Location Map (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?134957-VCDS-User-Location-Map)

[AGW82]

Cheers.

Where do I get a VCDS from and how much do they cost?

I used these guys:

VW Audi Seat Skoda Specialists | Parts Service Modifications (http://www.candrenterprises.co.uk/)

Crasher is the handle of the guy on the forum who runs this business. It will cost around £30 and you'll get a report on the status of all the cars systems and sensors, you'll need to specifically ask them to check the status of the DPF for ash build up etc.

They are very knowledgeable and will give you an honest answer if they think you have any issues.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[MFGF]

Cheers.

Where do I get a VCDS from and how much do they cost?

If you fancy a short drive across the A50 to the Stoke area I'd be happy to run a VCDS scan on your car - no charge. :)

MF.

[Rust bucket]

If you fancy a short drive across the A50 to the Stoke area I'd be happy to run a VCDS scan on your car - no charge. :)

MF.

thats very kind of you. Can I bank that offer? I'm not sure when the wife will allow me to break free from the chains of domestic servitude.

[MFGF]

thats very kind of you. Can I bank that offer? I'm not sure when the wife will allow me to break free from the chains of domestic servitude.

No problem! :)

MF.

[Rust bucket]

No problem! :)

MF.

Back at derby audi today with OBC reporting service required in 1100 miles two months after last long life service. Raised MPG issue again. Much hand ringing and "40 mpg sounds about right on a long run sir. Have you tried it now the weathers a bit warmer?" Unbelievable. Frankly I'm ready to park it sideways through the front door.

To to be fair since the g450 exhaust temp sensor was replaced last month I have seen an improvement in mpg and can now get 45mpg on a run. But this is still 7 mpg off what I was regularly getting before nov 2013.

they reset the service indicator today and checked fault codes. No errors reported. They've suggested I write to the 'master technician' ( is this the automotive equivalent of Yoda?!) setting out my experiences in the hope that he will be able to work out what's up with it.

ill keep you all posted on progress.

[Wuffles]

I believe you can write to the Master Technician in spray paint before you deliver back the car the way you suggested.

Ridiculous.

Keep it up. Good show. Etc.

[chiefbadger]

Least scientific calculation ever but following 200 miles of mainly B road driving, including some spirited blasts (ish, given it's only got 300 miles on the clock still!) it's done exactly a 1/4 of a tank which seems pretty impressive to me?

As previously mentioned though, I'm coming from a c320 which I couldn't get to do 30mpg on a 200mile run at a steady 60!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

Ah yes, the magical first 1/4 on the dial (nearer half a tank in real life) marker.

I swear they make fuel tanks out of a cone shape and don't allow for it when they mark the levels on the dials. Or...

[chiefbadger]

Ah yes, the magical first 1/4 on the dial (nearer half a tank in real life) marker.

I swear they make fuel tanks out of a cone shape and don't allow for it when they mark the levels on the dials. Or...

Glad it's not just me that's always thought that! Weirdly, I've always found the second half of a bottle of wine seems to have the same trick!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shaneypoopers]

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

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

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

Any feedback greatly appreciated,

Greg.

I'm getting about 45 MPG with an average speed of 60 MPH. Although I do mostly motorway driving on Eco setting.

Shane

[oldandbald]

I'm very pleased with ours. Performance and economy. It's even more frugal than our old E46 320D manual diesel Beemer. On our 05 plate 2.0 TDI A3 with DSG we get exactly what the book quotes, ie 47 urban, and around 55- 65 on a cruise as long as the trip is of more than 20 miles. These figures are from the OBC so may be slightly optimistic but not too far off. These diesels are not good on short trips where the engine barely gets up to operating temperature. The long term average of our 90,000 miler is 57mpg. I tend to cruise at 70 ish.

[Gmonster]

Update on fuel consumption: Thought I would share my latest journeys consumption figures; which is the best I have ever achieved to date: circa 59 mpg on this afternoons 70 mile journey from Edinburgh to Home/Ayrshire. This was under normal driving conditions, even with a bit of cruise control on the motorway. This is against a backdrop of my normal 'fill to fill' consumption of circa 45-47 mpg. Interesting. 24531

[ti rich]

Update on fuel consumption: Thought I would share my latest journeys consumption figures; which is the best I have ever achieved to date: circa 59 mpg on this afternoons 70 mile journey from Edinburgh to Home/Ayrshire. This was under normal driving conditions, even with a bit of cruise control on the motorway. This is against a backdrop of my normal 'fill to fill' consumption of circa 45-47 mpg. Interesting. 24531

Can I ask what size wheels you have please?

[Gmonster]

20 inch Rotors on a Black Edition etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

Was your sat nav refusing to go Chelsea? Boom boom.

I'm guessing that it was Chelsea as it's the only song I could think would fit that.

I'll get my coat.

[GARD99]

Elvis Costello?

I'm guessing had he gone to Chelsea mpg would have suffered:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gmonster]

Hah: Yes it was Elvis not wanting to go to Chelsea. (From 'The Best Punk Album in the World' for your info. ) Could've been Rod tho; not wantin to talk about it.. tho....
Elvis Costello?

I'm guessing had he gone to Chelsea mpg would have suffered:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

I suggest you all get your coats. And no, you've not pulled.

[Waddinrm]

Good thread for a never ending story ...

just returned from a 250 mile round trip in our 2010 C6 Avant 2.0 TDi 170 Le Mans on 19" wheels. Mostly motorway and som A/B roads, motorway cruising 75-80 when not in traffic. I got 42.5mpg

We have the same engine (ok, 143ps) in a Golf which returns 53mpg - why the difference?

IMO and my wife's (she teaches physics) just use Newton's laws of motion. The Audi weighs around 20% more and returns around 20% less MPG.

Forget about 20" vs 17" wheels etc, that is very minor in comparison. I also totally do not buy that a 2.7 or 3.0 would be better. What's the physics on that? And totally forget test MPG - meaningless.

But it is THE BEST car I have driven on that journey - what a pleasure to be in.

[Wuffles]

GForget about 20" vs 17" wheels etc, that is very minor in comparison. I also totally do not buy that a 2.7 or 3.0 would be better. What's the physics on that? And totally forget test MPG - meaningless.

Not if the tyres are wider. Rolling resistance? No idea.

Also, less effort from the bigger engines I guess means they're trying less to move the lump that is the difference in weight between a golf and an A6. There, covered two in one.

Smug mode activated.

[Gmonster]

I think I get that the 2.0 litre is a very finally balanced/complicated set up. . . to deliver the pretty amazing returns for the weight it is dragging around (for example; it is fairly easily stalled engine etc) Wheels not a lot to do with it even factoring in rolling resistance. It's the weight. Hence the 3.0 litre comes close to 2.0 litre; it can deal with the weight better (But costs more to buy/insure/tax) (but . . you do get twin tail pipes!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wuffles]

(but . . you do get twin tail pipes!)

Just like the Ultra 2.0.

[Whippy53]

Now getting upto 50 mpg on long runs, average over 9000m is now a tad over 42 mpg. I'm happy with that.

[Passatier3]

Good thread for a never ending story ...

just returned from a 250 mile round trip in our 2010 C6 Avant 2.0 TDi 170 Le Mans on 19" wheels. Mostly motorway and som A/B roads, motorway cruising 75-80 when not in traffic. I got 42.5mpg

We have the same engine (ok, 143ps) in a Golf which returns 53mpg - why the difference?

IMO and my wife's (she teaches physics) just use Newton's laws of motion. The Audi weighs around 20% more and returns around 20% less MPG.

Forget about 20" vs 17" wheels etc, that is very minor in comparison. I also totally do not buy that a 2.7 or 3.0 would be better. What's the physics on that? And totally forget test MPG - meaningless.

But it is THE BEST car I have driven on that journey - what a pleasure to be in.

As ever you need to be sure that you are comparing apples with apples. I don't know how manual 2.0 and 3.0 litres compare but a lot of the discussion was more about the 2.0 Multitronic falling short of expectations and when that is compared against a 3.0 litre auto i.e. S-tronic that is when the bigger engined car is producing favourable returns. What will be interesting and a more meaningful comparison is when more figures are reported for the 2.0 litre Ultra S-tronic against the 3.0 litre S-tronic.

[northerncoupe]

Hi.....I've got a 177 Avant Black Edition Manual. When I first read this post a month ago before my A6 arrived I must admit I was worried. I previously owned a 2013 1.6 tdi A3 which got 58mpg (calculated from actual fill up.) My first A6 tank got 42mpg but I was off work for a week and was not doing my usual run. My work journey is 57 miles each way and is 20 miles of dual carriageway and the rest a 50mph slow but flowing road. I manage to get 54mpg on my second tank (actual) and now 2k miles later the car tells me 59mpg short term for most of the journey. I have learnt to drive the A6 in an economical way. It is such a pleasure to drive that this does not bother me! I still enjoy a bit more speed at the weekend. Good mpg is possible it seems.

[ti rich]

Just hit 50k miles now. 177, manual on 19's. Average from new is 43 mpg.

80% A roads / motorway, 20% short trips.

I drive very steady and am still disappointed with the mpg.


Six months till I get rid, can't wait..............

[Waddinrm]

I'm the same with driving style. I can't chuck the A6 around like our 2.0 TDI Golf and hope to get 50+ mpg. But it is such a good car to be in, who cares?

ti rich - check out real world MPG on the BMW and Mercedes forums - it's the same story for the 5-series and the E-class. No miracles to be had ...

[ti rich]

ti rich - check out real world MPG on the BMW and Mercedes forums - it's the same story for the 5-series and the E-class. No miracles to be had ...

I agree no miriclebut while the car is very good in most respects its just so boring to drive day in, day out. It's just not an involving drive. My old 330d was heavier, automatic and did the same MPG on the routes I do. The new version would return far more MPG, be much quicker and far more involving to drive so I think that's the direction I will go next.......or maybe a Jag XF but I know the MPG will be worse with that!

[Passatier3]

Whilst on the subject of driving involvement I wonder why Audi chose to go down the FWD route rather than RWD given that in cars that have the quattro option they have the transmission tunnel already?

I haven't driven a RWD car for years now but the steering has got to feel better when it's not incumbered with dealing wth the drive as well. And when accelerating when crossing white lines the other day the torque steer was very noticeable.

[Wuffles]

Depends on the waft factor really and the power going through them?

My van's a nightmare, considering it's a van with less bhp - 130 - wanders all over the place when pressed in the lower gears. You know, like a van should be. At a set of lights.t.

[Waddinrm]

.......or maybe a Jag XF but I know the MPG will be worse with that!

ti rich, you've nailed it. We need to start a new thread on MPH rather than MPG.

[johnsimcox]

Whilst on the subject of driving involvement I wonder why Audi chose to go down the FWD route rather than RWD given that in cars that have the quattro option they have the transmission tunnel already?

I haven't driven a RWD car for years now but the steering has got to feel better when it's not incumbered with dealing wth the drive as well. And when accelerating when crossing white lines the other day the torque steer was very noticeable.

I don't think Audi have made a RWD car for a very long time, the first Audi 100 launched 1968, the forerunner to the A6, was FWD as were most of the 2 stroke cars that Auto Union produced before that and the NSU Ro80. Adding RWD via the Quattro only happened in 1981 and then as an afterthought to get Audi into Rallying, Platform and component sharing with VW also meant that FWD was the predominant choice for Audi's

[Passatier3]

Just wondered as there's no need to gain cabin space by using a transverse engine (which they don't of course in the A6) and FWD as in smaller cars.

As well as FWD I think it's the wide tyres that give designers a problem with providing reasonable lightness but also steering with some feel to it.

I guess the F1 guys have cracked it though?!! :D

[gadgee]

if u have a look at the mercedes and bmw forums , a common complaint is how badly they handle during the winter, any snow and they dont leave the drive.so while rwd may be a responsive drive...if we get a bad winter , you arent going to be doing any driving .

[pumpsmynads]

They are fwd which saves them money. No propshaft and all that.

I'd rather have a BMW any day. This A6 is a white good to get me from a to b. Nothing more. If I want to get around in a Beemer in snow I'll get winter tyres.

When contracting at Sky in February 2009 (bad snow) there were 3 (THREE) cars made it into our part of the complex (New Horizon Court) car park in Osterley that day. I was one in a BMW. Rwd didn't stop me that day :-)

[wja96]

if u have a look at the mercedes and bmw forums , a common complaint is how badly they handle during the winter, any snow and they dont leave the drive.so while rwd may be a responsive drive...if we get a bad winter , you arent going to be doing any driving .

That's just UK drivers lacking the driving skills on snow and being too mean to shell out for winter tyres.

BMW, Porsche, Mercedes and Audi are all designed and built in Southern Germany where it snows EVERY YEAR.

If you go to Bavaria in the depths of winter the roads flow quite happily with Mercedes and BMW ( and even the odd Boxster) out and about on snow tyres.

RWD isn't a problem on snow and ice. The UK's drivers and the way they prepare their cars for winter is the problem.

[JannerAudi]

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

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

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

Any feedback greatly appreciated,

Greg.

I have just been away for a week on holiday and the on board computer tells me that I did 870.5 miles with an average speed of 37mph and an average of 53.3mpg. On one part of the journey home between Telford and Montacute in Somerset which is a distance of 174 miles and mostly motorway I achieved 59.5mpg. This was at a steady 65 mph on the motorway and 70 to 75 mph to pass lorries no cruise control.

Car Details
S-line 2.0TDi Manual
18 inch wheels

Payload
2 adults
1 suitcase
1 rucksack with camera gear
1 rucksack with wet weather gear

Overall Data From New
Total mileage - 2,417 miles
48.1 mpg average
29.8 mph average

Edited to add that the car is manual transmission and no cruise control used.

[St3veM]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/21/butyhude.jpg

This is on a black edition, generally doing 40-50 miles a day via country lanes / motorway.

This is also tank to tank values.

Hth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sjowett]

I have had my car just over a week so its early days but I am reasonably impressed. Its an A6 2.0TDI S-Line manual used on 30 mile commute each way with equal mix of city, country and motorway driving. I regularly get to my destination with the DIS showing in excess of 45mpg.
Before picking up my car I had the new ultra engine A6 for a week and was glad to get out of it. I was lucky to get 40mpg on the same journey and trying to overtake slow drivers on the country roads was a scary experience, give me a manual box any day.

[Passatier3]

if u have a look at the mercedes and bmw forums , a common complaint is how badly they handle during the winter, any snow and they dont leave the drive.so while rwd may be a responsive drive...if we get a bad winter , you arent going to be doing any driving .

I don't drive my Audi in snow! :D

I have a cheap hack for that and other things! :D

[Whippy53]

If there's any white stuff around I stay in bed!

[Sw1000]

Well impressed, I did a 400 mile round trip averaging between 75 - 80 and averaged 46mpg in my new Ultra. Not bad considering I've only got 300 miles on the clock.

[daycartes]

I take it your car was delivered with -100 on the clock then!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Sw1000]

I take it your car was delivered with -100 on the clock then!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Let me rephrase, I had 300 miles on the clock when I started the journey! :D

[wja96]

OK, I know no-one wants to know what the 3.0 BiTDi actually does in a 2.0TDi fuel economy thread but I took these pictures this morning. The car was serviced last week and fuel economy improved significantly.

My onboard computer readings have been calibrated using full tank to full tank measurements (controller 17 set to 102%) so the readings are accurate.

Reasonable run this morning 1 drive on M25, M11, A14 with and average of 56mph so I wasn't hanging about.

http://www.walteranderson.com/Images/Fuelcons1.jpg

And the fuel consumption from the day I picked the car up at the end of December.

http://www.walteranderson.com/Images/Fuelcons2.jpg

[M1tchy]

Very similar to mine (bitdi A7) but as you say, no one cares in a 2 litre mpg thread lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whippy53]

Who's not wearing their seat belt?

[wja96]

Me. But as the car was parked up I thought I'd be OK. I'll wear it for all future photographic adventures I promise!

[GARD99]

He's King of the Road though. Mmmmmm Roger Miller?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Whippy53]

Me. But as the car was parked up I thought I'd be OK. I'll wear it for all future photographic adventures I promise!

Jolly good, mind how you go now.

[M1tchy]

Me. But as the car was parked up I thought I'd be OK. I'll wear it for all future photographic adventures I promise!

Just be careful you don't crash at that speedy zero mph! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chiefbadger]

So my Ultra is now just over the 1000 mile mark and according to the dis, I've averaged 33.6mpg over this time. Assuming therefore the real figure is 10% lower it's not exactly impressive!

Lots of mixed driving to be fair normally 4 up with a full boot too, but I'd be pretty peeved if I'd bought the car for its economy.

Still better mpg than every car I've had previously so I'm happy in any case, but sure it would be more frustrating if I'd come from anything more frugal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnsimcox]

So my Ultra is now just over the 1000 mile mark and according to the dis, I've averaged 33.6mpg over this time. Assuming therefore the real figure is 10% lower it's not exactly impressive!

Lots of mixed driving to be fair normally 4 up with a full boot too, but I'd be pretty peeved if I'd bought the car for its economy.

Still better mpg than every car I've had previously so I'm happy in any case, but sure it would be more frustrating if I'd come from anything more frugal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wouldn't assume the DIS is as much as 10% out. Doing brim to brim comparisons my DIS is less the 1mpg out on c43mpg. I do notice on my (non-ultra manual) that consumption does drop a fair bit with 4 adults and a boot of luggage compared to juist me in the car. You should also notice the consumption improve up to 10k miles as the engine loosens up, the gear box learns your driving style and you get used to the car

[Sw1000]

Wouldn't assume the DIS is as much as 10% out. Doing brim to brim comparisons my DIS is less the 1mpg out on c43mpg. I do notice on my (non-ultra manual) that consumption does drop a fair bit with 4 adults and a boot of luggage compared to juist me in the car. You should also notice the consumption improve up to 10k miles as the engine loosens up, the gear box learns your driving style and you get used to the car

Interesting, I've just hit the 1000 mile mark in mine with mixed driving and I'm averaging 44.1mpg, I don't rage it around but at the same time I'm not driving it like an old man either. I have completed a couple of long runs that have probably pushed it up.

[ha5smu]

So my Ultra is now just over the 1000 mile mark and according to the dis, I've averaged 33.6mpg over this time. Assuming therefore the real figure is 10% lower it's not exactly impressive!

Lots of mixed driving to be fair normally 4 up with a full boot too, but I'd be pretty peeved if I'd bought the car for its economy.

Still better mpg than every car I've had previously so I'm happy in any case, but sure it would be more frustrating if I'd come from anything more frugal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Had my ultra for 2 weeks and was worried about the economy. But now done about 1200 miles and managed to get 58 mpg today, so it seems to get better. I am driving in efficiency mode and then quickly knock into Sport if I need to overtake and works really well.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Plgaler]

I'd be interested to know if what works for mine works for you.

If I drive in "eco" mode, it's anything but economical! If I change it to "individual" and set the steering to Dynamic, and the box to Auto, I get anywhere from 2-7mpg better according to the DIS... going from about 40-42mpg all the way to nearly 50mpg...

[chiefbadger]

Had my ultra for 2 weeks and was worried about the economy. But now done about 1200 miles and managed to get 58 mpg today, so it seems to get better. I am driving in efficiency mode and then quickly knock into Sport if I need to overtake and works really well.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Interesting. Should have mentioned actually that I've been playing around with settings so might explain some of the figures. Have been using the paddles quite a bit over the last few weeks, just enjoying the gearbox. Also have the car set to Dynamic which I guess might make a difference? When it's in Auto I tend to leave it in D on the motorway or A roads, but use Sport if I'm on a Sunday drive somewhere in Sussex.

Must be leaving the gearbox totally baffled about what it should be doing!! That combined with my wife doing 4-5 short trips a week of less than 10 miles probably doesn't help either. I've also been deliberately holding the car at circa 2500rpm while on longer drives at the weekend to prevent any dpf issues.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plgaler]

I think (and I'll stand corrected I'm sure!) that it's down to the electronic power steering. If it's in ECO or Comfort, you can easily see-saw the wheel (see anyone driving the A-Team van, the steering wheel is all over the place, but the van stays about straight) as it's nice and light. If it's in dynamic you can't. * as much.

The rub would then be that more power is used when you get the see-saw effect, thus leaning on the alternator more.

My previous car to this was an E46 325ci, so I prefer/am used to the heavy steering and seem to be better off for it.

[ha5smu]

That probably doesn't help. I think using the paddles and dynamic mode will have an effect.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Plgaler]

well yes, driving it like that will certainly use the fuel! I'm driving a 180 mile motorway journey and comparing the two ways of working.

[Whippy53]

Got just under 54 mpg on a cross country run yesterday, Mic of lanes, A roads and small villages. Happy with that.

[johnsimcox]

Interesting. Should have mentioned actually that I've been playing around with settings so might explain some of the figures. Have been using the paddles quite a bit over the last few weeks, just enjoying the gearbox. Also have the car set to Dynamic which I guess might make a difference? When it's in Auto I tend to leave it in D on the motorway or A roads, but use Sport if I'm on a Sunday drive somewhere in Sussex.

Must be leaving the gearbox totally baffled about what it should be doing!! That combined with my wife doing 4-5 short trips a week of less than 10 miles probably doesn't help either. I've also been deliberately holding the car at circa 2500rpm while on longer drives at the weekend to prevent any dpf issues.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
your driving style will definitely have a negative impact on the fuel consumption, especially using the paddles and keeping the revs at 2500rpm. In normal driving (famous last words!!) you should have no issues with the DPF and only need to run it at higher revs if you need to force a DPF regeneration because the warning light has come on. DPF problems tend to come with cars that do lots of short journeys in stop start conditions. I am on my second A6 with DPF, first one did 35k over 3 years and the current one has done 20k and is 2 years old. Mixture of town, A road and Motorway driving and no problems with the DPF, just every now and then the fan runs after stopping and there is a burning smell outside the car signifying that a DPF regen was happening when I stopped the car.

[wja96]

There was huge discussion on the Audi TT forums about the true break-even point on the 2.0TFSi vs. the 2.0TDi because people were VERY unhappy with the fuel economy on the CR170 TDi TT.

If you drive the car gently to get good fuel economy you get high soot accumulation in the DPF at which point the car dumps diesel into the exhaust manifold to burn it off. Not exactly efficient.

I had the DPF inactivated on mine and my fuel economy went from very high 40's to low 60's. I did 122,000 miles on mine in 3 years and it never missed a beat, but the DPF just killed the economy on that car.

If you're not doing mega miles and you're not doing long trips and your company doesn't insist on diesel then I'd have to say in future I'll be buying the petrol one rather than the diesel one.

[johnsimcox]

There was huge discussion on the Audi TT forums about the true break-even point on the 2.0TFSi vs. the 2.0TDi because people were VERY unhappy with the fuel economy on the CR170 TDi TT.

If you drive the car gently to get good fuel economy you get high soot accumulation in the DPF at which point the car dumps diesel into the exhaust manifold to burn it off. Not exactly efficient.

I had the DPF inactivated on mine and my fuel economy went from very high 40's to low 60's. I did 122,000 miles on mine in 3 years and it never missed a beat, but the DPF just killed the economy on that car.

If you're not doing mega miles and you're not doing long trips and your company doesn't insist on diesel then I'd have to say in future I'll be buying the petrol one rather than the diesel one.

Unfortunately Audi sees fit not to offer any petrol A6s in the UK except for the S6 and RS6. Presumably due to most cars being bought as company cars and personal tax liabilities and company policies based on CO2 emissions forcing people to buy diesel

[chiefbadger]

Unfortunately Audi sees fit not to offer any petrol A6s in the UK except for the S6 and RS6. Presumably due to most cars being bought as company cars and personal tax liabilities and company policies based on CO2 emissions forcing people to buy diesel

Which has led to me already trying to work out how I can afford an S6 next time around. I started off considering an Octavia Vrs and the A4 2.0t quattro as they were the only petrol vag estates.

I do sub 8000 miles a year, so zero point in buying a diesel, but just nothing with the equivalent style/space/spec of the A6 with a petrol engine with circa 2-300bhp.

I know it's a very refined engine in the Ultra, but it sure sounds like a rattly old diesel to me still!

All is forgotten when the engine is warmed up and the windows are up though!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whippy53]

If they made a petrol version, I'd look at it.

[johnsimcox]

In Germany you can 2.0, 2.8 or 3.0 petrol engines. However the 2.0 TFSi puts out 154g/km of CO2 compared to the Ultra's 119 and uses 6.6l of fuel per 100km rather than 4.6 for the Ultra so I am guessing that Audi UK think the petrol would too hard a sell. Be interesting to know how many 520is BMW sell compared to 520ds.

[Passatier3]

I would have considered a petrol due to my low miles but it would have to be a 3.0 V6 :D

Interesting that Germany do a range of petrol engines, would have thought they were just as diesel as the rest of Europe?

2.0 petrol in an A6, nah! :D

[Passatier3]

There was huge discussion on the Audi TT forums about the true break-even point on the 2.0TFSi vs. the 2.0TDi because people were VERY unhappy with the fuel economy on the CR170 TDi TT.

If you drive the car gently to get good fuel economy you get high soot accumulation in the DPF at which point the car dumps diesel into the exhaust manifold to burn it off. Not exactly efficient.

I had the DPF inactivated on mine and my fuel economy went from very high 40's to low 60's. I did 122,000 miles on mine in 3 years and it never missed a beat, but the DPF just killed the economy on that car.

If you're not doing mega miles and you're not doing long trips and your company doesn't insist on diesel then I'd have to say in future I'll be buying the petrol one rather than the diesel one.

I bet they don't let that scenario happen whilst doing the official figures!! :D

[ti rich]

Just for the record drove from Birmingham to Lyon yesterday. Just under 700 miles in 11 hours. 2 people and about 150kg of baggage. Drove on cruise most of the way at 82 mph and got 44.3 mpg.

[Gmonster]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/04/azyrydud.jpg
This is a 'road trip' app screenshot of my latest fill to fill consumption result. Circa 51 mpg. Quite impressed really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[northerncoupe]

Best mpg yet!

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/07/hudureby.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whippy53]

24918

Or is it?

[Gmonster]

I think the computer can occasional put out spurious readings. Is that possible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whippy53]

Just feather footing it in France, little hilly roads and such. Been seeing a few high 50s but this took me by surprise.

[pumpsmynads]

My 2.0 Multitronic. 24922

[daycartes]

Just thought that I would add a new dimension to this thread (2012 A6 manual 177 NOT Ultra)
I have done a reasonable amount of towing using both a trailer with camping gear and a caravan, although not both at the same time!
Normal consumption without towing:
Motorways (real) average speed 60-70, 49mpg
On A roads probably stuck behind a lorry/bus/caravan, 54-56 mpg
Towing a trailer at 50-55, 45 mpg
Towing a caravan at 50-55 mpg both on A roads and Motorway 34 mpg.

I did hypermile when I first got the car but I no longer do so as none of my journeys are the same, therefore not comparable. I do believe that the gauge is pretty accurate, especially in comparison with the C6 where I could arrive with more fuel that I left with!

These measurements take into account that the outside temperature has been between 18-22.

I hope that this helps anyone thinking of towing.

[Whippy53]

But a frowns just a smile upside down!

[Olio]

With shorter trips (I fill up about once a month, although I use the car every day) and a 6k miles multi, since the warmer weather, I get to 40 - 41 MPG over a tank. For a single trip, I regularly get 47 to 50.

Overall not unhappy considering the comfort... MPG will get worse next few tanks I think, as I'll try and use the sport mode more often, to further engine run in and facilitate DPF regen.

[MFGF]

Wow! Resurrecting a really old thread here!

I have been dutifully recording every fill-up (mileage, cost and number of litres) since my car arrived at the end of April 2012. I finally got around to entering it and doing a little analysis. It has only taken me 38 months! :)

My average over all that time is 40.53, with a high of 47.36 when I filled up on 23rd September 2012 and a low of 33.27 when I filled up on 26th May 2013. I can see some seasonality to the consumption too - with Q1 (Jan/Feb/Mar) of each year being the worst and Q3 (Jul/Aug/Sep) being the best.

So - a real-world result for a 2.0 TDi 177 manual gearbox saloon over a period of more than three years. None of this is from the DIS, which reports an average of around 43.

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss35/MFGF1/A6%20C7/MPG_zpsap3rudjo.png

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss35/MFGF1/A6%20C7/MPG%20Detail_zpsh6ltmbd4.png

Cheers!

MF.

[Olio]

Not bad, although I thought you'd get better MPG with a manual.

I've been getting 37 MPG since I got the car, with a best of 42.4 in the summer of 2014. bearing in mind I drive multi, and so a lot of short commutes to work.

[skibuddy]

Here's mine for comparison. Similar experience with economy being seasonal. 3yrs and 3 clutches later and best average is 50.76 with 709 miles from a single tank. Overall average of 45.44 mpg. Big dips in the graph is long journey to Cornwall fully loaded and towing a trailer. Always filled up with ordinary Shell diesel from the same petrol station.

28139

[APH123]

I currently drive an A4 TDIe and have a facelift A6 Ultra on order. At my last service I requested an A6 TDI Ultra courtesy car as I was worried the fuel consumption in the bigger car would be much worse. I currently get around 49mpg average from the A4 on a long term average mix of driving as measured at the pumps not the car's computer. I did 292 miles in the day, mostly motorway but also included 30 mins of slow queuing at the beginning. I was being fairly light footed but not saintly, often doing 70-80mph but no cruise. The A6 DIS reported 67.6mpg at the end of the trip and whilst I have come to expect the onboard computer to be ambitious by about 5-10% from the actual measured consumption, its still considerably better than my three year old A4.