A6 2.0 tdi or 3.0tdi Avant

**Chesterfield313** · 28-01-2015,09:37 PM

Is your 2.7 a quattro? Going from quattro to fwd would be my main issue. I was given a new ultra to drive and the way you drive it has to change. At the first few junctions that I pulled out of the front wheels were scrabbling for grip and that was driving an auto. I prefer rwd or quattro. The power was ok, but I was surprised the engine wasn't more refined and quiet. Maybe I've been spoilt by a few years of V6 diesels.

**Chesterfield313** · 28-01-2015,09:45 PM

Originally Posted by iain120

I was looking at the same option before i got mine. The 3l TDI is amazing in all versions, quick quiet and smooth. The 2l is a little rougher, does pull away like the 3l does.
However it's plenty powerful enough for everyday driving, and has better mps and insurance costs.
Only bit of advise I would say is don't believe the factory quoted mpg's. I can get 50mpg's on the 2l I got, but seriously doubt I will ever get the average 57mpg's quoted. The 3l says it will do average 55mpg's i find this very hard to believe...
Best bet is to take them both out for a test, back to back and see what you feel happier with.

The way manufacturers report mpg has been done to death on here. All follow the same set of rules, tested in perfect conditions. You shouldn't expect to get what they report, no car does. They are still relevant though, as comparing reported figures from one car to another still works, as they are all tested in the same conditions.

I wish people would stop hammering manufacturers to get their mpg figures right and test in real driving conditions. If they do that you will also get real emmissions figures, much worse than now. You will then pay hundreds of pounds a year for the accuracy, through increased road tax and benefit in kind, if a company car, as they are all emmissions related. Be careful what you wish for!

**Whippy53** · 28-01-2015,10:00 PM

It's a good option.

**Whippy53** · 28-01-2015,10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chesterfield313

The way manufacturers report mpg has been done to death on here. All follow the same set of rules, tested in perfect conditions. You shouldn't expect to get what they report, no car does. They are still relevant though, as comparing reported figures from one car to another still works, as they are all tested in the same conditions.

I wish people would stop hammering manufacturers to get their mpg figures right and test in real driving conditions. If they do that you will also get real emmissions figures, much worse than now. You will then pay hundreds of pounds a year for the accuracy, through increased road tax and benefit in kind, if a company car, as they are all emmissions related. Be careful what you wish for!

What annoys me is that every, and I mean every roadtest always perpetuates the manufacturers myth making. Why can't they test the car and report the real mpg.

**Chesterfield313** · 28-01-2015,10:37 PM

Agreed, they keep the secret too. In general for mixed driving I've found that knocking 20% off is about right. Knock more off if your mileage is all town and add a bit if all your miles are on the motorway.

I still don't want the manufacturers to change though. There is no way the government will fairly adjust the tax bands to reflect the real emmissions. They'll just take the cash.

**ukgroucho** · 29-01-2015,01:47 AM

My few thoughts...

3L engines are much more refined than 2L - and it does not matter whether it is the 'old' 2L or the Ultra.
Even the Ultra with 190 bhp is not as quick on the road as a 204 bhp - at least not comparing an Allroad 204 (which is quattro and s-tronic) with a manual pre-ultra and an ultra (190ps s-tronic). The Allroad 204 felt very similar on the road to the C6 3.0 TDi SE Quattro that I had before (which was 224ps or thereabouts I think) - obviously the 15% weight savings from C6 to C7 make a difference here.

When you go to the 245ps or BiTdi (309ps) then it's a whole different animal.

Fuel consumption is another area which has been hammered to death but a few thoughts.
- you will not get the manufacturers figures
- it seems possible that you may get closer to the manufacturers figures with a 3L than you will with a 2L... maybe
something to do with the engine being less stressed in day to day driving when pulling a big car around.
- I've been astonished at how good my BiTdi is compared with my old C6. The C6 managed between 31.4 and 32.4 mpg overall. On a long motorway run you could get high 30s and maybe scrape into low 40s. The BiTdi is averaging between 36 and 37mpg and on a long motorway run mid 40s (if you take it a bit easy) over 50 mpg

**iain120** · 29-01-2015,06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Chesterfield313

The way manufacturers report mpg has been done to death on here. All follow the same set of rules, tested in perfect conditions. You shouldn't expect to get what they report, no car does. They are still relevant though, as comparing reported figures from one car to another still works, as they are all tested in the same conditions.

I wish people would stop hammering manufacturers to get their mpg figures right and test in real driving conditions. If they do that you will also get real emmissions figures, much worse than now. You will then pay hundreds of pounds a year for the accuracy, through increased road tax and benefit in kind, if a company car, as they are all emmissions related. Be careful what you wish for!

I agree with you that you never get the quoted figures, that would be amazing; but I really don't think you can simple compare what they quote like for like. In the real world I can get 50MPG's in my 2L only 7 short of the quoted figure, where as a previous post said in his 3L he was getting mid 30's that's 20 short of the quoted figures!!

**Chesterfield313** · 29-01-2015,09:40 PM

Originally Posted by iain120

I agree with you that you never get the quoted figures, that would be amazing; but I really don't think you can simple compare what they quote like for like. In the real world I can get 50MPG's in my 2L only 7 short of the quoted figure, where as a previous post said in his 3L he was getting mid 30's that's 20 short of the quoted figures!!

I disagree, they are tested in identical conditions so are definitely relevant. What isn't relevant is you comparing your mpg to someone else's on here. You could live somewhere flat and he could live in the Pennines. You might drive sensibly, he might drive flat out everywhere. You might do half your mileage on the motorway, he might do all his in town in stop start traffic. Whatever the circumstances no two people on here will have the same driving style, drive the same places and at the same speed. In the manufacturers tests they do. So they might not be accurate, but they are relevant against each other.

It is the same argument as tyres. Tyre wear can range from 10,000 to 30,000 miles on the same car with the same tyres, depending on where and how you drive.

**Jamidodger17** · 31-01-2015,02:59 PM

Just for the record, when I picked my car up from Milton Keynes (3ltr Quattro) the average mpg from the tank by the time I got home to Leeds was 55mpg. My trip from Sunderland last week was 49mpg going, 53 returning. I know the display is slightly different, but it was still an impressive return from such a large car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**RobGriff** · 31-01-2015,07:09 PM

Wow, I haven't been on the forum for a few days and you guys have given me lots of stuff to think over.
the more i think about it and read up on it i think if i go for the 2.0tdi i will always be thinking that i should have held off for a 3.0tdi.
If i can get one with quattro that would be even better but not essential. Think the reduced mpg for running the quattro wouldn't be worth it for everyday driving.