Wednesday 1st March 2017

Audi S4 Avant: PH Fleet

After a month and several thousand miles, we're really getting to know the big red Audi

---

After last month's introduction to the PH Fleet, it has been straight down to business for the S4 Avant. The car arrived with just over 150 miles on the clock, but as it sits in the car park quietly cooling after my regular morning commute to London it is now showing 3,000-odd miles on its wonderfully high resolution Virtual Cockpit. As such, I've certainly not lacked time behind the wheel in which to form some opinions.

Which is what makes it all the more strange that I continue to blow hot and cold. I'm struggling to think of another car that's ever had me sitting so resolutely on the fence.

On the one hand, the S4 is great. It is fast, full of equipment, practical, looks good, is supremely comfortable and the damping is brilliantly judged and usable in all of the available modes. It sounds decent, handles neatly and is extremely surefooted on winter roads, making rapid progress extraordinarily accessible. All of which make it extremely easy to live with.

There's a but coming
On the other hand there are a couple of problems that we identified very early on. The steering isn't great and is described best by Editor Trent, who went full Queef with his appraisal and describing it as "flaccid, gloopy and inert". Equally, the gearbox is a bit slow off the mark in manual mode and occasionally seems to have a mind of its own. That being said, it is superb when left to its own devices in everyday use.

So on balance, there are a lot more plus points than negative ones. Yet at times I still find myself struggling to decide if I like it or not. No blame can be levelled at this not being "my sort of car" either. Aside from being a self-confessed lover of fast estate cars, I previously ran a Volvo V60 Polestar as a long-termer, which shares a huge number of similarities with the S4. £50K price tag, 350ish horsepower, four-wheel drive, six-cylinder turbocharged engine, slightly slow gearbox, supremely comfortable seats, confidence inspiring handling and enough sporting intent to encourage you to hustle it down your favourite road. But where the S4 leaves me lukewarm, I adored the Volvo and couldn't get enough of it.

Since replaced with a new and more powerful four-cylinder, 'my' six-cylinder version's thirst was offset by the character of its engine. The S4, meanwhile, benefits from having that brand new EA383 engine that, whilst not as characterful, is at least designed to incorporate the latest technology, auto stop start and switchable drive modes in order to extract the maximum fuel efficiency from it. Or so you'd think. Despite official claims of 37.7mpg for the combined fuel cycle, it doesn't get anywhere close to that. 30mpg is just about achievable on a long motorway journey if you happen to have a tail wind and plot a route that is mainly downhill. In day to day driving, low 20s are more likely.

This has lead to me almost exclusively driving the S4 in the Efficiency drive mode in an attempt to eke out some more range, which is something I've never resorted to before. Sadly this dulls the throttle response to a point where it sometimes feels like the car is stuck in top gear. All of which is no doubt further tainting my impressions. In writing this I've just realised that I need to run an experiment. For the next month I'm going to do my best to completely disregard economy and drive the S4 in a more enjoyable fashion, making use of the more dynamic engine modes. All in the name of science, of course.

Whilst I'm sure my bank balance won't thank me, maybe that'll do the trick and help me to bond with the car a bit more.

---

FACT SHEET
Car: 2016 Audi S4 Avant
On fleet since: January 2017
Mileage: 3,814
List price new: £44,415 (As tested £49,770 comprising Misano Red paint for £645, Quattro sport with Sport Differential for £1,200, 19-inch diamond cut wheels for £550, Light and Vision pack for £750, Adaptive S Sport suspension with damping control for £900, Audi phonebox with wireless charging for £325 and on the road costs of £985)
Last month at a glance: First impressions? More like thirst impressions...

Previous updates:
Audi S4 arrives on the fleet
Audi S4: Review

[havoc]

article said:

Despite official claims of 37.7mpg for the combined fuel cycle, it doesn't get anywhere close to that. 30mpg is just about achievable on a long motorway journey if you happen to have a tail wind and plot a route that is mainly downhill. In day to day driving, low 20s are more likely.

VAG seem to have got VERY good at gaming the emissions/economy system without actually delivering it in the real world to owners - my (very short-lived) vRS230 was the same, c.40% off claimed combined.

article said:

Editor Trent, who went full Queef with his appraisal

:tropicthunder: Never go full-Queef!

[Alucidnation]

Nice predictable review from PH as usual.

[big_rob_sydney]

On the one hand, there are questions about VAG's truthfulness, versus the somewhat opaque testing mechanisms in place.

On the other, I find the reviewers comments a little strange. Yes, fine, it will cost more in fuel. But how much more? Are we talking the third world debt of Botswana's difference, or is it more like a coffee a day's difference? Can you work it out over the course of, say, the actual month you had it so far? It would be interesting to see how much the difference seems to be (granted different people drive differently).

[parabolica]

Looks just like every other A4 out there (or should I say every A4 looks like the S given the popularity of the S-line trim). Miss the older styling with flared arches and beefier kits.

[PorkRind]

Always Understeering Dynamically Inert

[havoc]

big_rob_sydney said:

On the other, I find the reviewers comments a little strange. Yes, fine, it will cost more in fuel. But how much more? Are we talking the third world debt of Botswana's difference, or is it more like a coffee a day's difference? Can you work it out over the course of, say, the actual month you had it so far? It would be interesting to see how much the difference seems to be (granted different people drive differently).

3,814 miles over 2 months.

So, per month, assuming SUL 98RON fuel @ £1.28/litre:-

Official 37.7mpg = 50.6 gals/mth = £294/mth
"eco-driving" 30mpg = 63.6 gals/mth = £370/mth
"real-world" 23mpg = 82.9 gals/mth = £482/mth

Now 1,900 miles/mth is above average, so half that = 11,500 miles per year.
- So the gap between claimed combined and actual M-way eco-driving for an average user is £38/mth / £450/yr
- And the gap between claimed combined and real-world combined use for an average user is £94/mth / £1,100/yr

95RON supermarket fuel would knock ~5-6% off those differences, but not a lot. And if we assume the PH crew have heavier-than-average right feet and the real-world average user will get say 26mpg, that's 'only' £66/mth (£800/yr) more than the official expectation.



More pertinently to me, how much more real-world economical is this (and the 340i/M4, and the C43/C63AMG, etc. etc.) vs their nat-asp predecessors. Because if the answer is "not a fat lot", then all we've achieved is a load of torque at the expense of noise, throttle-response and character...

[TurboHatchback]

havoc said:

article said:

Despite official claims of 37.7mpg for the combined fuel cycle, it doesn't get anywhere close to that. 30mpg is just about achievable on a long motorway journey if you happen to have a tail wind and plot a route that is mainly downhill. In day to day driving, low 20s are more likely.

VAG seem to have got VERY good at gaming the emissions/economy system without actually delivering it in the real world to owners - my (very short-lived) vRS230 was the same, c.40% off claimed combined.

My experiences of vaguely modern VAG cars was quite the opposite.

• Mk5 Golf GTI: Averaged high 30s, managed mid 40s on the motorway.
• Audi A6 4.2 FSI Quattro: Averaged just under 30, managed mid 30s on the motorway

Obviously a heavy car which can make 350hp will burn a lot of fuel if you have heavy feet but driven economically VAG direct injection engines are remarkably efficient.

I think the current S4 looks great, all the car you could ever really need. Maybe in about 12 years I'll have one.

[scenario8]

Comparing the current forced induction engines with previously available injection engines is all well and good but right now they're not an option. Of more significance to me is to compare this model's consumption with those of its obvious current competitors (ie the C43, 340i and other possibles like Macans and so on). At least anecdotally it seems this VAG engine is a bit thirsty. In time online fuel comparison sites might give a fuller picture.

That said, I would expect about 25mpg in mixed use to be about what I might expect. These cars remain quite big and heavy after all.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Alucidnation said:

Nice predictable review from PH as usual.

they can only report on what they have

[Krikkit]

big_rob_sydney said:

On the one hand, there are questions about VAG's truthfulness, versus the somewhat opaque testing mechanisms in place.

On the other, I find the reviewers comments a little strange. Yes, fine, it will cost more in fuel. But how much more? Are we talking the third world debt of Botswana's difference, or is it more like a coffee a day's difference? Can you work it out over the course of, say, the actual month you had it so far? It would be interesting to see how much the difference seems to be (granted different people drive differently).

I suppose it depends on your mileage. The other thing not to be underestimated is range - if you can afford an S4 from new running it over high miles a few quid extra per month for fuel might not matter, but if you can only do 250 miles between fill-ups rather than 400 it's a significant frustration.

[havoc]

TurboHatchback said:

My experiences of vaguely modern VAG cars was quite the opposite.

• Mk5 Golf GTI: Averaged high 30s, managed mid 40s on the motorway.
• Audi A6 4.2 FSI Quattro: Averaged just under 30, managed mid 30s on the motorway

Actually I agree with you on those two - wife had a Mk5 GTi, and while we didn't see your level of economy it was always north of 30mpg combined use, while the naturally aspirated 4.2 was supposed to be pretty good on fuel.

I'm specifically referring to the latest-gen turbo'd engines, which show much better on-paper figures than their predecessors but no real-world improvement.

[Crankie Shaft]

I've just clicked 22,000 miles in 22 months in my M135iAT 5 door. According to my MPG app, I've averaged 29.71 MPG (the fuel computer on the OBC says 29.9).

I think my driving style/journeys is a good mix of motorway/urban/city/country. I actually find ECO-PRO much more comfortable on long motorway slogs as the acceleration pick up is smooth without feeling like the engine is being strangled and the gearbox doesn't kick down as much as it does in Comfort. I've seen over 40 MPG on the trip for particularly lengthy, parsimonious eco-pro motorway runs.

I also enjoy giving it a good spanking on our country roads at the weekend, and mooching around in Sport mode and manual to make the exhaust pop and crackle in a socially unacceptable manner.

IIRC the 'official' combined MPG is supposed to be 37.7, so I'm about 20% out overall, although my best tank was 37.03 and I don't remember that being a particularly painful tank of fuel to use.

This is consistent with the other BMW/MINIs I've owned. Always been within 20% of the official combined.

Yeh yeh I know...the last thing I should be caring about in a M135i is the fuel consumption.

Might go out now and give it a good ragging just to redeem myself...

[rtz62]

Chooses performance version of A4
Drives performance version of A4 in 'economy' mode.
I sense an Alan Partridge quote coming on, let alone a Troy Queef one....

[ZX10R NIN]

Is anyone really shocked at the economy? It sounds like it's a capable cruiser the real question is, is it a decent fun steer?

[Wills2]

Surprised at the lack of long run economy, my M3 can get over 40mpg

[sicasey]

My 2016 A4 Avant with the miserly 1.4 litre engine struggles to achieve higher than 36MPG when driven sympathetically.

As a side note, if you didn't know the actual engine capacity you could be forgiven for thinking it was bigger than it is. Quite remarkable really and just goes to show how engine technology has advanced.

A complete gamble on a cheap lease deal without driving one and I rarely find times where I wish it had a heftier engine.

Edited by sicasey on Wednesday 1st March 21:45

[Wills2]

sicasey said:

My 2016 A4 Avant with the miserly 1.4 litre engine struggles to achieve higher than 36MPG when driven sympathetically.

As a side note, if you didn't know the actual engine capacity you could be forgiven for thinking it was bigger than it is. Quite remarkable really and just goes to show how engine technology has advanced.

Edited by sicasey on Wednesday 1st March 21:45

I'd say that shows the opposite, pretty appalling MPG from a 1.4.

[scenario8]

What should we expect in typical driving from a petrol powered car of this heft to achieve? Even the 1.4 is going to be lugging around in the region of 1700kilos in the real world, is pushing 5 metres in length, knocks out in the order of 150 horsepower and would be capable of 9 odd seconds dashes to 60 and autobahn storming top speeds. My fist car was a 1,4 and would average under 40 filthy miles per gallon despite weighing less than two thirds of that weight 25 years ago. And it was far slower. Others have reported these modern small capacity patrols can hit 50mpg on a gentle run which seems pretty good to me.

[Wills2]

scenario8 said:

What should we expect in typical driving from a petrol powered car of this heft to achieve? Even the 1.4 is going to be lugging around in the region of 1700kilos in the real world, is pushing 5 metres in length, knocks out in the order of 150 horsepower and would be capable of 9 odd seconds dashes to 60 and autobahn storming top speeds. My fist car was a 1,4 and would average under 40 filthy miles per gallon despite weighing less than two thirds of that weight 25 years ago. And it was far slower. Others have reported these modern small capacity patrols can hit 50mpg on a gentle run which seems pretty good to me.

Better MPG than a 430hp 3.0 6 petrol that'll hit 100mph in less than 9 secs? As posted above, 36mpg from 150hp car is joke IMHO.

[scenario8]

Wills2 said:

scenario8 said:

What should we expect in typical driving from a petrol powered car of this heft to achieve? Even the 1.4 is going to be lugging around in the region of 1700kilos in the real world, is pushing 5 metres in length, knocks out in the order of 150 horsepower and would be capable of 9 odd seconds dashes to 60 and autobahn storming top speeds. My fist car was a 1,4 and would average under 40 filthy miles per gallon despite weighing less than two thirds of that weight 25 years ago. And it was far slower. Others have reported these modern small capacity patrols can hit 50mpg on a gentle run which seems pretty good to me.

Better MPG than a 430hp 3.0 6 petrol that'll hit 100mph in less than 9 secs? As posted above, 36mpg from 150hp car is joke IMHO.

It's late and I'm pretty tired so would you mind clarifying which 430hp 3.0 6 (cylinder?) petrol car that will hit 100mph in less than 9 secs we're talking about that in identical conditions will consume similar or less fuel than a current generation petrol A4? I have no bun in this fight but contend mixed driving in a current generation A4 returning 36mpg sounds reasonable. Audi forums suggest 50mpg is achievable on the motorway and on gentle runs. For a non hybrid petrol,car of that size and heft those figures sound reasonable. For a 430hp modern executive car capable of 911 humbling acceleration those figures appear astonishing.