RE: Audi RS5 TDI: Driven
Discussion
dukebox9reg said:
'Audi has embraced the black pump more wholeheartedly than its German rivals'
Ignoring the Bmw 123d, 125d and new tri-turbo a bit there aren't we?
Along with the PH favourite a remapped 335/535d
Ha.. Fair one!Ignoring the Bmw 123d, 125d and new tri-turbo a bit there aren't we?
Along with the PH favourite a remapped 335/535d
I don't think Audi have embraced it as much as their main German rival. No one does a diesel like BMW in my opinion.
MC Bodge said:
I'm really not sure why people are arguing about this.
The powerplant ultimately just turns the wheels.
Enthusiasts often want a large torque applied to the wheels (the crank torque is fairly irrelevant), to enable rapid acceleration. If necessary, a gearbox is used to allow the powerplant to work in its most effective rotational speed range.
Different powerplant types are available, with different power delivery characteristics, som e of which may appeal to certain people more than others.
For most people, decent performance with relatively low fuel consumption makes sense and are a consideration. Considerations of pollution and/or life-time costs probably less so.
Driving a V8 that does less than 20mpg (on a good day) 1000s of miles every year isn't that appealing to many people.
It's only really the Italian V8s that still return sub-20mpg on average, other than in the huge SUV type things. In almost all cars, the petrol game has moved on a LONG way from those days. Mine is better on fuel than the little 3.0 V6 it's replaced. Direct injection and fancy gearboxes have worked as many wonders on petrol engines as they have on diesels. It's disingenious to compare a modern diesel to a petrol V8 designed twenty years ago and declare diesels better.The powerplant ultimately just turns the wheels.
Enthusiasts often want a large torque applied to the wheels (the crank torque is fairly irrelevant), to enable rapid acceleration. If necessary, a gearbox is used to allow the powerplant to work in its most effective rotational speed range.
Different powerplant types are available, with different power delivery characteristics, som e of which may appeal to certain people more than others.
For most people, decent performance with relatively low fuel consumption makes sense and are a consideration. Considerations of pollution and/or life-time costs probably less so.
Driving a V8 that does less than 20mpg (on a good day) 1000s of miles every year isn't that appealing to many people.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 23 July 22:02
I honestly think this sub-20mpg hard-on most people have about big petrols is just self-reassurance that they don't regret settling for the diesel engine.
So what are we comparing? The V8 halo model versus diesel 'warm' model found in most big saloon type scenarios or are we comparing roughly equivalent power/performance levels as found in much of the BMW/Merc ranges etc?
Let's assume the VED is indeed twice as much costing an additional £250 or whatever insignificant sum* it is over the diesel for the year. My new 550ps V8 has averaged 27.7mpg over the >2000 miles I've done in it so far, which being new to me has involved some motorway cruising but also some city driving and honeymoon period over-use of power and general inefficient driving. The 275ps diesels seem to average somewhere around 35-40mpg depending on driving style and type of use according to the owners' club forums. There is a cost delta - sure - but it's nowhere near as big as you're making out. The 340ps V6 petrol I expect (but haven't checked) will be returning somewhere between my average and low-mid-30s mpg and will possibly be a tax band lower - or not, but the difference in tax makes no difference to the cost of ownership of anything but the cheapest cars.
BMW and Merc figures are similarly close - the deltas just aren't there and it's simply false to claim that a petrol will cost twice as much to run as a diesel.
Lastly, very few people actually drive 20k per year in one car. It's only the travelling rep types who are usually in fleet cars anyway and the odd London commuter who generally prefer to get the train. For most of the UK population crammed in to the south eastern corner of the island, it would be impressive work to manage to cover 20000 miles in a year driving around there. There wouldn't be time for much else.
Personally I live just under 30 miles away from work and even my silly big petrols are using just 1 tank per week which would be less if I had more patience and was willing to sit behind hatchbacks, 4x4s, pickups and vans which all slow down too much for bends and corners but I'm not and I overtake multiple vehicles every day (single carriageway - that would not be remarkable on a multi-lane road).
Let's assume the VED is indeed twice as much costing an additional £250 or whatever insignificant sum* it is over the diesel for the year. My new 550ps V8 has averaged 27.7mpg over the >2000 miles I've done in it so far, which being new to me has involved some motorway cruising but also some city driving and honeymoon period over-use of power and general inefficient driving. The 275ps diesels seem to average somewhere around 35-40mpg depending on driving style and type of use according to the owners' club forums. There is a cost delta - sure - but it's nowhere near as big as you're making out. The 340ps V6 petrol I expect (but haven't checked) will be returning somewhere between my average and low-mid-30s mpg and will possibly be a tax band lower - or not, but the difference in tax makes no difference to the cost of ownership of anything but the cheapest cars.
BMW and Merc figures are similarly close - the deltas just aren't there and it's simply false to claim that a petrol will cost twice as much to run as a diesel.
Lastly, very few people actually drive 20k per year in one car. It's only the travelling rep types who are usually in fleet cars anyway and the odd London commuter who generally prefer to get the train. For most of the UK population crammed in to the south eastern corner of the island, it would be impressive work to manage to cover 20000 miles in a year driving around there. There wouldn't be time for much else.
Personally I live just under 30 miles away from work and even my silly big petrols are using just 1 tank per week which would be less if I had more patience and was willing to sit behind hatchbacks, 4x4s, pickups and vans which all slow down too much for bends and corners but I'm not and I overtake multiple vehicles every day (single carriageway - that would not be remarkable on a multi-lane road).
- In the context of new owner - if you can't afford to tax it, you can't afford the depreciation of a new car.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Thursday 24th July 07:27
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Thursday 24th July 07:28
scherzkeks said:
If you could have increased MPG as well as performance over a petrol, why would you not take it?
Because it still sounds like a tractor. A speaker in the exhaust FFS, it's incredible someone thought (a) that was a good idea and (b) managed to convince a room full of allegedly highly qualified and intelligent people to sign off on it.Welshbeef said:
The problem for petrols is you can only hit max power in 1st and 2nd legally in UK roads.
A question for those who keep banging on about you need revs and torque - well what about all electric cars they have full torque from zero revs to 5,000 revs so a massive area under the curve.
What about 0-100mph in 11 seconds, that's fast so is 4.6seconds to 62mph that is F30 335d standard performance. Really quick great handling 5,500 rpm very petrol like urgency and delivery (also most petrols these days are turbo and have traditional TDI delivery and similar rev ranges)
Electric cars are completely different, we're on about engines with reciprocating pistons and combustible fuel. Another reason diesels aren't as rev happy as petrols is because the pistons, conrods and block are all much heavier to cope with the huge pressures needed for diesel combustion. A question for those who keep banging on about you need revs and torque - well what about all electric cars they have full torque from zero revs to 5,000 revs so a massive area under the curve.
What about 0-100mph in 11 seconds, that's fast so is 4.6seconds to 62mph that is F30 335d standard performance. Really quick great handling 5,500 rpm very petrol like urgency and delivery (also most petrols these days are turbo and have traditional TDI delivery and similar rev ranges)
If you could afford to run a 335i, you would take it over the 35d for driving thrills. As a daily driver, I could understand the diesel a bit more however a petrol is always smoother so again aside from cost the diesel is inferior.
manmaths said:
Prawnboy said:
read the article: it has the inside speaker sound too.
read my post: I was giving my opinion on the A6 bitdi which I've driven. It has the actuator but no interior speaker. My point was, I could live with exhaust fakery but not interior fakery. As said, there's lots of low revving petrol engines and some relatively high revving diesel engines but the issue to me at least is slow response times to throttle inputs and non linear power delivery. Diesels are pretty crap in this regard. My oil burner needs a week's notice from the throttle pedal and has a powerband like a 2 stroke moped. If you get caught out of the powerband it struggles to get out of it's own way.
The funny thing about these speaker / noise "enhancing" systems is that they all add weight...yeah, OK, it's only a little bit but in addition to a heavy diesel engine, turbos & the associated plumbing and other emissions equipment it all adds-up. This car probably weighs close to 2 tons.
To be honest, I really don't find the technology impressive at all, especially in the context of an Audi "RS" model. I'd rather have a Tesla if I needed an "eco" car / one with cheap fuel bills. Cars like the Model S are much more impressive, especially for a first attempt at an everyday car. - Future models will only get better (improved batteries, more range, less charging time, less weight).
To be honest, I really don't find the technology impressive at all, especially in the context of an Audi "RS" model. I'd rather have a Tesla if I needed an "eco" car / one with cheap fuel bills. Cars like the Model S are much more impressive, especially for a first attempt at an everyday car. - Future models will only get better (improved batteries, more range, less charging time, less weight).
You are quite entitled to drive a petrol V8. Your mpg isn't bad.
Most people do just drive on traffic-clogged roads though. There is a market for a flash, fast diesel which is why manufacturers make them.
They may not be the perfect solution for all enthusiasts, but I'm not sure why some people care so much about their existence.
Tax based on EU test frigging.
It's still a significant difference in fuel costs too and a lot of people do drive many miles per year.
Most people do just drive on traffic-clogged roads though. There is a market for a flash, fast diesel which is why manufacturers make them.
They may not be the perfect solution for all enthusiasts, but I'm not sure why some people care so much about their existence.
jamieduff1981 said:
- if you can't afford to tax it, you can't afford the depreciation
I was thinking more about company car Tax based on EU test frigging.
It's still a significant difference in fuel costs too and a lot of people do drive many miles per year.
unpc said:
As said, there's lots of low revving petrol engines and some relatively high revving diesel engines but the issue to me at least is slow response times to throttle inputs and non linear power delivery. Diesels are pretty crap in this regard. My oil burner needs a week's notice from the throttle pedal and has a powerband like a 2 stroke moped. If you get caught out of the powerband it struggles to get out of it's own way.
Yep and youve just summed up why Audi are sticking the 48v air dryer motor at the front.FrankUnderwood said:
Some of the straight line heroes will go on about torque but it's power (i.e a combination of revs and torque) at the wheels that counts, for example circa 5200 lb/ft of torque at 1rpm gives about 1bhp - That would make for one slow car!
Exactly and given how low diesels rev, their gearboxs (torque mulitpliers) are geared longer therefore reducing the output (torque at the wheels). So the headline torque figure advantages are never translated to a road advantage in a linera fashion.For outright performance Power is still the measurement to be taken serioulsy because it factors in revs and therefore factors the rate of work.
dukebox9reg said:
unpc said:
As said, there's lots of low revving petrol engines and some relatively high revving diesel engines but the issue to me at least is slow response times to throttle inputs and non linear power delivery. Diesels are pretty crap in this regard. My oil burner needs a week's notice from the throttle pedal and has a powerband like a 2 stroke moped. If you get caught out of the powerband it struggles to get out of it's own way.
Yep and youve just summed up why Audi are sticking the 48v air dryer motor at the front.I think someone nailed this earlier on but I cant find the quote - the problem seems to be that they have called it an RS model not that they have made a fast diesel.
This is just a diesel halo model, and if you ignore the emotional issue of the nomenclature then it makes a lot of sense.
If you want a revvy, 'track focused' car (as much as a 4wd family saloon can be) for pure driving pleasure and are not worried about fuel bills as you either don't drive far or are very wealthy - then Audi will quite happily sell you the petrol RS.
Want a nicely equipped GT style car with epic torque throughout the rev range, bearable economy if you do significant mileage, nice handling when you occasionally want to 'push on a little' on the B-roads and enough performance to out drag most cars at the traffic lights - then a diesel halo model makes a real case for itself.
I think it depends on your personal needs, but most people actually drive their cars on boring traffic filled roads 95% of the time and therefore need a compromise. Even the petrol RS is a compromise as if all you really cared about was a pure driving experience then you would probably get something else, but in reality people want aircon, satnav, back seats etc. etc.
Big petrols are great for some people but fast diesels fit with other peoples requirements perfectly as well, and cars like the BMW 640D and 335D's are great day to day cars. A RS5TDI is just a natural extension of car manufacturers continual niche filling, making sure they have a car that meets every set of personal requirements they can imagine.
Personally I like them and as a 'car to do it all' then I think they are a really good idea - particularly for those doing 20k miles or more a year as I would suspect the difference in fuel bills becomes significant then.
This is just a diesel halo model, and if you ignore the emotional issue of the nomenclature then it makes a lot of sense.
If you want a revvy, 'track focused' car (as much as a 4wd family saloon can be) for pure driving pleasure and are not worried about fuel bills as you either don't drive far or are very wealthy - then Audi will quite happily sell you the petrol RS.
Want a nicely equipped GT style car with epic torque throughout the rev range, bearable economy if you do significant mileage, nice handling when you occasionally want to 'push on a little' on the B-roads and enough performance to out drag most cars at the traffic lights - then a diesel halo model makes a real case for itself.
I think it depends on your personal needs, but most people actually drive their cars on boring traffic filled roads 95% of the time and therefore need a compromise. Even the petrol RS is a compromise as if all you really cared about was a pure driving experience then you would probably get something else, but in reality people want aircon, satnav, back seats etc. etc.
Big petrols are great for some people but fast diesels fit with other peoples requirements perfectly as well, and cars like the BMW 640D and 335D's are great day to day cars. A RS5TDI is just a natural extension of car manufacturers continual niche filling, making sure they have a car that meets every set of personal requirements they can imagine.
Personally I like them and as a 'car to do it all' then I think they are a really good idea - particularly for those doing 20k miles or more a year as I would suspect the difference in fuel bills becomes significant then.
Its coming in the new Q7 as expected.... the SQ7.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-aud...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-aud...
Audi bod said:
The new Q7 will be available in the market next year but the electric turbo will come a bit later in the Audi SQ7 available in 2016
Edited by JonnyVTEC on Thursday 24th July 13:41
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff