3.0 TDI A5 Real World Economy

[GruntyDC5]

I have recently moved house and now have a 60 mile round trip everyday for work. This means that my Impreza STI is no longer a suitable car for journeys to work. That daily mileage and all the other running about we do means I think I need to go diesel.

My other half and I share a commute so we are combining 2 cas into 1 and we have settled on the idea of an A5, or possibly A4. I would prefer to go down the 3.0 TDI route to retain a bit of performance but was wondering what MPG figures people are seening with them compared to what is quoted. At this stage still not sure how old the car will be but I am looking at around 2010-2012, I beleive there were some changes at 2012.

I am also considering the 2.0 TDI, which will also be quattro.

[dobinn]

I have the 3.0 tdi in an A6, the 245PS version. It easily manages 40mpg on a run without being too careful. Really impressed with it.

[GruntyDC5]

40-45 is what I am looking for. If it can comfortably do that then I'm likely to go down that route.

Anyone had both 177 2.0 engine and the 3.0? I assume the performance difference is quite noticeable.

[Kell]

I also have an A6 (58 Plate C6) with a 3.0TDi.

I'd say that version only does 40+ on a long run if you're careful. It is capable of doing it, but only if you stick rigidly to the 70mph limit and have it on cruise.

If you're constantly up and down the gears because of traffic, it struggles to manage it.

Also, the huge torque is addictive, so it's very easy to boot it at any opportunity. Which also doesn't help.

[Dr G]

Low 40s in an A5 3.0 TDI is fairly easy on a run, can do 45 if you're mr smooth.

Low-mid 30s easy average with bimbling around driving.

[GruntyDC5]

I think the trade off between performance and economy is probably worth it going with the 3.0 over the 2.0.

[mikes2w]

Gearbox choice seems to make a difference.

I had a 2010 tiptronic and never got more than 39mpg on a full tank, including a 500 mile trip to Dover. 20" wheels probably didn't help either

[GruntyDC5]

All good info. My preference would actually be manual, and I won't be going over 19" wheels.

[djc206]

Try A5oc there'll be dozens of threads on there about diesel economy. The 3.0 is the one to go for. The 2.0 is so unrefined and sounds like a tractor in comparison. Quattro will for obvious reasons reduce the fuel economy but is worth it to get all that power down.

[JNW1]

GruntyDC5 said:

All good info. My preference would actually be manual, and I won't be going over 19" wheels.

Not really a specific Audi point but personally I'd go for an auto with a diesel. You just don't drive a diesel in the same way as a petrol and IMHO an auto is better suited to the characteristics of a diesel engine; you won't be revving it out through the gears for the fun of it so better to have an auto to keep it in what is a relatively narrow power band and let the torque do the work!

Edited by JNW1 on Monday 11th August 22:26

[sleepersix]

I ran a 2008 manual A5 3.0 TDI Quattro Sport for three years and 60k miles. Lovely car with a really good combination of strong performance when you want it with great economy. Took mine on a driving trip to the alps in June this year - handled the alpine passes brilliantly and I saw 47mpg on the display for the 85mph cruise on the autoroutes across France. The 2.0 TDI will not compare. The 3.0 even sounds reasonable for a diesel

[GruntyDC5]

JNW1 said:

Not really a specific Audi point but personally I'd go for an auto with a diesel. You just don't drive a diesel in the same way as a petrol and IMHO an auto is better suited to the characteristics of a diesel engine; you won't be revving it out through the gears for the fun of it so better to have an auto to keep it in what is a relatively narrow power band and let the torque do the work!

Edited by JNW1 on Monday 11th August 22:26

Hadn't really considered that, I've always had manuals ( a few very high revving ones) and the only time I have ever driven autos is when I have been in the states with work. I assume the auto is also better suited to the 2.0.

[blueg33]

I have been surprised

I sold my A6 (C6) 3.0tdi quattro in March and replaced it with a Lotus Evora.

On a motorway run at 75mph the A6 gave me 40mpg, the Evora gives me 40mpg at 80mph on the motorway. The A6 averaged 35mpg over its 7 years with me the Evora is sligtly under that at 33mpg. On cold mornings and town centre drives I get better mpg from the Evora than the A6.

What is all this leading to......well a diesel car is not necessarily the best answer to your question. There may be ways to have more fun at a similar cost.

Don;t get me wrong, I loved my A6 thats why I had it for 7 years from new but other perhaps surprising options exist

[blueg33]

[redacted]

[GruntyDC5]

mmm, Evora, I'll see if I can sell that to the other half!

I reckon we will be doing at least 22k a year with commuting, weeked driving, weekends away etc so I'm pretty sure diesel will make most sense. In a decent sized car at least that can hold a bit of luggage etc.

[blueg33]

GruntyDC5 said:

mmm, Evora, I'll see if I can sell that to the other half!

I reckon we will be doing at least 22k a year with commuting, weeked driving, weekends away etc so I'm pretty sure diesel will make most sense. In a decent sized car at least that can hold a bit of luggage etc.

I am doing £2k miles per month in the Evora. Downside is service intervals and rear tyre costs (standard rears are same as my A6 had but only last 6k miles. Plus side, regular unleaded is cheaper than diesel.

Evora has a back seat and a boot. It hold a decent amount of luggage too. I even use it for the school run collecting my daughetr and her conveniently short friend

[GruntyDC5]

I borrowed a friends 2.0l petrol version a while back and it does seem to be a nice place to sit for the commute. Diesel version seems to tick all the boxes for what we want. Also keeps the missus happy because she is a badge snob!

[JNW1]

GruntyDC5 said:

JNW1 said:

Not really a specific Audi point but personally I'd go for an auto with a diesel. You just don't drive a diesel in the same way as a petrol and IMHO an auto is better suited to the characteristics of a diesel engine; you won't be revving it out through the gears for the fun of it so better to have an auto to keep it in what is a relatively narrow power band and let the torque do the work!

Edited by JNW1 on Monday 11th August 22:26

Hadn't really considered that, I've always had manuals ( a few very high revving ones) and the only time I have ever driven autos is when I have been in the states with work. I assume the auto is also better suited to the 2.0.

I'm a petrol head through and through but when circumstances (higher mileage) pushed me towards a diesel a few years ago I got myself a manual E46 330cd BMW; big mistake! As I say, you simply don't drive a diesel in the same way as a petrol and in my experience a good auto is far better suited to the characteristics and power delivery of a diesel engine. We've recently got a second-hand E91 335d for my other half and, even though it has the older generation 6-speed auto, it works very well with the diesel (just keeps the revs where all the torque is and gives effortless and fairly rapid progress as a result). Obviously all IMO but just because you like a manual with a petrol (as I do!) that doesn't necessarily make it the right choice with a diesel; my strong advice would be to try both and see which you prefer!

Edited by JNW1 on Tuesday 12th August 13:29

[roddyp]

What about a A5 2.0 TFSI Quattro petrol instead?

Fuel economy will be worse, of course. But they're a lot cheaper in the first place.

[RammyMP]

roddyp said:

What about a A5 2.0 TFSI Quattro petrol instead?

Fuel economy will be worse, of course. But they're a lot cheaper in the first place.

Mines a FWD, not quattro 211 ps, I get on average 35 mpg. Had an indicated 50 mpg a few times on a steady cruise. I'd recommend it though. I got one as it was a fair bit cheaper than the 3.0 tdi.