Manufacturers MPG figures - experience with a new Audi...
Discussion
We all know this anyway but just thought I'd share.
My BMW E61 is in for bodywork repairs and my replacement hire car for the week is a brand new Audi A6 2.0TDI Avant Auto. Nice car and all that but my god it's dull, competent but dull. 7spd Auto suits the engine perfectly and smooths out the torque curve to make for very linear progress, something often lacking with manual derv engines, quiet and refined too. Definitely beats the beemer in terms of ride comfort and media connectivity but that's about it, can't wait to get my own car back tbh!
Anyway.
Autotrader lists the fuel economy spec as follows:-
Fuel consumption (urban) 46.3 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 62.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 55.4 mpg
Reset the OBD this week and it's currently just under 36mpg. That's with mainly local journeys but not particularly stop/start stuff. Makes a mockery of the manufacturers figures really given it's more than 20% down on the urban figure.
For a comparison my car (2008 525d MSport Touring - manual) scores thusly:-
Fuel consumption (urban) 32.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 52.3 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 42.8 mpg
My car is not far off with an average on the OBD of 38mpg.
To be fair the Audi only has a few hundred miles on it so that's probably a factor but is it normal for them to be so badly out?
My BMW E61 is in for bodywork repairs and my replacement hire car for the week is a brand new Audi A6 2.0TDI Avant Auto. Nice car and all that but my god it's dull, competent but dull. 7spd Auto suits the engine perfectly and smooths out the torque curve to make for very linear progress, something often lacking with manual derv engines, quiet and refined too. Definitely beats the beemer in terms of ride comfort and media connectivity but that's about it, can't wait to get my own car back tbh!
Anyway.
Autotrader lists the fuel economy spec as follows:-
Fuel consumption (urban) 46.3 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 62.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 55.4 mpg
Reset the OBD this week and it's currently just under 36mpg. That's with mainly local journeys but not particularly stop/start stuff. Makes a mockery of the manufacturers figures really given it's more than 20% down on the urban figure.
For a comparison my car (2008 525d MSport Touring - manual) scores thusly:-
Fuel consumption (urban) 32.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 52.3 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 42.8 mpg
My car is not far off with an average on the OBD of 38mpg.
To be fair the Audi only has a few hundred miles on it so that's probably a factor but is it normal for them to be so badly out?
Audi say my 4.2 A8 Quattro should do 32mpg on a long run. I don't think I've seen more than 25mpg out of it and I currently average 22mpg over a mixed cycle. Not that I've tried to meet the manufacturer's figures. Some on the A8 Owners forum claim to have done so, and better in a couple of cases. That must require the patience of a saint! I'm skeptical about it being possible but I guess they know better than I!
This is so boring and to be expected from a person who rates a car's media connectivity, whatever that means. The standard mpg figures are not intended accurately to predict the fuel consumption you will obtain from your car when you drive it. Rather, they are intended to enable you to compare one car with another. They tell you what consumption any particular car will achieve when driven on a precisely defined and measured cycle in precisely defined and measured environmental conditions which almost certainly will not resemble any drive you may make on any given occasion. The figures make no sense in isolation and are useful only to compare the performance of one car relative to another when faced with the same task. There are two problems with these figures, the first of which is inevitable. First, manufacturers configure their cars to perform extraordinarily well on the precisely defined and measured cycle in the precisely defined and measured conditions which leads to unrealistic consumer expectations (you might say, change the cycle, but manufacturers will simply reconfigure their products to pass the new test). The second is that consumers are so dumb that they do not understand that the figures are intended to provide information with which to compare different models rather than information about any particular model.
It seems Audi are really shocking at this..I was in an Audi dealership recently...and had a proper chuckle listening to a Sales person ...try to explain to a typical new Audi demographic type lady, the reason why her A5 isn't returning the MPG claimed...
round in circles doesn't cover half of it hahaha
round in circles doesn't cover half of it hahaha
R129SL - each to their own...we could equally criticise you for any interest you have...
Back on topic, I have found that ignoring fuel consumption entirely appears to solve these concerns. Since I started driving my 4.0 XJ (Baryonyx - its not an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro but it is damn nice!
) my spending on petrol has increased. I have therefore decided that I dont care about MPG and just drive the car with the OBC reading total mileage.
Maybe doesnt help but I did test drive a new a6 a few months ago...2.0 TDi and the avg consumption read 48.9 mpg. Not too bad given a demonstrator!
Back on topic, I have found that ignoring fuel consumption entirely appears to solve these concerns. Since I started driving my 4.0 XJ (Baryonyx - its not an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro but it is damn nice!
) my spending on petrol has increased. I have therefore decided that I dont care about MPG and just drive the car with the OBC reading total mileage.Maybe doesnt help but I did test drive a new a6 a few months ago...2.0 TDi and the avg consumption read 48.9 mpg. Not too bad given a demonstrator!
r129sl said:
This is so boring and to be expected from a person who rates a car's media connectivity, whatever that means. The standard mpg figures are not intended accurately to predict the fuel consumption you will obtain from your car when you drive it. Rather, they are intended to enable you to compare one car with another. They tell you what consumption any particular car will achieve when driven on a precisely defined and measured cycle in precisely defined and measured environmental conditions which almost certainly will not resemble any drive you may make on any given occasion. The figures make no sense in isolation and are useful only to compare the performance of one car relative to another when faced with the same task. There are two problems with these figures, the first of which is inevitable. First, manufacturers configure their cars to perform extraordinarily well on the precisely defined and measured cycle in the precisely defined and measured conditions which leads to unrealistic consumer expectations (you might say, change the cycle, but manufacturers will simply reconfigure their products to pass the new test). The second is that consumers are so dumb that they do not understand that the figures are intended to provide information with which to compare different models rather than information about any particular model.
They media comment was purely meant as being a nice way of saying it's s
t compared to my bmw. Also your comment about the mpg figures being a tool to compare one car to another in relative terms turns out to be b
ks. If I was using them to inform a new purchase of the cars in my original post then you can see the audi would give cause for concern. Seems there is a trend with audi anyway based on the replies. And I never said it was going to be interesting.
dave_s13 said:
They media comment was purely meant as being a nice way of saying it's st compared to my bmw.
Also your comment about the mpg figures being a tool to compare one car to another in relative terms turns out to be bks. If I was using them to inform a new purchase of the cars in my original post then you can see the audi would give cause for concern. Seems there is a trend with audi anyway based on the replies.
And I never said it was going to be interesting.
it goes for all cars mate as far as i know, possibly just E.U ones. They way they get the figures is as above and the cycle is done with a engine on a test rig no aircon, no drivetrain losses, no aerodynamics (or lack of) and no car to pull along so thats the reason no cars mpg will hit what the brochures say. its not just Audi.t compared to my bmw. Also your comment about the mpg figures being a tool to compare one car to another in relative terms turns out to be b
ks. If I was using them to inform a new purchase of the cars in my original post then you can see the audi would give cause for concern. Seems there is a trend with audi anyway based on the replies. And I never said it was going to be interesting.
ruff'n'smov said:
It seems Audi are really shocking at this..I was in an Audi dealership recently...and had a proper chuckle listening to a Sales person ...try to explain to a typical new Audi demographic type lady, the reason why her A5 isn't returning the MPG claimed...
round in circles doesn't cover half of it hahaha
Did you even read the reply but one post above yours?round in circles doesn't cover half of it hahaha
Some people are so retarded when it comes to quoted fuel consumption figures it beggars belief.
r129sl said:
The standard mpg figures are not intended accurately to predict the fuel consumption you will obtain from your car when you drive it. Rather, they are intended to enable you to compare one car with another.
This might have been the intent of these tests decades ago, but today I don't think it is true. Today the tests are way more important for the bottom line of a manufacturer than they used to be. They are legal basis for things like "eco" car taxes in many countries around Europe and a factor in many corporate fleet policies. Every car is now massively optimised to do well in lab conditions and it is a rather random thing how well the scores correlate to ones personal driving / fuel consumption results. Since this correlation factor is an unknown, the test results are irrelvant for consumers.
Its clear that car manufacturers are now just designing their cars and drivetrains to meet and beat the standardised tests.
This has lead to solutions such as expensive and complex 8speed automatic transmissions with electronic shift programmes tailored to ensure the engines are at optimum revs for more of the time in the official test. These are in cars with big torquey engines who could happily waft away with 5 or 6 gears.
Also the focus on small capacity, highly complex turbo engines with closed loop systems to make them work, will inevitably mean big bills a few years down the line and probably lead to cars being scrapped earlier than in their lives due to it being uneconomic to repair them.
The manufacturers won't complain about this as we will have to buy there newest shiniest products. But I think we will look back at late 90s/early 2000 cars as a bit of a golden age in car development before engineers got completely boxed in by these rules.
This has lead to solutions such as expensive and complex 8speed automatic transmissions with electronic shift programmes tailored to ensure the engines are at optimum revs for more of the time in the official test. These are in cars with big torquey engines who could happily waft away with 5 or 6 gears.
Also the focus on small capacity, highly complex turbo engines with closed loop systems to make them work, will inevitably mean big bills a few years down the line and probably lead to cars being scrapped earlier than in their lives due to it being uneconomic to repair them.
The manufacturers won't complain about this as we will have to buy there newest shiniest products. But I think we will look back at late 90s/early 2000 cars as a bit of a golden age in car development before engineers got completely boxed in by these rules.
Bisonhead said:
Back on topic, I have found that ignoring fuel consumption entirely appears to solve these concerns. Since I started driving my 4.0 XJ (Baryonyx - its not an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro but it is damn nice! ) my spending on petrol has increased. I have therefore decided that I dont care about MPG and just drive the car with the OBC reading total mileage.
I love a proper Jaguar like this. Any photos? A different kettle of fish to my A8 but my feelings are the same. I probably spend a little more on petrol now that I drive my A8 every day rather than my Impreza. The result? I spend a lot less time thinking about petrol cost and mpg, and more time just enjoying the car and filling it up when it needs it. It still costs me less per month than my mates with nearly new Corsas and Volvo S40's etc etc. ) my spending on petrol has increased. I have therefore decided that I dont care about MPG and just drive the car with the OBC reading total mileage.Might as well have a proper big petrol car whilst you can, they won't be around forever...
If they are going to post absurdly unrealistic fuel efficiency figures done under lab conditions and, as some have stated on here, they should only be taken as a "guideline" to compare new cars against each other with, then why keep using the km/litre or mpg measurements. Why not introduce a whole new fuel efficiency scale, say 1-50 green-red scale,similar to the energy efficiency scaleon white goods. This would completely do away with all the justified complaints about new cars not achieving their claimed fuel consumption figures, and be even clearer to a consumer when considering a new purchase.
I really don't see why consumers should have to take manufacturers figures with a pinch of salt. Just publish some realistic, achievable figures or drop the established fuel consumption measurement.
I really don't see why consumers should have to take manufacturers figures with a pinch of salt. Just publish some realistic, achievable figures or drop the established fuel consumption measurement.
vrsmxtb said:
If they are going to post absurdly unrealistic fuel efficiency figures done under lab conditions and, as some have stated on here, they should only be taken as a "guideline" to compare new cars against each other with, then why keep using the km/litre or mpg measurements. Why not introduce a whole new fuel efficiency scale, say 1-50 green-red scale,similar to the energy efficiency scaleon white goods. This would completely do away with all the justified complaints about new cars not achieving their claimed fuel consumption figures, and be even clearer to a consumer when considering a new purchase.
I really don't see why consumers should have to take manufacturers figures with a pinch of salt. Just publish some realistic, achievable figures or drop the established fuel consumption measurement.
You mean like this?I really don't see why consumers should have to take manufacturers figures with a pinch of salt. Just publish some realistic, achievable figures or drop the established fuel consumption measurement.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff