RE: Audi S6 Avant vs. Mercedes-AMG E53 Estate
Discussion
You are discounting the hybrid from the argument, why? They make cars sound like milk floats at low speeds.
the fact that it has 6 cylinders is not a big deal in the argument. All the current 6 cylinder turbo cars I have heard sound s
t, m4, rs6, m240i. It’s all whiirrrrrre fart fart fart a contrived series of uneccesary pops that are the same pattern every time organised by the cars ecu to try and add some ‘character’. Whiiirrrrrre repeat. 6 cylinder might be a tiny improvement but it only makes it the best turd in the sewer.
the fact that it has 6 cylinders is not a big deal in the argument. All the current 6 cylinder turbo cars I have heard sound s
t, m4, rs6, m240i. It’s all whiirrrrrre fart fart fart a contrived series of uneccesary pops that are the same pattern every time organised by the cars ecu to try and add some ‘character’. Whiiirrrrrre repeat. 6 cylinder might be a tiny improvement but it only makes it the best turd in the sewer. 
j_s14a said:
My money would be in a Volvo V90 T8 (PHEV). Similar cost, similar performance, better economy, much better looking, not embarrassing to be seen in.
Fair point. Mine went on this. 540i. Not quite as quick, but certainly fast enough in the real world, a fair bit cheaper, and in my opinion a better interior, as doesn't have stupid ipad to do everything
Resolutionary said:
100% agree.Fake exhausts, fake engine noises, overly complicated, zero driver appeal, expensive 2 tonne rocket ships.
Zero appeal to me.
Unless you only have space on your drive for 1 car (which is unlikely given the price of these things) I dont see the point.
I have an E350cdi estate, and it is fantastic for what it is dull mile munching and 700 mile range.
My old M5 feels like a small sports car in comparison, making great noises and analogue and fun to drive, yet still practical.
nickfrog said:
They seem like excellent solutions for family transport, particularly if you have space for more than 1 car.
I agree. I have space for 2 cars on the drive and a toy in the garage. Currently this is covered by my C63 estate(the old 6.2), my wife's A3 and my kitcar.The C63 will need replacing eventually (the day to day impact of out of date infotainment systems etc slowly build up for the daily especially when I drive the much newer A3 and see the difference). The E53 would be on the shortlist. It has all the same practicality (and more), it has more than enough real world performance and I'm sure is a nice place to be every day. With the added bonus of much better motorway fuel consumption so I don't have to justify taking it over the A3 on long trips.
The C/E63/Rs4/6 are all modern overkill turbos now so have lost some of the charm of the hot rod NA V8 and are massively more expensive.
cossey said:
I agree. I have space for 2 cars on the drive and a toy in the garage. Currently this is covered by my C63 estate(the old 6.2), my wife's A3 and my kitcar.
The C63 will need replacing eventually (the day to day impact of out of date infotainment systems etc slowly build up for the daily especially when I drive the much newer A3 and see the difference). The E53 would be on the shortlist. It has all the same practicality (and more), it has more than enough real world performance and I'm sure is a nice place to be every day. With the added bonus of much better motorway fuel consumption so I don't have to justify taking it over the A3 on long trips.
The C/E63/Rs4/6 are all modern overkill turbos now so have lost some of the charm of the hot rod NA V8 and are massively more expensive.
In a similar situation, we have plenty of space. Currently the 540i makes a great family all-rounder. Comfortable, spacious and a bit of fun when I get the chance. S6 wasn't available when I ordered last year (and wouldn't have gone diesel if this was the option), and can't get on with Merc's styling.The C63 will need replacing eventually (the day to day impact of out of date infotainment systems etc slowly build up for the daily especially when I drive the much newer A3 and see the difference). The E53 would be on the shortlist. It has all the same practicality (and more), it has more than enough real world performance and I'm sure is a nice place to be every day. With the added bonus of much better motorway fuel consumption so I don't have to justify taking it over the A3 on long trips.
The C/E63/Rs4/6 are all modern overkill turbos now so have lost some of the charm of the hot rod NA V8 and are massively more expensive.
MGB in the garage is for sun and tinkering, and we are currently in discussion (sort of
) about whether number three will be a v8 Vantage or a VW Camper van...jakesmith said:
silentbrown said:
simonbamg said:
S6 for me i like the tailpipes
Seriously? You know they're dummies.
As if these cars could get any less appealing to me
Two different sides of the same turd these two
Depressing
Saw a couple of golf R’s boot it last week sounds like a washing machine building up to spin, farting as it changes up then more washing machine noises. Can’t imagine these two are an improvement on that given their powertrains
At least1.6 chavved civics etc with twin exhausts split from the original pipe are actually exhausts.
I guess it must be an environmental issue.
22mpg played 28 on our shoot.
Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
bluesierra said:
22mpg played 28 on our shoot.
Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
Agreed, you only need to look at the current generation of the Mustang GT, owners are reporting 22-24 MPG from a 5.0 V8, okay it's 200kgs lighter, but your still introducing a ridiculous amount of technology (to go wrong) to reduce the fuel economy by possibly 5-10%. Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
Banning electric seats and fat people from driving it would give a similar fuel saving
To be fair, manufacturers could have made far greater strides in terms of economy if they weren't also being pushed hard to reduce non-CO2 emissions. Meeting increasingly stringent particulate and especially carbon monoxide limits makes even maintaining the same fuel economy quite a lot of work. Couple that with ever increasing consumer demand for less NHV and more crash-safety driving weights further and further upwards, and it's not surprising things aren't really improving very much.
It's also worth pointing out that the numbers above are what journalists got on a test which is probably not particularly indicative of what real-world owners will get.
It's also worth pointing out that the numbers above are what journalists got on a test which is probably not particularly indicative of what real-world owners will get.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 15th August 13:39
bluesierra said:
22mpg played 28 on our shoot.
Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
I bet they were driving it pretty hard to get that figure though to be fair.Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
E65Ross said:
bluesierra said:
22mpg played 28 on our shoot.
Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
I bet they were driving it pretty hard to get that figure though to be fair.Can we take a moment to talk about this a bit more? Because it really highlights just how little fuel economy has moved on, despite us being lumbered with increasingly generic cars (turbo, diesel, automatic with n+1 gears). The big lie has been that engines need to downsize to reduce emissions, and the tradeoff for buying turbo engines is the fuel economy is way better.
The B7 Audi S4 had the 4.2 V8, and came with 340hp (350 in the S5). The torque's much lower (300lbft), but it took about 5s to 60mph, with a manual. And fuel economy is not far off - 22mpg is about average out of town; 28-30 is achievable on long runs. Audi never bothered with stop/start or cylinder deactivation with the engine, but if it had the economy could have been significantly better than those figures.
The S6 is a bigger car (2 tons!!), but with the tech on offer, the complexity, and the cost, that mpg figure is just pathetic. Just how serious are legislators in pushing for real improvements in fuel economy in cars; and how much of it is being used to lumber us with cars we don't want?
I drove a B7 S4 a number of years ago and averagely 14mpg over my hour or two with the car. That's probably more reflective of the type of driving these two were put through I reckon. No doubt you could get 30 on a run with one; I've got nearly 50mpg on a 100 mile drive in my M140i before, but I'd bet good money you wouldn't get that road testing one
fair point! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff