RE: Audi A4 Avant 2.5 V6 | Shed of the Week
Discussion
Cambs_Stuart said:
Not a great shed. Although its a v6 estate with leather, which is normally perfect shed territory, it's the wrong engine, not great to drive and just too bland to be interesting.
I'd rather have the 3.0 flat six from the legacy last week and suffer the appaling fuel economy.
deffo the correct choice, not sure why so many are bI'd rather have the 3.0 flat six from the legacy last week and suffer the appaling fuel economy.
hing about economy on the Subaru, Its not exactly a Lambo economy wise! mid to late 20s is pretty much normal for mixed driving and for extended long runs 30mpg+ is achievable, all the time while 'pressing' on. You would need a hole in the head to want to drive a diesel over this or any other decent 6 pot petrol tbh.
ericmcn said:
deffo the correct choice, not sure why so many are bhing about economy on the Subaru, Its not exactly a Lambo economy wise! mid to late 20s is pretty much normal for mixed driving and for extended long runs 30mpg+ is achievable, all the time while 'pressing' on. You would need a hole in the head to want to drive a diesel over this or any other decent 6 pot petrol tbh.
Shame really it’s not a decent 6 pot petrol, just a run of the mill Japanese shed, likely no faster than the Audi.hing about economy on the Subaru, Its not exactly a Lambo economy wise! mid to late 20s is pretty much normal for mixed driving and for extended long runs 30mpg+ is achievable, all the time while 'pressing' on. You would need a hole in the head to want to drive a diesel over this or any other decent 6 pot petrol tbh.How’s the 9000 rpm redline these days, is it coping with all the 320d’s overtaking you?
"Expect mid 30s round town and mid to high 40s out on the open road."
You are never going to get any more than 40 mpg out of that unless you keep it below 55mph.
I've got a 2.5TDI engined A4, manual fwd and 43.5 mpg is about the very best I can muster (which is incidentally the same as the "official" consumption figure)
15 years and 160,000 miles and the engine is going strong. Everything that is connected to the engine...not so much!
You are never going to get any more than 40 mpg out of that unless you keep it below 55mph.
I've got a 2.5TDI engined A4, manual fwd and 43.5 mpg is about the very best I can muster (which is incidentally the same as the "official" consumption figure)
15 years and 160,000 miles and the engine is going strong. Everything that is connected to the engine...not so much!
Put a Van Aarken box on my 180 q.sport and it became a monster tow car but still managed high 30s mpg and it got badged up as a 1.9 for fun.
Had it 10 years and only needed injectors due to super market fuel and top arms due to the state of our roads neither of which I would blame audi for.
Never got stuck in the snow neither.
Honestly can't think of many estate cars that still look as good after 17 years and to be fair they've been around even longer, just make sure the front wings have been done.
Some of the comments by people imagining what it must be like, made me shake my head then sign up to Pistonheads!
Had it 10 years and only needed injectors due to super market fuel and top arms due to the state of our roads neither of which I would blame audi for.
Never got stuck in the snow neither.
Honestly can't think of many estate cars that still look as good after 17 years and to be fair they've been around even longer, just make sure the front wings have been done.
Some of the comments by people imagining what it must be like, made me shake my head then sign up to Pistonheads!
Jazzjames said:
Recommending one of these over a 1.9 pd TDI is madness! I don’t see a single upside to the V6.
Smoother, more refined, and quicker in standard form. I agree though, the 1.9 is the pick of the bunch, it's an excellent engine. Too many reliability issues with the 2.5 and they aren't that economical either.
SD_1 said:
Smoother, more refined, and quicker in standard form.
I agree though, the 1.9 is the pick of the bunch, it's an excellent engine. Too many reliability issues with the 2.5 and they aren't that economical either.
More refined is very much a relative term when we’re talking about 18 year old diesel engines! I take your point though. Neither car is what you would call fast by modern standards and if someone is looking at a 17 year old diesel estate car clearly low running costs and minimal trips to the garage are surely important. The 2.5 tdi cannot offer these things!I agree though, the 1.9 is the pick of the bunch, it's an excellent engine. Too many reliability issues with the 2.5 and they aren't that economical either.
I have a soft spot for the 1.9 tdi as I had it in the Golf mk 4 in 130hp spec. It was a little train, and would always recommend this engine if someone is looking at older diesel cars. ✌️
+1 for the 1.9TDi. I have one in an A4, it's rough as aholes but does 60mpg, is adequately grunty, and just will not break. I want a newer car, and one that doesn't go "dag dag!", but I know I'll regret selling it for the few quid it would yield. I shall run it until it dies - which I suspect it won't.
Went in a 2.5 a few years ago, it was smoother but not much quicker and wasn't worth losing 10+mpg for.
holes but does 60mpg, is adequately grunty, and just will not break. I want a newer car, and one that doesn't go "dag dag!", but I know I'll regret selling it for the few quid it would yield. I shall run it until it dies - which I suspect it won't.Went in a 2.5 a few years ago, it was smoother but not much quicker and wasn't worth losing 10+mpg for.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff