Audi Q5 Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone noticed that the fuel consumption figures are different in the 2010 broshure to the 2009 (when i bought mine)

2009 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 34.4 / Extra Urhan 47.1 / Combined 41.5
2009 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 34.4 / Extra Urban 48.7 / Combined 42.1

2010 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 32.1 / Extra Urhan 47.9 / Combined 40.4
2010 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 38.7 / Extra Urban 50.4 / Combined 45.6

In the 2009 broshure it looked like there was very little difference between manual and auto, but there is a much bigger gap in the 2010 figures...

I would have considerd the manual as a do 25k miles per year..

I check mileage everytime fill up to fill up its always around 35 mpg.

I do lots carriageway driving at 70mph and very carefull driving around town yet i only get the Urban estimate..bit disappointing..

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Has anyone noticed that the fuel consumption figures are different in the 2010 broshure to the 2009 (when i bought mine)

2009 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 34.4 / Extra Urhan 47.1 / Combined 41.5
2009 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 34.4 / Extra Urban 48.7 / Combined 42.1

2010 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 32.1 / Extra Urhan 47.9 / Combined 40.4
2010 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 38.7 / Extra Urban 50.4 / Combined 45.6

In the 2009 broshure it looked like there was very little difference between manual and auto, but there is a much bigger gap in the 2010 figures...

I would have considerd the manual as a do 25k miles per year..

I check mileage everytime fill up to fill up its always around 35 mpg.

I do lots carriageway driving at 70mph and very carefull driving around town yet i only get the Urban estimate..bit disappointing..

Regards,
The 2010 manual has stop start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Has anyone noticed that the fuel consumption figures are different in the 2010 broshure to the 2009 (when i bought mine)

2009 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 34.4 / Extra Urhan 47.1 / Combined 41.5
2009 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 34.4 / Extra Urban 48.7 / Combined 42.1

2010 2.0 tdi (170) Stronic Urban 32.1 / Extra Urhan 47.9 / Combined 40.4
2010 2.0 tdi (170) Manual Urban 38.7 / Extra Urban 50.4 / Combined 45.6

In the 2009 broshure it looked like there was very little difference between manual and auto, but there is a much bigger gap in the 2010 figures...

I would have considerd the manual as a do 25k miles per year..

I check mileage everytime fill up to fill up its always around 35 mpg.

I do lots carriageway driving at 70mph and very carefull driving around town yet i only get the Urban estimate..bit disappointing..

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
I have done 6000 in my s-tronic 2.0.
The No 2 computer shows 34 and has never been reset from the start.
My driving is steady and a mix of all types
I think Audi get the fuel consumption figures from FATHER CHRISTMAS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I have done 6000 in my s-tronic 2.0.
The No 2 computer shows 34 and has never been reset from the start.
My driving is steady and a mix of all types
I think Audi get the fuel consumption figures from FATHER CHRISTMAS.
Yes, I haven't touched mine as well and have done about 5K - mixed driving too- I will see what it says. Now if I was a gambling man ................
I bet it's about the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
I take all consumption figures with a pinch of salt.....too many variable factors in real world driving.

I should think Audi like everyone else get their figures of a rolling road in perfect circumstances ie. engine warm, no wind, no traffic, no stop/start etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
As I have said in another similar thread, BMW seem to claim very good figures and get pretty damn close. Both my mk1 and mk2 TTs acheived about what was advertised. Not sure about other manufacturers but Audi's diesel claims are way off the money - good job we're all loyal brand customers....... but if they were honest I guess we'd pay more in tax....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
As I have said in another similar thread, BMW seem to claim very good figures and get pretty damn close.
BMW is no better. At least none of the 3 modern ones I've owned/driven. I currently have a 118d efficient dynamics as a second car - it is quoted at 62.8mpg AVERAGE. It actually does 42mpg average and, when driving like a priest on a motorway it can get to 52mpg - but the official 'ex-urban' figure is then 70.6mpg....

It's all utter rubbish. When will the EU get its finger out and enforce far more realistic testing cycles? the US is a bit better - look at the figures manufactures quote over there, remembering to take into account the different in Gallon sizes:

UK 335d quote: 31/53.3mpg
US 335d quote: 22.6/36mpg US = 27.6/43mpg UK

..and their roads are all much straighter!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Fuel consumption figures are determined based on government mandated tests. Each country or region sets their testing procedure - Australia has a test procedure as does US, EU etc. so it's got very little to do with the manufacturers making up the tests or the numbers for themselves. All manufacturers undergo the same fuel consumption test and they all try to get the best result possible. Some test procedures require the cars to actually drive on a test track, others just require them to drive on a dyno and follow a set sequence of accelerations and speeds.

The testing procedures often don't produce real world consumption figures (as you are all finding) but they do provide a means for comparing consumption from one vehicle type to another.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top