Need TDI vs TFSI advice for A6 order
01-20-2014, 07:05 AM
#31
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there's the S63 and S65 for those who can truly afford whatever it costs and I respect that. I think the S8 is a better choice.
2014 and 2015 model years will open up to provide even more choice in the market. It will come down to marginal utility, needs, and marketing (incentives). Then you will have buyers who just take whatever suits their wants and desires at the time.
What I do find as the common theme here in the TDI conundrum is that most are asking about the 3.0TFSI vs the TDI rather than the 2.0TFSI. This leads me to believe that power and performance is the main question rather than fuel economy and maintenance.
Now, if you're looking for efficiency, it's a no brainer that the 2.0 will cost less than the TDI and the economy between the two might take 10 years/100,000 miles to pan out between them but the performance would be night and day.
01-20-2014, 01:34 PM
#32
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
Last edited by Maverick61; 01-20-2014 at 01:39 PM.
01-20-2014, 01:37 PM
#33
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yws! How much did the Hummer2 or Range Rover cost? North of $50k? Did they care about the price of fuel? Did they trade-in their cars for hybrids? Or did they all pay north of $80 for a Tesla to completely avoid buying fuel all together? What is the price point for someone who buys a car and thinks that operating costs are nothing? A v-12 owner? An SUV owner? Please, enlighten us.
01-20-2014, 01:40 PM
#35
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-20-2014, 01:46 PM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a pointless exercise for you...
When you buy your next car, set yourself an arbitrary limit of 1,000 gallons of fuel. Drive it however you want, but when you reach that last drop of those 1000 gallons, you must get rid of your car.
Even at a 5mpg spread, which could be 50% or 1% more efficient, I bet you'll take a close look at consumption.
Airlines buy $51Mm jets and they eye consumption like a hawk. I know people who spend a lot more than $60k on their planes, and believe me, range and consumption matter. These are the kind of people who take up flying because their Porsche is too slow.
It's a personal choice - how much one chooses to ignore certain things in light of others. But setting a bar at $60k is too arbitrary for me.
When you buy your next car, set yourself an arbitrary limit of 1,000 gallons of fuel. Drive it however you want, but when you reach that last drop of those 1000 gallons, you must get rid of your car.
Even at a 5mpg spread, which could be 50% or 1% more efficient, I bet you'll take a close look at consumption.
Airlines buy $51Mm jets and they eye consumption like a hawk. I know people who spend a lot more than $60k on their planes, and believe me, range and consumption matter. These are the kind of people who take up flying because their Porsche is too slow.
It's a personal choice - how much one chooses to ignore certain things in light of others. But setting a bar at $60k is too arbitrary for me.
Wrong. All those options exist because the damn government set fuel efficiency standards the car companies must meet. I stand by my statement that the cost differential is immaterial to most people who spend $60K on a vehicle. And if it is, then you really should question spending $60K for a vehicle
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
01-20-2014, 01:55 PM
#37
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care how much money I have, I still want a fuel efficient car that is fun to drive. That is where the A6 TDI, BMW 535d, etc... shine.
I drive 20,000 to 25,000 miles plus a year (mostly highway driving), so I care about mpg and not filling up as much.
years
I drive 20,000 to 25,000 miles plus a year (mostly highway driving), so I care about mpg and not filling up as much.
years
Wrong. All those options exist because the damn government set fuel efficiency standards the car companies must meet. I stand by my statement that the cost differential is immaterial to most people who spend $60K on a vehicle. And if it is, then you really should question spending $60K for a vehicle
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
01-20-2014, 02:42 PM
#38
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Priest River, ID
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong. All those options exist because the damn government set fuel efficiency standards the car companies must meet. I stand by my statement that the cost differential is immaterial to most people who spend $60K on a vehicle. And if it is, then you really should question spending $60K for a vehicle
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
Take someone who drives 12,000 miles a year. At 24 MPG they are using 500 gallons a year - whereas is they were averaging 30, they are using 400 gallons a year. So a difference of 100 gallons or about $360 a year. Over 4 years, that is about $1,400. That is nothing when compared to the $60K it costs to buy the car - and you can not put a price on enjoyment
Shoot, you yourself waste more money flipping cars as often as you do than someone who does not focus on fuel economy
What you are missing is that diesels are fun to drive (at least for some of us). I personally found the TDI much more fun than the 3.0 TFSI for my driving style. And I think others have too. More importantly and what you are really missing is that some of us do care about how much CO2 we emit and how much fuel we use. At least I do. I wanted comfort, performance AND efficiency and Audi delivered. If I can save 5 mpg gallon, and if everyone else did, it would make a huge reduction in fuel used which would be economically beneficial for the economy since that money saved would be used to buy other goods, and it would be good for the environment. Pardon me, but I do care and I think others do.
I do agree with you, however, that some people with a lot of money don't give a rat about anybody or anything else living saving fuel. That's often how they got their money in the first place. And there are many of us who can spend $70+ on a car and still care enough to buy a more efficient car.
Over the next 10 years in the US the new fuel use standards will force a lot of changes in auto technologies. Analysts have projected that the only way quite a few companies will be able to meet their fuel standards in shirt term will be by selling diesels so you might as well get used to seeing more and more diesels on the roads. Those who have done the math have concluded the German luxury car makers will need more than 25% diesels in the mix, possibly 50%, to comply. All bets are off as to what will emerge 10 years from now, but for now the diesel sector will continue to grow. Audi at least give you a big grin every time you get behind the wheel of one of their diesels. And I would so love to have an S6 TDI with a 500 ft-kb/340HP diesel to put up against and S6....
01-20-2014, 03:31 PM
#39
I think if consumption was not an important factor there would be no trend to have cars that perform better and better, every single maker is going in that direction, even the Porsche 918 and the Ferrari Laferrari can be used as electric cars around town.
I think if I could have two cars that perform exactly the same, rev up the same, sound the same, I can find the right fuel everytime I need it, and cost the same I would consider the consumption variable.
But for me the TDI and the TFSI are not identical twins, to each their own, until the gas price gets to a point it really hurts me to fill it up, I am fine spending a little bit more for gas powered cars (I am assuming both cars cost the same)
Pay to play
I don't think the TFSI engines are damaging the environment, these new technologies are really clean, and yes I believe global warning is real, I am not a schmuck like Donald Trump who believes the cold temperatures of the past weeks are the prove global warming is a hoax.
I think if I could have two cars that perform exactly the same, rev up the same, sound the same, I can find the right fuel everytime I need it, and cost the same I would consider the consumption variable.
But for me the TDI and the TFSI are not identical twins, to each their own, until the gas price gets to a point it really hurts me to fill it up, I am fine spending a little bit more for gas powered cars (I am assuming both cars cost the same)
Pay to play
I don't think the TFSI engines are damaging the environment, these new technologies are really clean, and yes I believe global warning is real, I am not a schmuck like Donald Trump who believes the cold temperatures of the past weeks are the prove global warming is a hoax.
01-20-2014, 06:38 PM
#40
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were worried about money, they would not spend $108K on a car - they would buy a Prius or some cheap car