MPG ratings on the B10? Why such a decrease?
Thread Starter
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 818
Likes: 42
MPG ratings on the B10? Why such a decrease?
I am a bit confused on why Audi is going backwards on the MPG arena. My larger BMW 5 series grabs 34 MPH on the highway (Sometimes as high as 38). The tuning that BMW does with the Miller cycling, stop start, and eco pro mode is made dazzling. Can someone who owns the B10 tell me if the US Spec MPG ratings are off? They are very low (21 City, 31 Highway). I know we lost the mild hybrid (Stop start efficiency). What the heck is happening? Maybe that is why Audi also did not put a spare on these cars (Saves weight). How did this car get so heavy or is it something else? I am really annoyed to see it go backwards.
On a positive note, the Ground Clearance I measured on the front and sides seems really good (A bit higher than the standard A4) fitted with 19 inch wheels. I am a GC geek with poor roads, high curbs parking and lots of snow driving. I think the new A5 might finally hit all the high marks for snow (Seemed to be 8.5 inches measured road to front bottom bumper and 7.5 to 8 inches from wheel well to ground. I realize more of the undercarriage makes it lower, but comparing an A4, A3 it was definitely higher similar to a current A6. Likely none of you care about this or want it lower.
I am reposting my thoughts from a short test drive yesterday.
Very Comfortable sport seats
I liked the screen (Well shaped and good looking)
Hated the fact that to change the fan speed it was 2 clicks in a menu. Temp was better and always on screen.
Hate the new MPG rating (Why did Audi go several miles backwards here)?
Drive comfort was nice, but was a bit stiff as the other person mentioned (Due to the run flats).
Hate the fact there is no spare.
Door closing Thud was 10/10
Hated the new shifter if you can call it that
Center arm rest no longer moves forward or backwards *only up or down.
Driver lane assist worked much better than the outgoing models but still not as good as Merc or BMW.
HUD was clear and well laid out.
Ground Clearance seems decent.
On a positive note, the Ground Clearance I measured on the front and sides seems really good (A bit higher than the standard A4) fitted with 19 inch wheels. I am a GC geek with poor roads, high curbs parking and lots of snow driving. I think the new A5 might finally hit all the high marks for snow (Seemed to be 8.5 inches measured road to front bottom bumper and 7.5 to 8 inches from wheel well to ground. I realize more of the undercarriage makes it lower, but comparing an A4, A3 it was definitely higher similar to a current A6. Likely none of you care about this or want it lower.
I am reposting my thoughts from a short test drive yesterday.
Very Comfortable sport seats
I liked the screen (Well shaped and good looking)
Hated the fact that to change the fan speed it was 2 clicks in a menu. Temp was better and always on screen.
Hate the new MPG rating (Why did Audi go several miles backwards here)?
Drive comfort was nice, but was a bit stiff as the other person mentioned (Due to the run flats).
Hate the fact there is no spare.
Door closing Thud was 10/10
Hated the new shifter if you can call it that
Center arm rest no longer moves forward or backwards *only up or down.
Driver lane assist worked much better than the outgoing models but still not as good as Merc or BMW.
HUD was clear and well laid out.
Ground Clearance seems decent.
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 423
From: Virginia Beach, VA
Don't disagree! I'm averaging 26 MPG over nearly 90K miles on my APR tuned 3.0 Q7. Mileage should be getting better- not worse.
And kudos to you for measuring ground clearance on a sedan. I'm thinking not too many potential buyers do that!!
And kudos to you for measuring ground clearance on a sedan. I'm thinking not too many potential buyers do that!!
AudiWorld Super User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 53
From: Northern NJ
Its interesting that later years of the B9.5 have lower EPA ratings then the 2018 A4. This is with the "mild hybrid" system that was supposed to improve economy, but the added weight likely made it worse. The B10 doesn't have that hybrid system, but it likely weighs even more as its a bigger car with more features.
AudiWorld Super User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 13,971
Likes: 3,366
From: Georgia
A4 sedan and A5 sportback (same mpg numbers; probably only tested one and "the other is same enough" for the EPA)
MY20 - 24-27-32
MY21/22 - 24-27-31
MY23/24 - 24-27-32
MY25 - 23-26-32
Why were 21/22 down 1 on hwy and 25 down 1 on city? Who knows.
A5 sedan
MY25 - 22-26-31
not too bad given the loss of any hybridization, a 22 ft-lb bump in torque, and a 10% increase in weight. Cd dropped from 0.28 to 0.27, but the frontal area increased from 2.2 to 2.3 m² (width without mirrors is +0.5", but width with mirrors is +3"?).
updated: '23 530ix comes in at 23-26-32, and a '23 330ix comes in at 24-27-33. A '23 A6 2.0T comes in at 24-27-31. So it's all "same enough" that it's a non-factor, imo. None of these are a Prius. And the shorter vs longer didn't really make an impact. But yes, the new A5's city spec coming in low; most likely due to the no hybrid assistance. What's more curious is how it maintains a 26 combined when it's -1 on city and -1 on highway vs the MY25 A4 sedan.
There's nothing mysterious about why they don't even have a spare tire now. Removing it makes space for hybrid batteries and reduces weight. Audi doesn't have to care about your bad luck after the sale is done.
MY20 - 24-27-32
MY21/22 - 24-27-31
MY23/24 - 24-27-32
MY25 - 23-26-32
Why were 21/22 down 1 on hwy and 25 down 1 on city? Who knows.
A5 sedan
MY25 - 22-26-31
not too bad given the loss of any hybridization, a 22 ft-lb bump in torque, and a 10% increase in weight. Cd dropped from 0.28 to 0.27, but the frontal area increased from 2.2 to 2.3 m² (width without mirrors is +0.5", but width with mirrors is +3"?).
updated: '23 530ix comes in at 23-26-32, and a '23 330ix comes in at 24-27-33. A '23 A6 2.0T comes in at 24-27-31. So it's all "same enough" that it's a non-factor, imo. None of these are a Prius. And the shorter vs longer didn't really make an impact. But yes, the new A5's city spec coming in low; most likely due to the no hybrid assistance. What's more curious is how it maintains a 26 combined when it's -1 on city and -1 on highway vs the MY25 A4 sedan.
There's nothing mysterious about why they don't even have a spare tire now. Removing it makes space for hybrid batteries and reduces weight. Audi doesn't have to care about your bad luck after the sale is done.
Last edited by SMac770; Jun 1, 2025 at 08:20 PM.
Thread Starter
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 818
Likes: 42
I have the last model year of the G30 (2023 Post LCI 530- 4 cylinder). that engine is fantastic. I will say the G30 to me is not a very comfortable riding car and I suspect the A5 will be better. However, the new G60 (5er) grew all around plus added weigh somehow manages to perform quite well and Is much more comfortable than my G30. The new 530 (G60) gets up to 35 on the Highway and with a mild hybrid.
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 606
Likes: 141
My larger BMW 5 series grabs 34 MPH on the highway
I am sure that it can do much quicker ...
(somebody had to do it.
)It would be nice to a definite technical reason why those mpg figures are down. More power? weight? Different gear ratios?
Last edited by BlakeV; Jun 2, 2025 at 02:53 AM.
Thread Starter
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 818
Likes: 42
Maybe the gear ratios? Not sure why Audi has stuck to the 7 speed transmission versus 8 or 9 like other German manufacturers. Perhaps someone can look at the ratios and compare to the competition?
Trending Topics
AudiWorld Member
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 544
Likes: 184
Does the US spec B10 have stop-start? We were told the "reasoning" (read: excuse) behind no hybrid in the US was because Americans didn't like stop-start (which is ironic as the 48V hybrid would make stop-start seamless enough that customers wouldn't care, like in the new B58 BMWs), so I'd hope that removing the hybrid setup would also mean we don't get stop-start and that's part of why the city MPG is lower.
AudiWorld Stories
Bringing Audi to Life for Audi Fans
2027 Audi Q7 and SQ7: Audi Upgraded EVERYTHING!
Michael S. Palmer
Audi Unveils Absurdly Cool New Supercar: 10 Things You Need to Know!
Verdad Gallardo
The Highs & Lows of Every Audi C-Class Generation
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Audis Ever Sold on Bring-A-Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Audi Features & Options We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Audi Recreates Crazy-Looking Speed Record Breaker From 1935
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilder Recreates the 1995 Audi TTS Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Every Audi V10 Car Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
9 Audi Designs That Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
AudiWorld Super User
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,554
Likes: 333
From: Western Massachusetts
Does the US spec B10 have stop-start? We were told the "reasoning" (read: excuse) behind no hybrid in the US was because Americans didn't like stop-start (which is ironic as the 48V hybrid would make stop-start seamless enough that customers wouldn't care, like in the new B58 BMWs), so I'd hope that removing the hybrid setup would also mean we don't get stop-start and that's part of why the city MPG is lower.
Trump EPA Head Says He Is 'Fixing' Auto Start/Stop
.
.
.
AudiWorld Super User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 13,971
Likes: 3,366
From: Georgia
"a definite technical reason", there's never going to be something so simple for an object as complicated as a complete modern automobile.
stop/start is simply a tool in the bin for auto makers to use to meet emissions regulations. It's not required any more than cylinder deactivation. The issue is if the tool is installed and active as part of the regulation compliance testing, then it has to be how the car starts up each time. That's the annoying part; you have to "fix" the car config every time you use the car. Default on is foolish; it should only be turned on when the situation calls for it. Stop/start existed on the 2.0T before MHEV, was it crap on B9.0, or the B8.5 Q5 3.0T? Was it any better on B9.5? Not likely, it just kicked in sooner.
Why are they still using the DL382? Because they already built it; it's minimal development cost to carry on with. Even the DL552 is essentially the DL382+ just renamed. You don't need a many-ratio transmission in a BEV. Why dump a bunch of money into developing a new one if you're not going to get enough deployment of it. But given the past year, they might have to fix that position. As for BMW, does BMW even have their own transmissions? They just use the ZF 8-speed (and ZF 9-speed?), same one Audi also already uses (but is trying to no longer use because that's money out to another company).
stop/start is simply a tool in the bin for auto makers to use to meet emissions regulations. It's not required any more than cylinder deactivation. The issue is if the tool is installed and active as part of the regulation compliance testing, then it has to be how the car starts up each time. That's the annoying part; you have to "fix" the car config every time you use the car. Default on is foolish; it should only be turned on when the situation calls for it. Stop/start existed on the 2.0T before MHEV, was it crap on B9.0, or the B8.5 Q5 3.0T? Was it any better on B9.5? Not likely, it just kicked in sooner.
Why are they still using the DL382? Because they already built it; it's minimal development cost to carry on with. Even the DL552 is essentially the DL382+ just renamed. You don't need a many-ratio transmission in a BEV. Why dump a bunch of money into developing a new one if you're not going to get enough deployment of it. But given the past year, they might have to fix that position. As for BMW, does BMW even have their own transmissions? They just use the ZF 8-speed (and ZF 9-speed?), same one Audi also already uses (but is trying to no longer use because that's money out to another company).