What should I expect from the 1.9tdi (130) CVT Auto?

[amimmortal]

Hi all...

I've been driving my new A6 for a couple of weeks now and have a couple of questions regarding the multitronic gearbox...

- The stated combined MPG is about 47, yet I'm averaging around 35. There's a reasonable amount of motorway driving in there so I expected it to be higher. Does this indicate a problem?
- There is slight lag when depressing the throttle before the car picks up - is this normal? It becomes apparent when, for example, I'm turning onto a junction and expect the power to be there when I need it. If I put the throttle down too much I just end up with wheelspin...
- Similarly, when selecting reverse when cold (i.e. reversing out of my driveway on a cold morning) there is sometimes a big delay before the car picks up - it's almost as if something is preventing the car from moving, like siezed brakes or something...

I know the CVT has a bit of getting used to, but I just wanted to ask the question here to see if anyone knows for sure!

Lastly, the car is 4 years old but still only has 29,000 miles on it. What should I expect at the next service? I'm wanting to maintain the Audi service history so I need an idea of what it might cost at 30k miles / 4 years service.

Thanks!

A.

 

[aragorn]

i've never driven a CVT, but as far as i know, most autos seem to have some kinda delay when moving off, mainly due to the lack of a clutch, and needing to wind up the torque converter enough to actually start transmitting power to the transmission. As you say, if you floor it, you still get the delay, then you get a nice wall of torque which will light up the wheels, especially if your turning.

Fuel economy, i'm not sure, i'd expect it to be worse than your old manual A4 for sure, the autobox is less efficient, and the car is heavier. Not sure what you were getting in the A4 though?

Not sure on the reversing thing at all though, perhaps its CVT specific, or maybe it is indicative of a fault, i dont know.

 

[amimmortal]

Cheers mate,

I recall reading that the CVT doesn't use a torque converter - something about the particular way the CVT system works - have a look at this: http://www.audiworld.com/news/99/multitronic/content.shtml

I was getting about 53mpg combined out of the A4. The 1.9 CVT is apparently capable of 47, which isn't shabby. Still, I'm nowhere near that...

By all accounts, CVT's are supposed to be more efficient than their manual counterparts, hence the lower CO2 emissions and corresponding tax band.

I'm hoping there aren't any problems as this was a private purchase... no warranty!!!

A.

 

[amimmortal]

Righty...

That's my first full tank done. I managed 550 miles on it, and the average fuel consumption came out at 35mpg - a far cry from the 47 claimed in all the literature and website I read before buying the car.

Does anyone else have the CVT 1.9 tdi A6 Avant for comparison? I haven't been on a proper road trip yet, and I'm sure it will do much better in that kind of scenario, but still...

A.

 

[quattrojames]

As a (similar) comparison I get 33 from my manual A4 2.5TDi q. Far and away the biggest factor is the type of roads you use and journey times. All my local trips on rural roads are responsible for my low mpg. What are your roads like?

The longer the trip I do the higher the mpg, If I do a 2 hour motorway trip I can see over 40 easily. The further I go the higher the average mpg, always.

 

[amimmortal]

Thanks...

There is a fair mixture of motorway and in-town driving in my day to day use of the car. But this is no different to when I had the A4. The mpg in that averaged out at about 53 doing the same kind of trips (which is more or less what it said to expect), so I expected to get the 47 stated in the A6 technical data as well.

Doubtless when I hit the road for longer trips (this year I'll be up and down to North Yorkshire a couple of times, plus a trip to Devon (from Edinburgh)) I'll see the benefit.

Cheers,
A.

 

[The Slug]

dont forget the a6 with an auto box will be heavier! and dont forget the g'box oil changes on the CVT ...personally i would say you would expect around 38mpg on an average combined cycle.

 

[amimmortal]

Thanks mate...

Surely I should expect to achieve the stated MPG, as the weight of the car would have been taken into account in the user manual technical specs?

Also, the various reviews and write ups for the 1.9 CVT mention the great fuel economy as a benefit - something that played a big part in us buying the car in the first place...

The gearbox oil needs replaced at 40,000 miles, which should be some time next year.

Ta!

A.

 

[The Slug]

effectively the 1.9 PD130 is the same engine as the A3 quattro i had awhile back and that would average 35-40, with manual 6 speed and much smaller car, so i personally wouldnt expect to get more that 40mpg even if the a6 had a manual box.....has the service on the engine and box been done on schedule as this could make a difference also.....

 

[The Slug]

also the 47mpg, i presume this is not a combined cycle run, seems more of a maximum mpg figure to me....

 

[amimmortal]

Nope... it's the combined cycle:

From the original brochure:

Urban - 36.6
Extra Urban - 56.5
Combined - 47.8

I'm lucky if I'm getting 35 combined at the moment.

Having said that, the Emisson Control System fault has appeared on my dash - might this be an indicator to something wrong?

A.

PS. Remember that the multitronic automatic gearbox is more efficient than an equivalent manual...

 

[The Slug]

ahh ha...now you didnt say about that before lol.....altho still on a Combined 47.8 is very high for an auto A6....50mpg on a long run maybe, but never normal driving....does it feel hessitant in anyway on acceleration?

 

[gizze]

I got just under 34mpg from my avant over 12 months and 30k miles, it was a year old when I got it so nicely run in. I bought it trying to be frugal but was very disappointed with the consumption, in comparison the 3.0 petrol cvt I had before it was averaging 29mpg, with todays prices it is no cheaper to fuel.

 

[badger5]

mapped and driven a couple of these motors... and matched to the CVT I thought it was the worlds worst combination of transmission type to engine power delivery.
I would find it hard to believe it would ever match a manual gearbox for ecomony, as whenever you accelerated the engine revved high, way otuside of its peak torque rpm area until the road speed caught up. Horrible.

How does yours drive?

 

[amimmortal]

Hi mate...

It's funny, because all the independent reviews I read about the 1.9 CVT were very positive. They talk about the fact that it's actually quicker 0-60 than the equivalent manual, and more efficient. They also mention how smooth it is, and the fact that there are no lurches in the gear changes.

I'd have to say that mine is pretty smooth, and doesn't rev high when pulling off from a standstill. It has a brief over-run, but not outside the peak torque range. I drive with a light right foot anyway, so it rarely gets out of the 2000 revs mark...

I did dip into Sport mode the other day and overtook - very responsive (quicker than I thought it would be).

The only problems I'm having are with the fuel economy, but (if you check my other thread) this may have been caused by the car running to rich due to a faulty switch thingy (can't recall exactly which component it was, but it played a part in regulating the mix). That, and the peculair lag I get when pulling away. But I think I just need to get used to that.

Cheers,
A.

 

[badger5]

maybe the 2 I was in were pups... but the drive was dire..

I did'nt mention they were'nt smooth, but the power delivery when wanting to accelerate just revved the tits off the engine, which put the car into a low torque rpm, as the cvt caught up with roadspeed. horrible combination on these 2. one was petrol 1.8t the other was 1.9TDi Audi's

most definately not faster 0-60 with the way it thrashed the engine when doing standing start. maybe the later ones have improved software.