1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2.0 TDI 177ps Engine Question

Discussion in 'Audi S4/A4/A4 Cab (B8 Chassis)' started by scz4, May 6, 2012.

  1. scz4
    Offline

    scz4 New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2012]
    Evening all,

    I was all set to order another BMW, this time a 320dM Sport touring, one of last of the current models as they are due for replacement in Sept. BMW were offering massive discount, but sadly it looks like I've just missed the cut off to order one to the spec I'm looking for.

    I stopped past the Audi garage on the way home. Spotted a rather tasty A4 S-Line Black Edition Avant in the showroom. Looks really nice both in and out, decent size boot too. I've always been put of Audi's for a number of reasons, but this one tempting, except for the price, but hoping I can work them down.

    Is the 177ps engine a brand new design? Two salesmen have told me different things, one said it's brand new and the other says it just has a more agressive map than the 170ps engine. I find it hard to believe that old engine would achieve the stated 58mpg (FWD), something fundemental must have changed???

    Does anyone have one yet? I know it's early days, so unlikely anyone will have properly run in the diesel engine yet. But what sort of mpg are you getting from the 177ps front wheel drive engine? The Audi sales guy even suggested I won't get anywhere near the 58mpg in the book, more like 40-44mpg, which is very disappointing given I got 52mpg on average in the 320d I test drove (not hanging about) yesterday, it is also more powerful.

    Thanks in advance.

    G
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Dec 28, 2014]

  3. TripleD
    Offline

    TripleD Audi Novice

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    3
    [May 6, 2012]
    If your after a better engine, and decent MPG then go BMW, the salesman is right, mpg would be a lot lower than book, I'm wishing I brought the tfsi version instead of my tdi!
    #2
  4. scz4
    Offline

    scz4 New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2012]
    Bummer, was rather coming round to the idea of the Audi, it did look stunning in the showroom, loaded too as standard. I've had BMW's for the last 8 years, just sold my 550i (4.8 V8) for something more economical, was looking for something that would do 50+ mpg on a run. The 3 series is perhaps too small and the 5 series is massive, A4 is the perfect size. Shame!
    #3
  5. wassap
    Offline

    wassap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 6, 2012]
    Its not a new engine, may have revised ECU,turbo or Injectors but essentially its the same beast as before just tweaked.

    2 things, trip computers often lie, the stated figures are never that correct, and manufacturer stated figures are also pie in the sky! I drove the 177ps engine, nice and torquey for the motorway, but it felt a bit scrabbly round town, ie it kept wanting to spin the wheels whenever i pulled off, could have been down to duff tyres I suppose.

    Compared to the beemer, the 320 obviously has the better chassis, but the avant is more refined and has a smoother engine, and best of all more space than the 320d tourer.

    Personally I'd wait for the new tourer to come out and compare the 2, I really like the new 3 series saloon, doesnt look pig ugly like the outgoing model and seems to be better specified.
    #4
  6. scz4
    Offline

    scz4 New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2012]
    How does the 143ps compare? Could always get that remppaed, if there is one available yet.
    #5
  7. xs2man
    Offline

    xs2man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    16
    [May 6, 2012]
    I had the 143 FWD and now have the 177 Quattro. The 177 now has 1800 miles on it, so just beyond what the manual says for running in.

    The fuel consumption is awful. As TripleD said, wish I had gone for the petrol now. As an example, last week I went for a drive to Aberdeen (about 50 miles for me), mostly dual carriageway, on cruise, set to 78 mph. I averaged 33.6 mpg on the journey.

    My guess is that, on average, I will get less than 40 mpg overall with this car. Probably somewhere around mid-30's with my driving style.

    Now, compared to the FWD 143, that was slightly better, averaging around 41 mpg over the 15k I did in that car. Again, terrible. I was seriously hoping for about 10 mpg better. And, in fact, the reason I got rid of that motor was the poor fuel consumption. Probably should have kept it in hindsight, but I was taken in by the increased claimed fuel economy of the newer engine, coupled with the 4wd.

    In essence, I shall NEVER AGAIN buy a new Audi diesel. If my fuel economy had been relatively sensible with the current 177, I had planned on keeping it for many years after the initial term ran out. Not any longer. As soon as I am at the point where I wont loose sooooooo much money, the 177 is getting traded in for a BMW 320d.

    Personally, I dont even like the BMW, and much prefer the look / drive / interior of the Audi, but I buy a 2.0 Diesel for fuel economy. Something that the Audi simply doesn't have, despite its claimed figures, and low tax bracket.

    Consider yourself lucky you took the time to come on here and ask before buying. I now wish I had waited for some real world figures to come out before buying. As it stands now, I will simply loose far too much money to consider changing at the moment.
    #6
  8. scz4
    Offline

    scz4 New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2012]
    Thanks for the insight, I'm Aberdeen :)

    You should get along to John Clark and the 320d demo car they have, performance is brisk from the 2.0 engine, 52mpg with plenty of overtakes and the suspension was spot on, much better than the older 3 series. Perhaps I should wait for the new 3 series touring, but the M Sport isn't out until next year :(
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
    #7
  9. xs2man
    Offline

    xs2man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    16
    [May 6, 2012]
    Well, maybe by the time the M Sport comes out, I wont have to hand over quite so much coin to make the change. I doubt it though. Think I will be stuck with the 177 for at least 2 years now. Guess I'll just see what happens though. The wife goes to work tomorrow, so leaves me free to go do the things I like to do. i.e. Complain at Audi, and go see BMW...
    #8
  10. wassap
    Offline

    wassap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 6, 2012]
    XS2man, in my experience Diseasals get better mpg once they get to about 3 or 4 thousand miles, thats been my experience with 4 new cars.

    I never ever believe the lies put out by manufactuers regarding MPG, god knows which nun they get to test drive their cars! Quattro wont help your mpg at all tho.
    #9
  11. xs2man
    Offline

    xs2man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    16
    [May 6, 2012]
    I see what your saying, but even assuming we look at the extra-urban figures, and then compare them. Not for real values even, just for the expected difference between the older 143 and the newer 177.

    143 (Avant, multitronic, as thats what I had):
    [TABLE="width: 0"]
    [TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
    [TH="bgcolor: #E6E6E6, align: left"][TABLE="width: 0"]
    [TR="class: odd, bgcolor: transparent"]
    Fuel consumption (combined)
    [TD="align: right"]52.3 mpg[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TH]
    [TD="bgcolor: #E6E6E6, align: right"][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    Compared to my real world 41 mpg.

    177 Avant Quattro (That I now have):

    Extra urban consumption: 60.1 mpg

    So thats what? A supposed 7.8 mpg gain? When in reality, I have seen a 5-6 mpg drop.

    Also worth considering is that I have been driving miss daisy while running in the new motor, compared to normal driving style in the 143.

    I really doubt that after a few thousand more miles I will see a 10 mpg increase. Unless that is normal in your experience with new cars?

    Its not the actual compared to stated I am so peeved off about, as much as the increase in fuel consumption, compared to the expected reduction I was expecting. I mean there is a near 14 mpg difference there. (expecting somewhere near 8 mpg better, more realistically wanted 4-5, and getting 5-6 mpg less).

    When compared to real world 320d figures of 50+ mpg as stated by actual 320d owners. In fact, I know a guy with a mapped 335d touring who is getting better real-world fuel economy than my 177. And thats a 3.0 Litre, twin turbo diesel with over 300 BHP.

    Or, to put it another way. I also have a 4.2 V8 S4. And when I fill them both up, the MTE shows a 100 mile difference between the motors. I didn't buy the diesel to get only 100 miles more out a tank than I do out of my V8. In reality it is closer to 130 miles difference, but really that isn't good enough. And as a result, I will never be buying another new Audi diesel. Next purchase will be a BMW with winter tyres (unless they bring the x-drive to the UK market).
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
    #10
  12. TripleD
    Offline

    TripleD Audi Novice

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    3
    [May 6, 2012]
    I've passed 6500 miles in mine now and it's settle around 40mpg, which is rubbish!

    I'd seriously wait for the 320d m sport to come out. My next move is probably a 5 series after i can get rid of mine, probably 2 - 2.5 years.
    My Audi looks good, love the better boot space for the dog, but the diesel is not worth it!
    #11
  13. Zafi
    Online

    Zafi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    69
    [May 6, 2012]
    Its strange how the Passat with a very similar engine gets genuine 50MPG plus. I just dont understand it....
    #12
  14. wassap
    Offline

    wassap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 7, 2012]
    The passat, despite being similar, is so god damn boring, you end up driving it slower hence getting better mileage:lmfao:
    #13
  15. johnnythepie
    Offline

    johnnythepie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    68
    [May 7, 2012]
    Its a no brainer.For looks and quality then Audi.For engine chassis and the rest BMW.I have a 2009 sline 2,0tdi 170 mapped to 200 and STILL cant catch the 320d.I have had 32mpg since new, and its just done 27k.Fuel reminder bongs dead on 420 miles (although after a run it went off at 440 ONCE).The DIS lies massively that i now take no notice of it.Always calculate full tank to full tank.Trouble is every time i detail it and stand back i forget all about the beemer which in comparison is SO bland and claustrophobic.
    #14

Share This Page