xfirechief

Just returned from a trip with the Q 5 w/3.2 engine.
We averaged right around 31 MPG. I think that is great so why should we get a diesel for our next Q 5? What would I have to get with the diesel to make it pay the higher price?

Xylar5

We just got back from a 400 mile trip, one way. We have a 2014 3.0T and averaged about 23 MPG with cruise control set at 78 MPH. This is after the first service. We recently rolled over 6000 miles.

On my wife's daily drive, she is getting between 21.4 and 21.7 MPG.

(All figures are calculated, not based on the computer)

Coolieman1220

is that what your trip computer says? or is that what you calculated manually when you filled up your tank.

I would routinely get my 3.2 to have the OBC tell me numbers in the 30's but in reality it was like 26-27 when i checked. Of course this was few occasions. Your trip may have had a tail wind or downhill.

The diesel will consistently get those numbers. I used to average 21 with my 2.0t, 19 in my 3.2 and now i'm averaging 27.5 with my TDI. All fill ups calculated by the mileage traveled over the amount of fuel consumed.

Audi's OBC's are notorious for over exaggerating gas mileage. Many people tweak their settings with a vag-com unit to make them more accurate.

xfirechief

I did use the vehicles readings for the MPG. Next trip I will fill up when I start and write down the miles, then add all the fuel I use plus the total miles traveled and see what that is that way.

What do u think? Higher, lower, or just about the same?

amstrad

The objective of fuel efficient vehicles is not to save money. Although that would be nice. It would take years to pay off the price premium that fuel efficient cars incur.

The point of the higher mpg cars is to simply use less fuel and produce fewer emissions.

I bought a Q5 TDI because of the fantastic balance of great performance at reasonable fuel efficiency. And with the stupidly overtaxed price of diesel (don't get me started on that soapbox), it's never going to be a sound financial decision. Even so, diesel fuel is only marginally more expensive than the premium I'd be putting in any other high performance engine. I drive my TDI pretty hard and I'm averaging 28 with 50/50 city/hw driving. It's and easy 36 mpg long distance though.

Highpark

I sure wish they had a 4 cylinder TDI Q5.

habu987

The price premium and payoff time differs from vehicle to vehicle. Some cars don't have a huge mpg gap between their diesel and gas engined cars, or have a large price premium for the diesel, or both. Others don't.

In terms of luxury cars, it's a mixed bag. Let's look at the EPA mpgs for a few of them. For the Q5, let's look at the 3.0 vs the TDI, with the TDI's ~$2k upcharge

-3.0: 18/26/21
-TDI: 24/31/27

If the drivers get exactly the combined mpg over 12,000 miles a year, the two drivers will consume 571 and 444 gallons of gas and diesel, respectively. At the gas station by my house, premium is $3.99 and diesel is $4.09. The gas driver will spend $2278 a year on gas. The diesel driver will spend $1815 a year on gas, leaving a $463 delta. If both drivers keep their Q5s for 5 years, the diesel driver will have spent $2315 less in fuel costs than the gas driver, which covers the higher up front cost of the diesel model.

If you look at real world reported fuel economy on fuelly, diesel Q5 drivers are reporting a combined 30 mpg. With the gas V6 drivers (looking at 2013 and 2014 models, disregarding an anomalous 38mpg reading), they're reporting a combined 20 mpg. Using the same prices and driving distances for gas/diesel as above, the diesel driver saves $758 a year on fuel compared to his gas counterpart. With that delta, the diesel driver makes up the upfront price of the diesel in three years, right in line with a lease.

Same type of tradeoff with other cars. Several months ago, I ran the numbers for a MB E250 vs E350 and found a slightly quicker payoff with the diesel, at just a bit over 2.75 years.

...All that said, if I get a diesel, it's not primarily for fuel economy, although that certainly plays a part. Rather, it's the driving range and performance that I'm interested in.

Parsec

I hear you on that. My wife is averaging 21.x on her 2.0T so I was wondering how in the world xfirechief and Xylar5 are getting such high gas mileage. Then I noticed they live in Wisconsin and Texas, lol.

idale

Expect around 8% lower from what at least a number of TDI owners are seeing. Even if you call it 10%, you're still really not doing too badly with the 3.2.

I got 28-31mpg (calculated) on last Christmas's trip to the in-laws'. Less than EPA, but that's 400 miles of road that has a lot of hills and small towns, 3000' net elevation change (going up was the 28, 31 coming back), and cruise was at 75+ (70 would've likely added a couple of mpg from past experience).

The TDI is awesome (as mentioned) for range and performance, but don't go in expecting to make up the extra cost ($3500 similarly-equipped) quickly. Here, premium and diesel are pretty much even in cost, though, so there's a real savings from the extra mpg. But even better is filling up every 1.5 weeks instead of 1 week, and less need to fill up on road trips.

idale

2.0 TDI in Europe, though from what I remember seeing, a number of people thought that it wasn't quite powerful enough for the Q5 and so it was working harder than ideal to get the car moving around therefore wasting more fuel than necessary. Did seem to get something like 4mpg better than the 3.0 from what I recall, but whether it's "worth it" would be hard to say (certainly if you have lots of highway miles it would be, in town I think it'd be more frustrating).

That being said, being able to have the option here would've been nice. I think the 3.0 TDI is the best overall engine option on the Q5, but when you can push the performance side more going to the SQ5's tuned 3.0T, it'd be nice to be able to push the potential economy side by going to the 2.0 TDI.