08 Audi A5 1.8T or 08 BMW 520D?

Davd · 25-05-2011 3:39pm #1

Both very different cars I know but having a hard time time deciding between them. Hope to find a 156 euro tax 520D if going that route. Price rules out the A5 2.0 TDI.
So what are your opinions? What would rule out one in favor of the other? I know the A5 has had window regulator problems and a lad I know had to have 2 replaced in the space of 2 months. What other issues with either model should I be looking out for? What about timing belt changes?
Thanks!

znv6i3h7kqf9ys · 25-05-2011 3:49pm

I've owned cars with the same engines (1.8t and 2.0d.) They are both really solid. Slight turbo lag in both but the BMW will give you alot more mpg and around the same power although the 2.0d is a little underpowered for the size of the 5 series (the same could also be said about the 1.8 in the Audi). Depends how you drive. BMW will have more torque which is better for motorway driving. The only drawback is it's going to sound like a tractor.

RugGol · 25-05-2011 3:51pm

Bear in mind that the new 5 series was released in 2010 so the 2008 model will get dated looking very quickly

Anan1 · 25-05-2011 4:27pm

Personally, i'd sooner a 320d than either. Between the two you mention, though, i'd take the BMW. I'd also prefer the higher-tax car - it'll be cheaper to buy, and there's no DPF to need replacing.

Theboinkmaster · 25-05-2011 4:29pm

I'd have the BMW easily

mickdw · 25-05-2011 5:44pm

Ive got an 08 1.8T A5 and I will not be buying another. If you want an A5, get one with quattro. Having said that, I wouldnt take a 520d as a swap so make of that what you will.

The 3.0 tdi A5 quattro is a much better car.

gebbel · 25-05-2011 6:16pm

I would choose the A5 for it's fantastic looks and won't let you down on performance either.

Eric Cartman · 25-05-2011 6:27pm

Id choose the audi for the engine but the BMW for everything else ,

how about a 520i or a 525 ? or a 530d ? something with a real engine

Davd · 25-05-2011 8:34pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id choose the audi for the engine but the BMW for everything else ,

how about a 520i or a 525 ? or a 530d ? something with a real engine

Not really interested in a larger engine, have a 350z at the moment but 90% city driving so looking for comfort over poke.
Anyone know how the A5 compares to the 520D in terms of maintenance? re there any problems with either?

vectra · 25-05-2011 8:41pm

Buddy of mine has an A5 1.8t.. Swore ...NEVER again...!
Cannot get rid of it for love nor money

Head for the BM :cool:

** EDIT **
Thats bloody ironic..!! :eek:

Davd wrote: »

Not really interested in a larger engine, have a 350z at the moment but 90% city driving so looking for comfort over poke.

Thats exactly what my buddy had
A 350Z.. and traded it in against the A5 :pac:

mickdw · 25-05-2011 8:43pm

General maintenance on the A5 is cheap. Apart from that, problems with mine have been -
Window regulator outside warranty - audi paid half.

During warranty:
Ignition key socket had to be changed
Aircon dumped all its gas
Drivers seat backrest foam went to bits (looked like there was 150k miles on the car (there was only 25k)

Davd · 25-05-2011 8:50pm

vectra wrote: »

Buddy of mine has an A5 1.8t.. Swore ...NEVER again...!
Cannot get rid of it for love nor money

Head for the BM :cool:

** EDIT **
Thats bloody ironic..!! :eek:

Thats exactly what my buddy had
A 350Z.. and traded it in against the A5 :pac:

So why can't he shift the A5 and what's he looking for? Can't get rid of it? Try getting rid of a 350z!

Davd · 25-05-2011 8:52pm

mickdw wrote: »

General maintenance on the A5 is cheap. Apart from that, problems with mine have been -
Window regulator outside warranty - audi paid half.

During warranty:
Ignition key socket had to be changed
Aircon dumped all its gas
Drivers seat backrest foam went to bits (looked like there was 150k miles on the car (there was only 25k)

Seems like a lot of problems with a low mileage 2/3 year old car...

vectra · 25-05-2011 9:14pm

Davd wrote: »

So why can't he shift the A5 and what's he looking for? Can't get rid of it? Try getting rid of a 350z!

Looked at trading it in some months back.. He was offered little over 20k for it against a new BMW.. He paid around 53k for it and not big mileage on it either..
As above post
He replace
Window reg
ignition gage trouble

mickdw · 25-05-2011 9:54pm

vectra wrote: »

Looked at trading it in some months back.. He was offered little over 20k for it against a new BMW.. He paid around 53k for it and not big mileage on it either..
As above post
He replace
Window reg
ignition gage trouble

Mine retailed at 54.5k when I bought it Paid. Knocked 3k off on straight sale. Its just 3 years since april with 51k miles on it. I guess it worth 23 /24k maybe now.
The change in car prices distorts stuff though. When I was buying 520d was around 56 /57k. They are significantly cheaper now so the value of the trade in was always going to collapse.

mickdw · 25-05-2011 10:08pm

Davd wrote: »

Seems like a lot of problems with a low mileage 2/3 year old car...

I didnt get to the stuff about the 1.8T being a disaster with regard to wheel hop & tramlining type steering pull. I cannot run the same tyres front and back. Hard sidewall tyres cannot be steered on mayo roads on 18" rims on this car. Other cars are fine. Stick some softer walled tyres and the back end becomes really unstable on turn in so Im now running harder sidewalls at the back and a bit more give at the front end. Takes a bit of the sharpness out of it but wrestling the car on every journey gets tiring so its the best option.
Also the brake guards are an aerodynamic design which is great for cooling I guess but you can get your fingers between the disc and the guard in places due to the shape and this causes stones to be trapped regularily leading to that terrible grinding noise.
Stick a passenger in the front seat and the wheel hop goes away. Dont let the salesman sit in front if test driving

bazz26 · 26-05-2011 12:16am

Davd wrote: »

Not really interested in a larger engine, have a 350z at the moment but 90% city driving so looking for comfort over poke.
Anyone know how the A5 compares to the 520D in terms of maintenance? re there any problems with either?

You are just asking for trouble buying a diesel car doing 90% city driving. They are not designed for city driving and any small savings you make at the pump will be irrelevent to the price of a new DPF.

Also I would not be hung up on cars costing €156 to tax, that is minut compared to forking out over €20k for the pleasure of owning one.

Davd · 26-05-2011 10:40am

Most of you seem to be in favor of the 520D. Anyone have any bad experiences with this car?
Seem to be a few common problems with the A5 but the key fob replacement is one I haven't heard before. A friend has a 09 A4 and has had to have the AirCon system replaced after a major issue, not sure of the details but could be the same problem that mickdw had with his A.

bazz26 wrote: »

You are just asking for trouble buying a diesel car doing 90% city driving. They are not designed for city driving and any small savings you make at the pump will be irrelevent to the price of a new DPF.

Also I would not be hung up on cars costing €156 to tax, that is minut compared to forking out over €20k for the pleasure of owning one.

I suppose I should have been more clear on city driving, with the hours I work, it is mostly free flowing traffic, wouldn't be stationary/rush hour traffic. I'm not hung up on the tax or pump saving either as I'll be coming from €1566 tax so I'd be fine with anything under €600 to tax. I don't do the mileage either to rule out petrol engines. But what I would like is a decent resale value and from looking at both of these cars, they seem pretty equal in terms of depreciation, maybe the Audi holding on to value a little more.

Thanks for the help so far lads, starting to lead towards the BMW but have come across some nice A5's...

Matt Simis · 26-05-2011 11:13am

The e60 520d is everywhere, getting sick of seeing them (ok I already am). Ive always had a soft spot for that A5 2.0T (Petrol) that was doing 38-42mpg. Should be much better than the 1.8T.

I wouldnt touch a FWD A5 though, mickdw's front wheel hop antics are legendary. :P

Driving dynamics.. I find it hard to believe anyone could prefer a small diesel engine RWD over such a nice (2.0T) petrol engine in a quattro. Yes, I love RWD too, but thats only one aspect of the car. Quattros are hilarious in the wet and snow too, was very fun driving in this morning. Diesels need to be 3litre and above to get interesting. Coming from a 350z you need to put a different spin on some of the responses IMO, your benchmark is (/should be) quite different to the norm. My brother has a 350z too, so I know the car well enough, its torquey but also revvy, the 520d will seem like quite the lame duck in comparison.

veetwin · 26-05-2011 12:25pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id choose the audi for the engine but the BMW for everything else ,

how about a 520i or a 525 ? or a 530d ? something with a real engine

Can any one explain to me how a 520i is better than a 520D or than the sound it makes.It has less power, costs more to tax and less fuel efficient. OK its a small 4 cylinder diesel but it puts out 177bhp (hardly a lame duck) and is fuel and tax efficient. Kind of what most people are looking for these days.525 or 530d are great cars but not a huge choice in Ireland and they are asking for a big premium over the 520D

Tea 1000 · 26-05-2011 12:30pm

veetwin wrote: »

Can any one explain to me how a 520i is better than a 520D or than the sound it makes.It has less power, costs more to tax and less fuel efficient. OK its a small 4 cylinder diesel but it puts out 177bhp (hardly a lame duck) and is fuel and tax efficient. Kind of what most people are looking for these days.525 or 530d are great cars but not a huge choice in Ireland and they are asking for a big premium over the 520D

Welcome to boards.ie, where 184bhp in a 520d is pathetic, joke-like and not fit to move the car, where as 170bhp in a Superb is an awesome choice, possibly the best car money can buy, a 523i is a fantastic choice despite it being a rather leisurely 170bhp, and buying the entry level car is stupid, why don't you spend another €15,000 on extras, of which you'll see back a good €800 when trading in the car in 2 years time!

veetwin · 26-05-2011 12:45pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Welcome to boards.ie, where 184bhp in a 520d is pathetic, joke-like and not fit to move the car, where as 170bhp in a Superb is an awesome choice, possibly the best car money can buy,

There is a discussion on another thread about how great the 105bhp Superb is and how there is a 6 month waiting list for it!

Johnny Utah · 26-05-2011 12:51pm

City driving?

Ah here now, what you need is a 6 litre V12 luxobarge from about 20 years ago... an old S-class or a 7 series would do the job nicely... some great value out there! :rolleyes:

Matt Simis · 26-05-2011 1:40pm

veetwin wrote: »

Can any one explain to me how a 520i is better than a 520D or than the sound it makes.It has less power, costs more to tax and less fuel efficient. OK its a small 4 cylinder diesel but it puts out 177bhp (hardly a lame duck) and is fuel and tax efficient. Kind of what most people are looking for these days.

If you are referring to me (as I said lame duck), then I was comparing the 280-310bhp 3.5 V6 in the 350z to the 177bhp odd 520d engine. Its a good solid choice, but so so dull. The 208bhp A5 2.0T would be much nicer to drive, remaps quite well too.
There is no point in talking about what "most people are looking for".. most people arent moving from a Zed car. Most people suck.

Saying that I would have no interest in a 520i (or 523i or whatever they call it these days) either, of the 2 the 520d is a much better choice.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Welcome to boards.ie, where 184bhp in a 520d is pathetic, joke-like and not fit to move the car, where as 170bhp in a Superb is an awesome choice, possibly the best car money can buy,

I think the 3.6L FSI V6 Superb running on LPG would be the best compromise in the Superb lineup... Besides, what do you want here, the world and it aunt is gushing over 520d's and Skoda's alike, we dont need to add to the noise recommending the stupidly boring and obvious choice.

Davd · 26-05-2011 1:52pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

The e60 520d is everywhere, getting sick of seeing them (ok I already am). Ive always had a soft spot for that A5 2.0T (Petrol) that was doing 38-42mpg. Should be much better than the 1.8T.

I wouldnt touch a FWD A5 though, mickdw's front wheel hop antics are legendary. :P

Driving dynamics.. I find it hard to believe anyone could prefer a small diesel engine RWD over such a nice (2.0T) petrol engine in a quattro. Yes, I love RWD too, but thats only one aspect of the car. Quattros are hilarious in the wet and snow too, was very fun driving in this morning. Diesels need to be 3litre and above to get interesting. Coming from a 350z you need to put a different spin on some of the responses IMO, your benchmark is (/should be) quite different to the norm. My brother has a 350z too, so I know the car well enough, its torquey but also revvy, the 520d will seem like quite the lame duck in comparison.

Had a look at the 2.0T A5 but am I right in saying they came out in 2009 and so a little out of my price range and a quattro would push that even further out of my price range.
Just wondering why you say diesels need to be 3 liter before they get interesting? On paper - BMW 520D: 175Bhp, 350Nm torque, 0-100kph 8.3 sec and Audi 1.8T: 170Bhp, 250Nm torque, 0-100kph 8.4 sec. I realize that neither would be a patch on the 350z performance wise but if it was performance I was looking for, then I wouldn't be looking at the Audi or BMW...
Responses I was looking for were along the lines of Mickdw's and his wheel hop problems and anything I should be looking for while testing driving either car.
Thanks again.

veetwin · 26-05-2011 1:54pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

If you are referring to me (as I said lame duck), then I was comparing the 280-310bhp 3.5 V6 in the 350z to the 177bhp odd 520d engine.

In fairness most cars on the road on would be a lame duck compared to the 350Z

Matt Simis · 26-05-2011 2:40pm

Davd wrote: »

Had a look at the 2.0T A5 but am I right in saying they came out in 2009 and so a little out of my price range and a quattro would push that even further out of my price range.
Just wondering why you say diesels need to be 3 liter before they get interesting? On paper - BMW 520D: 175Bhp, 350Nm torque, 0-100kph 8.3 sec and Audi 1.8T: 170Bhp, 250Nm torque, 0-100kph 8.4 sec.

You might be right on the 2.0T, Id have to scale back what I said just to "not a FWD" model then. I wasnt comparing the 1.8T to the 520d, but I would be (sadly) still leaning on a tuned quattro 1.8T over the presumably more expensive diesel BMW. You driving doesnt benefit from diesel.
You quote engine specs, thats all well and good, but have you actually driven a 4pot diesel for any length of time? They are not "interesting". They are frugal, thats the point..

Still your pigeon-holing of choices here is bizarre, you want a cheap to tax car but are spending around EUR20,000 on it...? Have you considered the cost of depreciation in there at all? Let alone cost of loans if required.
Considering a 335/535d could be had for near EUR15k or so, seems like you are downgrading and spending are lot of money to save pennys.

Davd wrote: »

I realize that neither would be a patch on the 350z performance wise but if it was performance I was looking for, then I wouldn't be looking at the Audi or BMW...

Can only lol at this..?

Tea 1000 · 26-05-2011 2:47pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the 3.6L FSI V6 Superb running on LPG would be the best compromise in the Superb lineup... Besides, what do you want here, the world and it aunt is gushing over 520d's and Skoda's alike, we dont need to add to the noise recommending the stupidly boring and obvious choice.

I wouldn't consider a slightly ugly, unreliable and poor handling A5 with a reasonable engine as a fantastic choice over an OK looking, fairly well sorted saloon with a sensible (dull!) engine, but overall I do get your sentiment. But as he said, if he wanted performance, it'd be elsewhere he'd look.

Matt Simis · 26-05-2011 3:12pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider a slightly ugly, unreliable and poor handling A5 with a reasonable engine as a fantastic choice over an OK looking, fairly well sorted saloon with a sensible (dull!) engine, but overall I do get your sentiment. But as he said, if he wanted performance, it'd be elsewhere he'd look.

I said they were both poor choices, "fantastic" was never mentioned! The iffy handling on the A5 is largely a FWD problem.
Reliability is much of a muchness, a diesel BMW vs a petrol Audi. Neither are particularly reliable.

Also I and I guess many people dont find the A5 "ugly looking".. if I did it wouldnt get a look in at all. I generally like Walter d'Silva's car designs though and he himself likes the A5 most of all of his work.

mickdw · 26-05-2011 4:13pm

Just to comment in favour of the A5 for a change, mine is 3 years old, it gets driven reasonably hard and on bad mayo road (although with a large degree of mechanical sympathy too). It has not deteriorated in any way over the 50k miles. Hasnt needed so much as a D bush yet. No rattles or squeaks from suspension or the car interior and after throwing many sets of new tyres at it & a set of wheels, it is now a better car to drive than when supplied new. Perhaps it will go on for many years without (m)any more problems now that the faults that they all have are fixed. NO timing belt to worry about either so that is a benefit too.

Was seriously considering a 07 A8 diesel of late but the bills are a killer by all accounts.

Matt Simis · 26-05-2011 4:23pm

mickdw wrote: »

Perhaps it will go on for many years without (m)any more problems now that the faults that they all have are fixed. NO timing belt to worry about either so that is a benefit too.

About time to get it remapped and fit an LSD to control that FWD! Consider it a big Alfa 156 GTA... :pac:

coolbeans · 26-05-2011 7:10pm

I just did a quick poll around the table here, (twelve people, don't ask) and FWIW the A5 was judged a far better looking car than a boggo 5 series. The A5 may be flawed but it's a fine looking car.

Squall19 · 26-05-2011 9:07pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

If you are referring to me (as I said lame duck), then I was comparing the 280-310bhp 3.5 V6 in the 350z to the 177bhp odd 520d engine. Its a good solid choice, but so so dull. The 208bhp A5 2.0T would be much nicer to drive, remaps quite well too.
There is no point in talking about what "most people are looking for".. most people arent moving from a Zed car. Most people suck.

Saying that I would have no interest in a 520i (or 523i or whatever they call it these days) either, of the 2 the 520d is a much better choice.

I think the 3.6L FSI V6 Superb running on LPG would be the best compromise in the Superb lineup... Besides, what do you want here, the world and it aunt is gushing over 520d's and Skoda's alike, we dont need to add to the noise recommending the stupidly boring and obvious choice.

Just about everyone complains about LPG power loss, even though you are saving 40% on the cost of the fuel, you generally will use 30% more fuel.I dont see the point do you?:)

Remapping will see a good increase in the 520d, it's as good as similar petrol's when it comes too mapping, 200bhp+ and 450nm is no bother at all on that unit.That's 7 seconds to 60, not bad at all.

350Z isn't all that as well, under 300bhp, 350nm, 5.8 seconds to 60, from a 3.5 V6 that does 23mpg is not something I would be raving about.

Every new turbo petrol hot hatch from a Megane to a Focus, can match those figures, with more torque, cheaper road tax, better economy and dont weigh almost 1600kg!

I would love a 520d myself, don't those turbo petrol's have dmf and all that **** too?

Matt Simis · 27-05-2011 12:48am

Squall19 wrote: »

Just about everyone complains about LPG power loss, even though you are saving 40% on the cost of the fuel, you generally will use 30% more fuel.I dont see the point do you?:)

Getting so annoying debunking this over and over on Boards. "Everyone".. eh, no, people who have never tried it repeat that on internet forums, in the real world LPG delivers more low end torque (as it has massively higher octane rating) than petrol and a 5-10% MPG hit. Ive test drove an S8 with it as well as an 840i, you cannot tell the difference except the LPG seems more responsive.

Brand new multipoint Injection systems are nothing like the thrown together DIY LPG systems of 25years ago. But this is going way OTT.

You comments about the 350z and the 520d are so absurd Im not even going to bother picking them apart. Go on believing you have found ambrosia in the form of a 4pot diesel, ignorance is bliss I guess.

Tea 1000 · 27-05-2011 11:18am

coolbeans wrote: »

I just did a quick poll around the table here, (twelve people, don't ask) and FWIW the A5 was judged a far better looking car than a boggo 5 series. The A5 may be flawed but it's a fine looking car.

That's because this is Ireland, they all grew up with Jettas and Bora's. I bet they think the A4 is a great looking car too. It's the Irish love with all things VAG.
I think it's mank, the C-pillar area in particular.

Tea 1000 · 27-05-2011 11:20am

Squall19 wrote: »

Just about everyone complains about LPG power loss, even though you are saving 40% on the cost of the fuel, you generally will use 30% more fuel.I dont see the point do you?:)

Remapping will see a good increase in the 520d, it's as good as similar petrol's when it comes too mapping, 200bhp+ and 450nm is no bother at all on that unit.That's 7 seconds to 60, not bad at all.

350Z isn't all that as well, under 300bhp, 350nm, 5.8 seconds to 60, from a 3.5 V6 that does 23mpg is not something I would be raving about.

Every new turbo petrol hot hatch from a Megane to a Focus, can match those figures, with more torque, cheaper road tax, better economy and dont weigh almost 1600kg!

I would love a 520d myself, don't those turbo petrol's have dmf and all that **** too?

This post is exactly why maths teachers shouldn't sell cars.

the culture of deference · 27-05-2011 2:11pm

I was in the same position 2 months ago.

I really wanted an 08 msport touring 520d, 2nd choice was a jag estate 2.0d.

Both were available for under 20k, both were cheap tax but in the end I realised it was vanity that wanted the bmw, and I would be better off buying new. You will never exactly know what type of future problems or expenses are hidden in 3 year old car, (there may be none).

Good luck whatever you get though.

Matt Simis · 27-05-2011 2:46pm

the culture of deference wrote: »

Both were available for under 20k, both were cheap tax but in the end I realised it was vanity that wanted the bmw, and I would be better off buying new. You will never exactly know what type of future problems or expenses are hidden in 3 year old car, (there may be none).

Better to know for sure you will loose a $hit ton buying new then....? :pac:

Davd · 27-05-2011 3:53pm

the culture of deference wrote: »

I was in the same position 2 months ago.

I really wanted an 08 msport touring 520d, 2nd choice was a jag estate 2.0d.

Both were available for under 20k, both were cheap tax but in the end I realised it was vanity that wanted the bmw, and I would be better off buying new. You will never exactly know what type of future problems or expenses are hidden in 3 year old car, (there may be none).

Good luck whatever you get though.

I see your point and I suppose vanity is an aspect of buying any car and I'm moving on from a car that must be said is totally vain, as there isn't an inch of practicality about it.
You're right in saying that you never know what type of problems or expenses are hidden in a 3 year old car but the same can be said for any new car once it hits 3 years of age - the warranty is more than likely over and you're on your own anyway. You would have the knowledge of how the car was driven but the only certainty is that after 3 years, it's depreciated approximately 40-50% and if anything goes wrong then, you're on your own. That's probably why I could never see myself buying from new as you lose a considerable amount on the value of the car the minute you drive it out of the showroom. Could be the start of another thread - "What would you need to be earning to consider buying from new"

However, it is vanity again that is making me consider the A5 as I do think it is a beautiful car and better looking inside and out than the BMW. A few here wouldn't agree and they're entitled to their opinion. That said I do like the BMW also and it would probably hold it's value a little better over the next few years, it has slightly better performance and is more economical and easier to sell. That's why I asked the question here, I was hoping for some negative feedback for both that might possibly sway me either way, like mickdw's experience of the A5. Was leaning slightly leaning towards the 520D but now I'm back to 50/50. Going to test drive both again tomorrow...

So what did you get in the end?

paulmcdub · 27-05-2011 4:15pm

Drove manual A4 for 3 years - pedals are off-set making driving position quite uncomfortable - also build quality not as good as previous A4 - same for A5 - would avoid tbh

Squall19 · 28-05-2011 12:52am

Matt Simis wrote: »

Getting so annoying debunking this over and over on Boards. "Everyone".. eh, no, people who have never tried it repeat that on internet forums, in the real world LPG delivers more low end torque (as it has massively higher octane rating) than petrol and a 5-10% MPG hit. Ive test drove an S8 with it as well as an 840i, you cannot tell the difference except the LPG seems more responsive.

Brand new multipoint Injection systems are nothing like the thrown together DIY LPG systems of 25years ago. But this is going way OTT.

You comments about the 350z and the 520d are so absurd Im not even going to bother picking them apart. Go on believing you have found ambrosia in the form of a 4pot diesel, ignorance is bliss I guess.

Any facts to the claims with regard to LPG?

They lose power on a dyno compared to a petrol from what I have seen and 5% mpg is very optimistic I would say.

I would like to see a study please?

Your 350z puts out under 300bhp and is crap on fuel.

A modern 2.0l turbo petrol puts out almost the same bhp with more torque and is over 50% better on fuel.

Engine = not so strong:D Little embarrassing for a big V6 I think

To make it even worse

300bhp from your 3.5 litre petrol = 85 bhp a litre

182bhp from the 2.0 diesel = 91 bhp a litre

Worse still your 3.5l gets its full 300bhp from high octane petrol as its a Jap car, probably 100 ron+, put our **** 93 ron fuel in and you would be lucky to see 270bhp.

Dont believe me, bring it to a dyno and put it on:)

I would put 20 quid it wont make anywhere near 300bhp, while the diesel will have no problem making its factory standard 182bhp.

R.O.R · 28-05-2011 9:15am

Squall19 wrote: »

Any facts to the claims with regard to LPG?

They lose power on a dyno compared to a petrol from what I have seen and 5% mpg is very optimistic I would say.

I would like to see a study please?

Your 350z puts out under 300bhp and is crap on fuel.

A modern 2.0l turbo petrol puts out almost the same bhp with more torque and is over 50% better on fuel.

Engine = not so strong:D Little embarrassing for a big V6 I think

To make it even worse

300bhp from your 3.5 litre petrol = 85 bhp a litre

182bhp from the 2.0 diesel = 91 bhp a litre

Worse still your 3.5l gets its full 300bhp from high octane petrol as its a Jap car, probably 100 ron+, put our **** 93 ron fuel in and you would be lucky to see 270bhp.

Dont believe me, bring it to a dyno and put it on:)

I would put 20 quid it wont make anywhere near 300bhp, while the diesel will have no problem making its factory standard 182bhp.

Matt doesn't have the 350z - you might want to read back through the thread before posting your claims.

Don't think Matt bothers if there's less than 8 cylinders under the bonnet....

maddness · 28-05-2011 9:40am

Don't touch a front drive A5, terrible yoke to drive. Very uncomfortable to drive too. The 520d is a boring choice but they are very good which is why people like them.

the culture of deference · 28-05-2011 5:26pm

Davd wrote: »

I see your point and I suppose vanity is an aspect of buying any car and I'm moving on from a car that must be said is totally vain, as there isn't an inch of practicality about it.
You're right in saying that you never know what type of problems or expenses are hidden in a 3 year old car but the same can be said for any new car once it hits 3 years of age - the warranty is more than likely over and you're on your own anyway. You would have the knowledge of how the car was driven but the only certainty is that after 3 years, it's depreciated approximately 40-50% and if anything goes wrong then, you're on your own. That's probably why I could never see myself buying from new as you lose a considerable amount on the value of the car the minute you drive it out of the showroom. Could be the start of another thread - "What would you need to be earning to consider buying from new"

However, it is vanity again that is making me consider the A5 as I do think it is a beautiful car and better looking inside and out than the BMW. A few here wouldn't agree and they're entitled to their opinion. That said I do like the BMW also and it would probably hold it's value a little better over the next few years, it has slightly better performance and is more economical and easier to sell. That's why I asked the question here, I was hoping for some negative feedback for both that might possibly sway me either way, like mickdw's experience of the A5. Was leaning slightly leaning towards the 520D but now I'm back to 50/50. Going to test drive both again tomorrow...

So what did you get in the end?

A very sensible renault megane estate, its actually a great car, cheaper than you would think and it drives as well as anything I test drove in the class you are looking in.

A workmate had a v8 A5, (would hate to see the depr. figures and service costs) and it was lovely, but I don't know what the 1.8 or 2 L are like in comparrison. Can you wait for the F10 to come down in price, the E60's are dropping in value, look in the UK you can get 08 for 11 grand.

Matt Simis · 28-05-2011 9:09pm

Squall19 wrote: »

Any facts to the claims with regard to LPG?

They lose power on a dyno compared to a petrol from what I have seen and 5% mpg is very optimistic I would say.

I would like to see a study please?

Your 350z puts out under 300bhp and is crap on fuel.

A modern 2.0l turbo petrol puts out almost the same bhp with more torque and is over 50% better on fuel.

On LPG
"Study", please, why join you in reguritating crap, Im getting mine converted next week. Ill bring it to the next meetup and you can suck it and see. Ive been in 3 LPG cars within the last year, 2 of them performance cars, there is no difference that a human can reasonably detect. The guy Im getting to install it has LPG on his 400bhp EVO with 2 Vaporisors, its a fast car. They also converted a bunch of Dodge V10s and S8s, S4s etc. You really think none of their customers noticed a substantial loss? While I concede it may loose a bit on the high RPM band, its pushing out more torque at the low RPM band, so its a wash. The 30% MPG loss is simply a world away from reality, certainly on performance cars that can utilise the super high octane.

On super-dooper 2011 4pot 2.0litre turbo's vs 2002 era 350z:
Your comparisons of (largely) Front wheel drive 4pots vs a 300bhp V6 RWD are flawed in a manner someone that has no experience of driving fast cars can only make. I drove a well regarded 2.3litre 4pot with a big turbo (260bhp) 250km over the last few days and IMO, its an appalling drive. Sure it puts out 260bhp, but in a diesel like narrow power band (and just for clarities sake, thats a bad thing). Its pretty $hitty, it would only impress those unfamilar with silky smooth bliss that is NA performance.

I then test drove an M3 (340bhp NA I6) then drove my daily commutter home (4.2l V8 NA 350bhp ish). Cant wait till I drive my fast car again, its getting some bushing work done at the moment (shade under 400bhp, 420ft/lb torque, NA V12). On paper you could do all sorts of dumbass "divide CC by bhp then get y" mathematics with these and try make the case that 4pots with big turbos bring similar power with lower costs (tax and MPG).. but you cannot have your cake and eat it, there is no replacement for displacement (or cylinders). Turbos are great.. when strapped to you know, real sized engines...

PS: My little sister drives an e60 520d, I should let her know its apparently a performance car that gets magically also gets 55mpg...

08 Audi A5 1.8T or 08 BMW 520D?

Comments