A5 3.0TDI QUATTRO or BMW 535D

westlander

Hi,
Which would you go for and why?

Going on google searches BMW seems to be the more popular choice.

Any info appreciated!

Matt Simis

OSI wrote: »

What are you looking for in a car?

One is a 2 door sports coupe, and the other a "luxury" saloon. Not overly comparable.

The 535d isnt a luxury saloon (diesel issues aside), its a sports saloon. Its got its own specific gearbox, engine mapping and second turbo. It would bury an A5 3.0.

But you are right, odd to compare a Coupe to a Saloon... maybe op meant 335d Coupe? Still the 335d engine is not comparible with the fairly ordinary 3.0TDI VAG lump.

PaulieC

Neither.

If I had the readies, I would pick a Jaguar XF over these two all day

westlander

OSI wrote: »

What are you looking for in a car?

One is a 2 door sports coupe, and the other a "luxury" saloon. Not overly comparable.

Yes not an even comparison as they are in different classes. I like the look of the A5 but the 535 seems to have a lot better performance.

What would you need to pay to tax each car? (if the car was registered with the new emission based tas system)

Also which car is the thirstiest?

If you drive these 6 cylinders fairly sensible is it possible to get 50mpg?

pippip

OSI wrote: »

What are you looking for in a car?

One is a 2 door sports coupe, and the other a "luxury" saloon. Not overly comparable.

There is a 4 door A5 saloon. I'd go for the BMW as the A5 doesn't get a good driving performance review based on other threads.

All depends, what made you land on these two particular cars?

Tea 1000

Matt Simis wrote: »

The 535d isnt a luxury saloon (diesel issues aside), its a sports saloon. Its got its own specific gearbox, engine mapping and second turbo. It would bury an A5 3.0.

But you are right, odd to compare a Coupe to a Saloon... maybe op meant 335d Coupe? Still the 335d engine is not comparible with the fairly ordinary 3.0TDI VAG lump.

I'd echo this, and add that the Audi wouldn't be dynamically as capable as either a 335d or 535d.

westlander

westlander wrote: »

If you drive these 6 cylinders fairly sensible is it possible to get 50mpg?

If you're going to pay a huge wad of cash on a car and lose your arse on depreciation over the next few years does it matter if they do 50mpg or not :pac:

R.O.R

Earlier this year one of my customers was in a similar position.

He was driving a 525d M-Sport and wanted to test drive the XF 3.0d and the A6 3.0Tdi quattro.

Couldn't get an A6 3.0Tdi quattro, so ended up delivering an A5 3.0Tdi quattro convertible down to him. That was a cracking machine to drive. Held the road beautifully, and felt like you could carry on pushing it without it biting you.

The XF felt underpowered and slow compared to both the A5 and the 525d. It was also a bit of a handful to take off from traffic lights in the wet, just started spinning up the rears (which is a little disconcerting in someone elses demo car).

Problem was eventually solved with:




XF S model - 270bhp 3 litre diesel.

Don't know how it compares to a 535d. I've driven a couple of 530d's and it would compete with them. A5 is a little out of it's league in that company IMHO

rabbitinlights

I'd say the best way would be to go take both of the them for a test drive.

The 535d would be very hard to get 50mpg out of, all that power doesnt come for free!

S.

Leonard Hofstadter

A 530d is still very brisk and is far less complex with just the single turbo. Given the propensity of BMW diesels blowing turbos it would be the model I would choose. One turbo is cheaper than two!

It is also a bit more economical, about 4-5 mpg.

Nevertheless if you've decided on the cars mentioned at the beginning, a 535d wins that contest hands down.

The 535d is properly fast though, and almost all are the much better looking M Sport model. Personally, I wouldn't buy a 535d unless it was an M Sport, it is supposed to be a sports saloon that just happens to run on diesel as opposed to a brisk comfort saloon, which a 530d SE will do perfectly well at(I would still be having the M Sport in that as well though but I wouldn't be as pushed).

The XF is definitely worth considering, though I've heard several reports that the XF S is closer in performance to a 530d even though on paper it has power and torque figures similar to the 535d. Like I say anything close to a 530d in performance won't be found wanting.

The main thing with cars at this level is that they must have an automatic gearbox if you want to have any hope of getting a decent resale price when you want to sell it. Diesels work very well with autos as well and of course there are no DMFs or any unreliable transmission technology to worry about either.

Matt Simis

rabbitinlights wrote: »

I'd say the best way would be to go take both of the them for a test drive.

The 535d would be very hard to get 50mpg out of, all that power doesnt come for free!

S.

The 535d is a 35 to 42mpg car, if you get 50mpg out of it, you are doing it wrong. Bear in mind the % saving from 40 to 50mpg is minimal anyway.
The XF-S is a dual turbo unit like the BMW isnt it? I hear its excellent too.

captainspeed wrote: »

The main thing with cars at this level is that they must have an automatic gearbox if you want to have any hope of getting a decent resale price when you want to sell it. Diesels work very well with autos as well and of course there are no DMFs or any unreliable transmission technology to worry about either.

Yup agreed, though BMW took care of that in the 535d by only offering an Auto!

Idbatterim

Follwoing mid lfe restyle in 2007 The 535d was upgraded to 286 bhp (213 kW; 290 PS) (up from 272 bhp (203 kW; 276 PS)). The A5 has 240 PS (177 kW; 237 hp)@4000-4400, 500 N·m (369 ft·lbf)@1500-3000

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If you interested in economy get a 520d and stop kidding yourself that it makes sense to get a 3.0 6 cylinder desiel.

The Audi is more beautiful though so if you want to pose get it.

Matt Simis

Devon Swift Whimsy wrote: »

If you interested in economy get a 520d and stop kidding yourself that it makes sense to get a 3.0 6 cylinder desiel.

The Audi is more beautiful though so if you want to pose get it.

Nobody really needs the economy of a 520d over a 535d:


53mpg 520d
42mpg 535d
13200 miles a year (approx total 50 miles a day)

Cost of fuel:
535d: EUR1784
520d: EUR1413

Saving of loosing a turbo, 100bhp, +150lt/lbs torque, 2 Cylinders and a nicer smoother and overall better car: EUR370.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

buy a petrol 335 or 645 or m5 or m3 and get a better engine then. Remember the tax, depreciation and the purchase price in the calculations

-Corkie-

Why not Buy a A8. There is a man here with a A5 and he is not to happy with them. I would go for the Bimmer out of the two.

bmw535d

you should be comparing the a5 to a 330d tbh,coupe or 4 door.

TheBazman

I've had a 535d for around 2.5yrs (2007 LCI model so a little extra power and some cosmetic differences, although still on the old high tax rate). It's an absolutely fantastic car. Normal driving will return 36-38mpg - trying to be economical will get you around 40mpg. Driving aggressively will get you close to 30, which for the performance you have is actually very good. If you want 50+ mpg this is not the car for you.

I like the look of m-sport models so I would go for this, however you do sacrifice a little on the comfort side.

In terms of performance there is little better than it on the road - the torque is phenomenal. The 3.0 D XF 270bhp odd is probably close to it and I really like the look of the exterior. The interior however I just cant warm to (just a personal pref)
I love the look of the A5 and the 3.0 diesel is apparently faster to 60 than the 535d - I would imagine in normal conditions it would be a little down in performance. Some say also that the ride isn't great

When I changed to the M5 a couple of months ago I couldn't bear to leave the 535d leave the family so now my wife drives it ( a waste I know! but at least when we go travel as a family we can use that)

-Corkie-

What tax bracket is the 535 in as of 08. Im thinking of something like that or another A8 maybe next year when the bank account gets healthy again.

bmw535d

TheBazman wrote: »

I've had a 535d for around 2.5yrs (2007 LCI model so a little extra power and some cosmetic differences, although still on the old high tax rate). It's an absolutely fantastic car. Normal driving will return 36-38mpg - trying to be economical will get you around 40mpg. Driving aggressively will get you close to 30, which for the performance you have is actually very good. If you want 50+ mpg this is not the car for you.

I like the look of m-sport models so I would go for this, however you do sacrifice a little on the comfort side.

In terms of performance there is little better than it on the road - the torque is phenomenal. The 3.0 D XF 270bhp odd is probably close to it and I really like the look of the exterior. The interior however I just cant warm to (just a personal pref)
I love the look of the A5 and the 3.0 diesel is apparently faster to 60 than the 535d - I would imagine in normal conditions it would be a little down in performance. Some say also that the ride isn't great

When I changed to the M5 a couple of months ago I couldn't bear to leave the 535d leave the family so now my wife drives it ( a waste I know! but at least when we go travel as a family we can use that)

as a matter of interest (noseyness) are you a doctor or something?

TheBazman

bmw535d wrote: »

as a matter of interest (noseyness) are you a doctor or something?

Nope just a car nut

veetwin

Matt Simis wrote: »

Nobody really needs the economy of a 520d over a 535d:


53mpg 520d
42mpg 535d

In fairness both of those figures are pie in the sky. If you're getting that kind of mpg out of those cars you're doing it all wrong.

I say this as a regular 520D driver an an occasional 535D user. Neither figure is remotely accurate. Maybe high 30's for the 520 and high 20's for the 535.


Not really fair to compare them though. One is a high performance sports saloon the other is really only a cruiser(though a nice one).

-Corkie-

veetwin wrote: »

In fairness both of those figures are pie in the sky. If you're getting that kind of mpg out of those cars you're doing it all wrong.

I say this as a regular 520D driver an an occasional 535D user. Neither figure is remotely accurate. Maybe high 30's for the 520 and high 20's for the 535.


Not really fair to compare them though. One is a high performance sports saloon the other is really only a cruiser(though a nice one).

I have thought hard about the 520/530 numerous times. When I look at them in the garage I think nah thats not for me. I see one beside me in traffic later that day and I think hmmm thats nice...:o

mickdw

-Corkie- wrote: »

There is a man here with a A5 and he is not to happy with them. I would go for the Bimmer out of the two.

If you are talking about me Corkie,75% of my issues are related to the front drive version I have. The 3.0 tdi would be much improved I feel. Does still leave the odd quality issue though.

-Corkie-

mickdw wrote: »

If you are talking about me Corkie,75% of my issues are related to the front drive version I have. The 3.0 tdi would be much improved I feel. Does still leave the odd quality issue though.

I wouldnt have thought there would me much difference. Anyway I would be buying something nicer like the A8 or a 7 series.

mickdw

-Corkie- wrote: »

I wouldnt have thought there would me much difference. Anyway I would be buying something nicer like the A8 or a 7 series.

The 3.0 is quattro so that is the big improvement I see. Its pretty clear to me now that the car was never designed to be front driven.

I wouldnt mind an A8 like you had though. What was it like to live with? Any faults that could only be fixed by the dealer at silly cost?

bmw535d

veetwin wrote: »

In fairness both of those figures are pie in the sky. If you're getting that kind of mpg out of those cars you're doing it all wrong.

I say this as a regular 520D driver an an occasional 535D user. Neither figure is remotely accurate. Maybe high 30's for the 520 and high 20's for the 535.


Not really fair to compare them though. One is a high performance sports saloon the other is really only a cruiser(though a nice one).

a 2004 manual 530d will do 47.7mpg average.

Squall19

Having driven a 330d ( same 3.0 diesel ) very hard on numerous occasions, I dont really see the point of it unless your company is sorting you out for diesel.Its pretty thirsty when driven hard, near turbo petrol thirsty imo.Its quick but its not going to trouble a proper petrol.My 260bhp 2.3l turbo Mazda 3MPS leaves the 330d for dead past 160kmh ( where quick ends and fast begins ) and I can only imagine what a 535i would do to it:D They are still a long way of a good petrol and a V8 BMW petrol will be alot more reliable, thus cancelling out mpg bull****.

BMW makes the best petrols in the world;)

TheBazman

Not attacking you Squall but I have to disagree with a lot of what you've said. A V8 petrol being more reliable than a 330d? I can't imagine that the 330d is almost as thirsty as a turbo petrol driven hard. Also I'm sure your MPS is very fast above 100mph but large engined turbo diesels are also quite impressive up there too.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

whats all this thirsty turbo petrol crap, I have a 335i and it does 31 MPG in the real world and I tend not to dawdle.

mickdw

Devon Swift Whimsy wrote: »

whats all this thirsty turbo petrol crap, I have a 335i and it does 31 MPG in the real world and I tend not to dawdle.

I dont know how you guys manage these figures. I get high 20s at best from my 1.8T and less from a 1.8T I had previously.

Padraig Mor

-Corkie- wrote: »

Why not Buy a A8. There is a man here with a A5 and he is not to happy with them. I would go for the Bimmer out of the two.

-Corkie- wrote: »

What tax bracket is the 535 in as of 08. Im thinking of something like that or another A8 maybe next year when the bank account gets healthy again.

Didn't you have an A8 that broke your heart with constant repairs?

bmw535d

mickdw wrote: »

I dont know how you guys manage these figures. I get high 20s at best from my 1.8T and less from a 1.8T I had previously.

yours is a vag petrol lump:rolleyes:

mickdw

bmw535d wrote: »

yours is a vag petrol lump:rolleyes:

I am aware of that for god sake:rolleyes:. My point was that its a petrol turbo, its relatively new and Im sure audi with the Tfsi are not light years behind in efficiency so it seems odd to me that you could get anywhere near 30 mpg for a 335i bmw driven relatively hard. Quite frankly I dont believe it. I would see it being possible on a motorway cruise but driving reasonably hard in mixed driving, id be astonished if I would personally get anywhere near that if I was in that particular car. To be honest, I would go out and buy one if I would get that mpg.

tossy

mickdw wrote: »

I dont know how you guys manage these figures. I get high 20s at best from my 1.8T and less from a 1.8T I had previously.

Something wrong there Mick,even the 2.0TFSI GTI is capable of returning 30plus mpg,i could get 30's out of my old supercharged 2.8 vag lump at times.

Fizman

tossy wrote: »

Something wrong there Mick,even the 2.0TFSI GTI is capable of returning 30plus mpg,i could get 30's out of my old supercharged 2.8 vag lump at times.

I'd second this. My 2.0 TFSI GTI averages around 31 mpg I reckon. That's roughly 600kms out of a full 55l tank. I have gotten some tanks to last 670 kms but long journeys would have been heavily involved on those occasions. Other tanks have been closer to 500 kms.

I don't have a particularly light foot at the best of times either.

bmw535d

well the beemer has 300 odd bhp to move a 1600kg object while your vag has 170 odd(correct if im wrong) to move something a little lighter?(very rough figures)

so your gona have to put the foot down 3/4 on the pedal to accelrate the same as the bm does with half throttle.makes sense that the bm is easy on juice.to me anyway.

Squall19

TheBazman wrote: »

Not attacking you Squall but I have to disagree with a lot of what you've said. A V8 petrol being more reliable than a 330d? I can't imagine that the 330d is almost as thirsty as a turbo petrol driven hard. Also I'm sure your MPS is very fast above 100mph but large engined turbo diesels are also quite impressive up there too.

I take your points and your right, big diesels are very good high end and are not to be taken lightly, they are proper fast now and would scare the daylights out of alot of powerful petrols.All i am saying is there's not much of a difference in fuel economy at that power range, and thats the whole selling point of diesels.330d was drinking fuel when it was all out keeping up with my petrol, you might think im bull****ting but it was turbo petrol thirsty when it was pushed to its limits, while still getting its ass handed to it.

You have BMW 645i going for around 535d prices on dondeal, i just dont understand it the big engine diesel obsession, small diesel i do.

Bonito

Why has this thread turned in to a MPG discussion?

I'd go with the A5 but at that I'm biased because I'm ignorant to RWD cars and love AWD.

Matt Simis

veetwin wrote: »

In fairness both of those figures are pie in the sky. If you're getting that kind of mpg out of those cars you're doing it all wrong.

I say this as a regular 520D driver an an occasional 535D user. Neither figure is remotely accurate. Maybe high 30's for the 520 and high 20's for the 535.


Not really fair to compare them though. One is a high performance sports saloon the other is really only a cruiser(though a nice one).

Eh, thats what I said, word for word.. ?

Also the the figures arent pie in the sky. My sister has an e60 520d and my mother an e60 535d, I know exactly what they can do. You can somewhat handily get them to these figures if you dont live in a city (in which case I pity you), driving like I assume the OP would, MPG concious but not mental. Incidentially a decade old 2.4JTD Alfa easily gets 45mpg, do you really think a 3 generation newer, smaller CC, 520d could not get 53mpg?!

Bonito wrote: »

Why has this thread turned in to a MPG discussion?

This dudes fault!

Squall19 wrote: »

I take your points and your right, big diesels are very good high end and are not to be taken lightly, they are proper fast now and would scare the daylights out of alot of powerful petrols.All i am saying is there's not much of a difference in fuel economy at that power range, and thats the whole selling point of diesels.330d was drinking fuel when it was all out keeping up with my petrol, you might think im bull****ting but it was turbo petrol thirsty when it was pushed to its limits, while still getting its ass handed to it.
You have BMW 645i going for around 535d prices on dondeal, i just dont understand it the big engine diesel obsession, small diesel i do.

I for one couldnt stomach a little putt putt 1.9/2.0 TDI, let alone a 1.6TDI. You get a big diesel to drive fast and not feel like throwing you wallet out the window half way there. They arent meant to compete with 4.4litre NA Petrol cars, they are not even on the radar, an entirely different proposition. My old V10TDI did 28-30mpg, rubbish for a diesel but a whopping 80% better than the big petrol option in the same car (Phaeton). Infact, it would have been better than even the smallest petrol (3.2) in the line up while vastly outperforming it.

I currently have a 2.4 JTD Alfa as a daily hack. Could have got the 1.9 Alfa (or god forbid Golf) but I like to have my cake and eat it.

tossy

Matt Simis wrote: »

but I like to have my cake and eat it.

I agree which is why i went for a six cylinder diesel and not a 4 pot one.

gebbel

Audi for the beauty but the Beemer for the performance.....not that the Audi can't perform. Great choice to have.

-Chris-

535d, and I'm an Audi fan :eek::D

mickdw

tossy wrote: »

Something wrong there Mick,even the 2.0TFSI GTI is capable of returning 30plus mpg,i could get 30's out of my old supercharged 2.8 vag lump at times.

Im not talking about what its capble of getting. Im saying what I actually get. Sure, if I was to drive super efficiently, it will get all the way to 34 mpg but in everyday driving, it high 20s. been that way from new and its marginally better than older TT I had previous so I cant see anything being wrong with it. I do give it welly though and therefore back to my original point, if I was in a 335i, I feel I would make significantly less. I tried out a gs450h too. getting about 26 mpg from that.

Back on topic. 535d for me. Im sure for an 08, the bmw would be significantly more cash than an 08 3.0 tdi A5

r3nu4l

Matt Simis wrote: »

It would bury an A5 3.0.

While I agree with most of what you say, this bit isn't true in all cases. From a standing start the 535d is only 0.2 seconds faster from 0-60 mph (5.9 vs 5.7 seconds [official figures]). This 0.2 second increase is coming from a car with far greater bhp and greater torque! I'm surprised (and disappointed) to be honest!

Perhaps over some other rolling speed ranges the 535d is better and perhaps mid range power is better but it's not true for the 0-60.

/pedantic

Original poster, I'd be inclined to go for the BMW from those two for practicality purposes...unless you plan on driving in the snow or on very wet water-logged roads in which case RWD is painfully dull despite being better in other scenarios. Of course as you seem hell bent on the quattro just be reminded that quattro comes at the expense of fuel economy.

Matt Simis

r3nu4l wrote: »

While I agree with most of what you say, this bit isn't true in all cases. From a standing start the 535d is only 0.2 seconds faster from 0-60 mph (5.9 vs 5.7 seconds [official figures]). This 0.2 second increase is coming from a car with far greater bhp and greater torque! I'm surprised (and disappointed) to be honest!

Perhaps over some other rolling speed ranges the 535d is better and perhaps mid range power is better but it's not true for the 0-60.

Interesting, prolly the quattro in play? Or gearing. For sure though through the range the 535d should be the faster car.

Squall19

Matt Simis wrote: »

Interesting, prolly the quattro in play? Or gearing. For sure though through the range the 535d should be the faster car.

0-100kmh wont give a full idea of its power

Squall19

Matt Simis wrote: »

Interesting, prolly the quattro in play? Or gearing. For sure though through the range the 535d should be the faster car.

0-180kmh oe 0-200kmh is a much better benchmark for outright pace.

Here both cars are nothing special tbh.

Look how they do against a hot hatch and similar used price BMW, they get murdered

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match1605-1249-1388-1226.htm

Audi almost 10 secs of the petrols at 200kmh and 535d 5 secs, thats a huge difference.

Zubeneschamali

r3nu4l wrote: »

From a standing start the 535d is only 0.2 seconds faster from 0-60 mph (5.9 vs 5.7 seconds [official figures]).

Is that an automatic BMW against a manual Audi?

-Corkie-

mickdw wrote: »

The 3.0 is quattro so that is the big improvement I see. Its pretty clear to me now that the car was never designed to be front driven.

I wouldnt mind an A8 like you had though. What was it like to live with? Any faults that could only be fixed by the dealer at silly cost?

Ah yes I forgot about the quattro..:o. My A8 had big miles. It had 120k miles when I got it. I got it at a repo auction early last year. The transmission in mine was troublesome in it. If a man knew a really good indy mechanic they would be a good buy but Audi will fcukin fleece ya. I have a baseline passat now..:(:(

mickdw

You got a reasonable price for it then if it had all those miles.