520d vs A6

HANNAH44

hi lads, only new to this. im looking at buying either a 2008 A6 auto..or...2007 520d (manual) both are in the higher tax bracket i know. both have 155k approx and long tests. my question is.. which am i better off with>??

_Kaiser_

A6 all the way. The BMW fans here will disagree, but the A6 is bigger, better laid out inside and far superior to that generation of 5 series in my opinion as someone who owns a 05 A6 myself - albeit the 3.0 TDI Quattro version - but has driven that generation of 5 series a fair bit as well.
The BMW was cramped by comparison, the iDrive control system awkward and clunky, and the fact that they didn't even bother changing the wipers from Left Hand Drive orientation is just cheapskating.

Full history and a decent spec would be preferred either way as it makes a significant difference to both cars.

Seweryn

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

the fact that they didn't even bother changing the wipers from Left Hand Drive orientation is just cheapskating.

I can't believe this, but yeah... Remember now driving one of them with a college. Madness in a car of this class and price tag. Reminds me my Volkswagen Beetle I had many years ago and the reason I would only ever buy a LHD version.

webpal

Be wary of BMW if it has an n47 engine (have a Google). Just make sure the issue has been addressed.

bazz26

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

A6 all the way. The BMW fans here will disagree, but the A6 is bigger, better laid out inside and far superior to that generation of 5 series in my opinion as someone who owns a 05 A6 myself - albeit the 3.0 TDI Quattro version - but has driven that generation of 5 series a fair bit as well.
The BMW was cramped by comparison, the iDrive control system awkward and clunky, and the fact that they didn't even bother changing the wipers from Left Hand Drive orientation is just cheapskating.

Full history and a decent spec would be preferred either way as it makes a significant difference to both cars.

Looks like the Audi fanboys got here first.

Really depends on what you like OP, the BMW is a more rewarding sporty drive, the A6 in front wheel drive form isn't but has more room and probably a bit more comfortable. Depends whichever floats your boat.

Those A6 mulititronic CVT boxes give their fair share of problems too. 2.0 TDi injectors give problems and should have been replaced under Audi recall. Oil pump balance shaft is another big problem so look for evidence that it has been sorted.

A 2007 520d could be either the old M47 (163bhp) or newer N47 (177bhp) engine. Both have their issues - M47 can give turbo problems if the breather filter is not changed every 3rd oil service and the manifold swirl flaps need to be replaced with blanks. The N47 of that vintage also suffers from timing chain stretching so make sure there is evidence that it has been replaced.

My advice is go drive both.

bazz26

Seweryn wrote: »

I can't believe this, but yeah... Remember now driving one of them with a college. Madness in a car of this class and price tag. Reminds me my Volkswagen Beetle I had many years ago and the reason I would only ever buy a LHD version.

What's really madness in a car of this class and price tag is Audi engineering the non Quattro A6 in front wheel drive. That's a bigger con than not moving wipers to the other side imo.

Seweryn

bazz26 wrote: »

What's really madness in a car of this class and price tag is Audi engineering the non Quattro A6 in front wheel drive. That's a bigger con than not moving wipers to the other side imo.

That is true Bazz.
But in fairness, Audi at least give you a choice between the standard model and the Quattro version in the A6. There is no RHD wipers on the option list for the BMW 5, because they didn't bother to engineer it properly.

Oafley Jones

Seweryn wrote: »

That is true Bazz.
But in fairness, Audi at least give you a choice between the standard model and the Quattro version in the A6. There is no RHD wipers on the option list for the BMW 5, because they didn't bother to engineer it properly.

And let you pay a couple of grand extra, how good of them. And besides, they'd never have a ****e offset seating position in their offerings owing to not redesigning their transmission tunnels for RHD models either. Would they???

166man

Respectfully Bazz, these are 2.0 diesel saloons with circa 140-170bhp. Neither of them are going to be particularly sporty.

RWD simply isn't needed for a 2.0 diesel saloon imo. A fwd car will be more or less just as competent in day to day driving.

bazz26

166man wrote: »

Respectfully Bazz, these are 2.0 diesel saloons with circa 140-170bhp. Neither of them are going to be particularly sporty.

RWD simply isn't needed for a 2.0 diesel saloon imo. A fwd car will be more or less just as competent in day to day driving.

Well I'll not going to turn this thread into a testosterone fueled rwd v fwd debate but I'll disagree with you on that point. I've owned both fwd and rwd cars and find the rwd ones more entertaining to drive. Handling setup, feed back through the steering, etc. BHP or displacement doesn't have to come into imo, in fact I find them more entertaining at lower speed especially through the bends. Entertaining to drive doesn't have to be exclusive to fast cars either or rwd for that matter but that's what I like about the 5 over the A6.

Anyway I've said my piece, the OP needs to test drive both.

George Dalton

In auto form I would take the BMW.

In manual I'd have the A6.

Have you driven the Multitronic A6? I think they are horrible.

166man

bazz26 wrote: »

Well I'll not going to turn this thread into a testosterone fueled rwd v fwd debate but I'll disagree with you on that point. I've owned both fwd and rwd cars and find the rwd ones more entertaining to drive. Handling setup, feed back through the steering, etc. BHP or displacement doesn't have to come into imo, in fact I find them more entertaining at lower speed especially through the bends. Entertaining to drive doesn't have to be exclusive to fast cars either or rwd for that matter but that's what I like about the 5 over the A6.

Anyway I've said my piece, the OP needs to test drive both.

I wasn't turning this into a testosterone fueled debate about rwd and fwd.

I have also owned both rwd and fwd car and my current fwd car easily out handles the previous BMW 5.

I'm sure the 5 will drive better than an A6 when being really pushed on but day to day I'm not so sure.

166man

166man wrote: »

.... and my current fwd car easily out handles the previous BMW 5. ......

FTO?

unkel

bazz26 wrote: »

What's really madness in a car of this class and price tag is Audi engineering the non Quattro A6 in front wheel drive.

The A8 is FWD too :eek:

I think the A8, the Honda Legend and some US barges are the only FWD flagships available in the western world. Or did I miss one?

What's your annual mileage, OP? If it isn't all that high, you might be better off with a petrol car. Far more refined, cheaper to buy, less mileage on it, maybe even a few more cylinders...

colm_mcm

Augeo wrote: »

FTO?

Mondeo

166man

colm_mcm wrote: »

Mondeo

I was referring to my 166, Colm.

Mondeo will be gone in 10 days.

Hachiko

unkel wrote: »

The A8 is FWD too :eek:

I think the A8, the Honda Legend and some US barges are the only FWD flagships available in the western world. Or did I miss one?

What's your annual mileage, OP? If it isn't all that high, you might be better off with a petrol car. Far more refined, cheaper to buy, less mileage on it, maybe even a few more cylinders...

The legend is SH-AWD, so a mixture of front/rear - depends on where the torque is required. If they made that available in the Accord here they could have had a winner.

Wailin

166man wrote: »

I was referring to my 166, Colm.

Mondeo will be gone in 10 days.

Your 166 handles better than a rear wheel drive BMW 5 series? I seriously doubt that.

166man

Wailin wrote: »

Your 166 handles better than a rear wheel drive BMW 5 series? I seriously doubt that.

You can doubt away all you like. Have you driven both cars in comparable spec?

I owned a 2001 525i MSport Manual and currently own a 2000 Alfa 166 V6.


I liked my E39 and like BMW's in general so I am trying not to be biased. However, the 166 steers better, is more comfortable and feels wonderfully balanced, they truly are excellent to drive. Gear change and pedal operation in the 166 is better along with the Brembo brakes outclassing the E39's brakes also.

I don't mean to come across harsh at all, just that's my view.

Wailin

166man wrote: »

You can doubt away all you like. Have you driven both cars in comparable spec?

I owned a 2001 525i MSport Manual and currently own a 2000 Alfa 166 V6.


I liked my E39 and like BMW's in general so I am trying not to be biased. However, the 166 steers better, is more comfortable and feels wonderfully balanced, they truly are excellent to drive. Gear change and pedal operation in the 166 is better along with the Brembo brakes outclassing the E39's brakes also.

I don't mean to come across harsh at all, just that's my view.

No worries. I did drive a 166 and while it was nice, for me, I just felt the 5 series had better feedback through the steering due to the rear wheel drive, plus I prefer the more solid feel of the car on windy roads. Your right though, I didn't drive a 166 long enough to make a big impression.