Audi A6 or 5 series

MrBlue111

Not sure if this is in the right thread. If ye had the choice between a 2013 A6 or a 2013 5 series what would you chose any why?

Truckermal

5 series all day for me even though we have an Audi, they are way nicer to drive as in more of a driver's car. Try and get the M Sport with business Nav.

antiskeptic

The Audi, if only because it appears that BMW's are more expensive to repair and at 5 years old you'd be entering that territory.

bazz26

Where did you hear that? An A6 won't be any cheaper to fix than a 5 Series.

Azatadine

I've a 2013 A6 and I find it a decent car. I do think it lacks something in terms of steering 'feel' and the ingress of the transmission tunnel into the footwell drives me bananas!! Mines a manual so maybe this wouldn't be as noticeable in an auto? I came from an Accord iDTEC and of they still made them, I'd switch back to the Honda in the morning.

Bif

Cortecs wrote: »

I've a 2013 A6 and I find it a decent car. I do think it lacks something in terms of steering 'feel' and the ingress of the transmission tunnel into the footwell drives me bananas!! Mines a manual so maybe this wouldn't be as noticeable in an auto? I came from an Accord iDTEC and of they still made them, I'd switch back to the Honda in the morning.

Why would you switch back to the Accord?

Azatadine

The driving position was much better. I sat 'into the Accord but I sit 'on' the drivers seat in the A6. The Accord was better specced too (the A6 is an S-line). I just find the A6 a bit numb. It's not a bad car by any stretch but the lack of legroom does my head in.

I now have a steering error on the A6 which may well require a new steering rack. If it turns out to be the case it'll cost me a couple of grand no doubt. Probably clouding my judgement a little at the moment I suppose......

Bif

Cortecs wrote: »

The driving position was much better. I sat 'into the Accord but I sit 'on' the drivers seat in the A6. The Accord was better specced too (the A6 is an S-line). I just find the A6 a bit numb. It's not a bad car by any stretch but the lack of legroom does my head in.

I now have a steering error on the A6 which may well require a new steering rack. If it turns out to be the case it'll cost me a couple of grand no doubt. Probably clouding my judgement a little at the moment I suppose......

Thanks

MrBlue111

Cortecs wrote: »

The driving position was much better. I sat 'into the Accord but I sit 'on' the drivers seat in the A6. The Accord was better specced too (the A6 is an S-line). I just find the A6 a bit numb. It's not a bad car by any stretch but the lack of legroom does my head in.

I now have a steering error on the A6 which may well require a new steering rack. If it turns out to be the case it'll cost me a couple of grand no doubt. Probably clouding my judgement a little at the moment I suppose......

Really? I thought the A6 would be specced nicely. Is the 5 series specced poorly too?

Azatadine

MrBlue111 wrote: »

Really? I thought the A6 would be specced nicely. Is the 5 series specced poorly too?

The A6 is specced fine but doesn't have a reversing camera or electric/heated seats (altho they are S-line leather) which a person might expect? Mirrors don't retract either. Silly little things that I'd expect to be standard.

Don't know about the 5 series.

MrBlue111

Cortecs wrote: »

The A6 is specced fine but doesn't have a reversing camera or electric/heated seats (altho they are S-line leather) which a person might expect? Mirrors don't retract either. Silly little things that I'd expect to be standard.

Don't know about the 5 series.

No heated seats in the A6 crazy considering how much they cost.

Heres Johnny

It's really down to personal preference OP. Very similar cars and BMW are not the excellent drivers cars they used to be. I am the owner of a 5 series, I like it but I will consider Audi next time.

Get the msport or s-line if you like good looking cars.

After that buy the one that gives best value, spec, condition etc

I'd buy a well specced well looked after car in this range rather than buying the badge.

Azatadine

MrBlue111 wrote: »

No heated seats in the A6 crazy considering how much they cost.

Yep. I bought mine second hand so I guess it was just how it was specced by previous owner. In fairness, on the plus side, there's no rattles whatsoever inside the car and I detest rattles so I'd have found them....well put together. Refined too. Very smooth drive. Just lacks a bit of engagement.

Larbre34

MrBlue111 wrote: »

No heated seats in the A6 crazy considering how much they cost.

How is that an equation? Depending on spec an A6 is anywhere between 40 and 100k! As we all know, Irish cars are poverty specced for tax reasons, if youre buying one new, simply option them.

As for the buyers dilemma, the F10 5-er is a really lovely car to drive, but avoid the m-sport spec, its uncomfortable in daily driving in Ireland.

Myself, for overall practicality in my daily Dublin routine, space, comfort, fit and finish and overall long term cost, Id go to Britain and negotiate directly for a nice S-Line Black edition with the 177 engine and stick it on the driveway for €18k all told.

Azatadine

Mine is a black S-line 177 and yes, they really look much better than the SE. They look good.

Avatar MIA

MrBlue111 wrote: »

No heated seats in the A6 crazy considering how much they cost.

I've had heated seats in my cars for donkeys and could count on one hand the amounts of times I've used them. My wife, on the other hand, loves them.

And... A6 for me.

Leonard Hofstadter

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Audi, if only because it appears that BMW's are more expensive to repair and at 5 years old you'd be entering that territory.

My admittedly limited understanding of repairing premium make cars (based on talking to some mechanics) suggests that in general BMWs are the easiest of them to work on; all the main parts are easily accessible and most jobs are quite straightforward and not too labour intensive.

Obviously there are some exceptions (the fact that they put the timing chain at the back of the newer diesel engines being the obvious example) and there are some things that you really need someone who knows what they're doing (bleeding the cooling system in the older BMWs after say changing the water pump is not for the faint-hearted and if you don't do it right you will get air locks and consequently overheating) but something like an engine swap can be done in 10-11 hours in a BMW whereas the same job could take over 25 in an Audi.

That said, if I were the OP I'd be looking at a late 2014 5 series; cars from 2013 and early to mid 2014 will be using the N47 which has a well known design flaw with the timing chain - now if you change the oil every 10,000 miles you'd probably get away with it and never have to replace the chain but personally I'd rather get a newer car with the B47 engine, which doesn't have the problem - as an added bonus it's got a bit more power and mpg is a bit better as well.

MrBlue111

captainspeed wrote: »

My admittedly limited understanding of repairing premium make cars (based on talking to some mechanics) suggests that in general BMWs are the easiest of them to work on; all the main parts are easily accessible and most jobs are quite straightforward and not too labour intensive.

Obviously there are some exceptions (the fact that they put the timing chain at the back of the newer diesel engines being the obvious example) and there are some things that you really need someone who knows what they're doing (bleeding the cooling system in the older BMWs after say changing the water pump is not for the faint-hearted and if you don't do it right you will get air locks and consequently overheating) but something like an engine swap can be done in 10-11 hours in a BMW whereas the same job could take over 25 in an Audi.

That said, if I were the OP I'd be looking at a late 2014 5 series; cars from 2013 and early to mid 2014 will be using the N47 which has a well known design flaw with the timing chain - now if you change the oil every 10,000 miles you'd probably get away with it and never have to replace the chain but personally I'd rather get a newer car with the B47 engine, which doesn't have the problem - as an added bonus it's got a bit more power and mpg is a bit better as well.

Have heard about the timing chain problem , does the 2014 models not have this problem?

JohnBoy26

bazz26 wrote: »

Where did you hear that? An A6 won't be any cheaper to fix than a 5 Series.

In fairness audis tend to be more reliable and better built.

mickdw

MrBlue111 wrote: »

No heated seats in the A6 crazy considering how much they cost.

Consider also that an all new A6 is coming so while values of 3 to 5 year old A6 seem to be holding well, they will take a dive on arrival of new one. This will effect more recently regd ones most but worth considering anyway.

166man

I still giggle at the “better drivers cars” phrase that gets bandied about on here. Given we are talking about the smallest engine in the line up the 2.0 TDI vs the 520d and with both being auto there really isn’t any noticeable difference driving these cars day to day.

They are so similar these days that the differences are so small. This idea that a 520d is a drivers car because it’s got M badges all round is also silly.

Buy whatever you like the look of, they will both do the job perfectly fine.

bazz26

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

In fairness audis tend to be more reliable and better built.

Not sure what Audis your seeing but in my experience their reliability is no better or worse than BMW these days. Yes the ones like the A4 from the last decade may have been more reliable but these days they are pretty much on a par with other German makes. Build quality was always a big selling point of Audis, I'll give you alright.

JohnBoy26

bazz26 wrote: »

Not sure what Audis your seeing but in my experience their reliability is no better or worse than BMW these days. Yes the ones like the A4 from the last decade may have been more reliable but these days they are pretty much on a par with other German makes. Build quality was always a big selling point of Audis, I'll give you alright.

Nah I definitely think they are a more reliable car even though id prefer bmw's styling and the way they drive.

Leonard Hofstadter

To be fair if reliability is of high importance I don't think the OP should be buying either an Audi or a BMW.

BMWs need quite a bit of minding and the stupidly long service intervals should be ignored.

mickdw

166man wrote: »

I still giggle at the “better drivers cars” phrase that gets bandied about on here. Given we are talking about the smallest engine in the line up the 2.0 TDI vs the 520d and with both being auto there really isn’t any noticeable difference driving these cars day to day.

They are so similar these days that the differences are so small. This idea that a 520d is a drivers car because it’s got M badges all round is also silly.

Buy whatever you like the look of, they will both do the job perfectly fine.

There is a significant difference between front drive or rear wheel drive. Maybe not to someone who just goes slowly from A to B but for anyone who actually drives there car, its a big difference. You refer to the smallest engine. That is true but at 180 190 bhp, its still well within the range where playing with throttle will effect balance / cornering and as such front / rear drive is a big part of that.

SBPhoto

I had that choice last year but ended up buying the 190 A6 SLine My brother has a 520D, lovely car to but the timing chain issue was a big negative for me, The interior of the A6 is nice place to be and has all the extras like Heated electric leather seats, Sat nab, 4 zone climate control with individual controls, LED Headlights, folding Mirrors, adaptive cruise control and a very good sound system.
Lovely car to drive and i would really recommend the automatic. having drove my brothers 520d don't really see that big a difference between front and rear wheel drive. Both cars are 161 i had no problem with the Audi, brother had a few minor issues with the BMW but were fixed under warranty. both motors are excellent to be honest but i prefer the styling of the Audi.

Phil.x

I'd find it hard to pick either of them, they are so everyday boring.

Blazer

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I've had heated seats in my cars for donkeys and could count on one hand the amounts of times I've used them. My wife, on the other hand, loves them.

And... A6 for me.

man I love the heated seats in my 5'er. I use them a fair bit during the year and can honestly say I wouldn't get a new car without them.

JimmyMcGill

Blazer wrote: »

man I love the heated seats in my 5'er. I use them a fair bit during the year and can honestly say I wouldn't get a new car without them.

Agree. Have them in both cars and would use them a lot. I've a bad back so get good relief from them.
Ditto not buying something without them.

Blazer

JimmyMcGill wrote: »

Agree. Have them in both cars and would use them a lot. I've a bad back so get good relief from them.
Ditto not buying something without them.

definitely.
I work 12 hour shifts at the weekend and on night shifts during my hour break I just pop into my car and turn on seats heating and fall asleep within minutes...so damn cozy
I actually have to set the alarm on my phone to wake me up.

MarcusP12

166man wrote: »

I still giggle at the “better drivers cars” phrase that gets bandied about on here. Given we are talking about the smallest engine in the line up the 2.0 TDI vs the 520d and with both being auto there really isn’t any noticeable difference driving these cars day to day.

They are so similar these days that the differences are so small. This idea that a 520d is a drivers car because it’s got M badges all round is also silly.

Buy whatever you like the look of, they will both do the job perfectly fine.

There is definitely a difference between M sport and SE for beemers which makes them far more sporty to drive even if they don't have big power output. I went from an M Sport 3 series (318, slow as a hearse but lovely to drive and great handling once it got going). The M sport has stiffer suspension and sharper steering and this makes a big difference to handling. I assume its similar for the audi also between SE and S Line. If there are concerns over the stiffness of M Sport suspension, variable dampers would be the way to go but they are very rare I think. Mate of mine has them in his M Sport 5 series touring. like the idea of going from SE to M-Sport with a change of setting. Again, i'm pretty sure there is the same option for the s-line but equally rare.

I think for most people, 520d or 2.0tdi is decent enough power to work with. I'd like a bit more myself but anytime I've tested a X20d (I have a 523i) I've though it was decent enough.

5 series for me by the way but since i'm on my 3rd beemer, if I was changing, I'd look at audi too.....

Heres Johnny

Marcus what did you think.of the 20d engine v the 523i? I'd say it's just as quick but what about power delivery, torque, refinement?
I have a 523i sport myself and I really like it but my mileage is getting a bit big now, 25-30k kms a year so looking at moving to a diesel.
The dream is a 530d/730d coming out of the UK but realistically I'll probably end up in a 520d, just never drove one yet. The Audi could be a distinct possibility too.

MarcusP12

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Marcus what did you think.of the 20d engine v the 523i? I'd say it's just as quick but what about power delivery, torque, refinement?
I have a 523i sport myself and I really like it but my mileage is getting a bit big now, 25-30k kms a year so looking at moving to a diesel.
The dream is a 530d/730d coming out of the UK but realistically I'll probably end up in a 520d, just never drove one yet. The Audi could be a distinct possibility too.

I only took the 520d on a short test drive before I ended up with the 523i. The 520d was an m sport and was about 8k dear than the petrol se I ended up with!! Thought it was pretty fast to be fair to it but didn't really open it up as was just around industrial estate type roads...lots of power low down and was an auto box so no need to furiously change gears to keep up which I think is essential for a diesel....0 to 60 wise they are about the same at 8 seconds but whereby the 523i is a lovely smooth acceleration, the diesel is all huff and puff...it's why I prefer bigger engines petrols to diesels but you just can't get them beyond 08 which is my ones vintage....if you're doing that kind of mileage I'd say diesel is a no brainer...my mate had a 330d m sport around same time as I had my 318i and that thing was a rocket! You might get lucky and pick up a 525d either....good luck with it!

Wailin

SBPhoto wrote: »

I had that choice last year but ended up buying the 190 A6 SLine My brother has a 520D, lovely car to but the timing chain issue was a big negative for me, The interior of the A6 is nice place to be and has all the extras like Heated electric leather seats, Sat nab, 4 zone climate control with individual controls, LED Headlights, folding Mirrors, adaptive cruise control and a very good sound system.
Lovely car to drive and i would really recommend the automatic. having drove my brothers 520d don't really see that big a difference between front and rear wheel drive. Both cars are 161 i had no problem with the Audi, brother had a few minor issues with the BMW but were fixed under warranty. both motors are excellent to be honest but i prefer the styling of the Audi.

You were worried about the timing chain in a 161 5 series? With the new B47 engine?

Leonard Hofstadter

Wailin wrote: »

You were worried about the timing chain in a 161 5 series? With the new B47 engine?

There are no issues with the B47 engines. If you bought an N47 new and changed the oil every 15,000 km you'd probably be fine with that as well but the chances of someone having done that are rare.

The N57s despite being the same engine (more or less) just with two extra cylinders have no timing chain problems as long as you don't do something stupid like ignore the service intervals - they're long enough as it is.

As for the 520d vs 523i, I don't care how much torque and mpg a diesel has, if you can afford the higher running costs of the petrol there is simply no comparison - a straight six petrol engine is really something special - they make a lovely purr when you rev them and they are super smooth and refined. Also, there is no timing chain or DMFs or DPFs etc to worry about, if one of those went in a diesel that wouldn't be long eating into the mpg and tax savings.

Wailin

captainspeed wrote: »

There are no issues with the B47 engines. If you bought an N47 new and changed the oil every 15,000 km you'd probably be fine with that as well but the chances of someone having done that are rare.

The N57s despite being the same engine (more or less) just with two extra cylinders have no timing chain problems as long as you don't do something stupid like ignore the service intervals - they're long enough as it is.

As for the 520d vs 523i, I don't car how much torque and mpg a diesel has, if you can afford the higher running costs of the petrol there is simply no comparison - a straight six petrol engine is really something special - they make a lovely purr when you rev them and they are super smooth and refined. Also, there is no timing chain or DMFs or DPFs etc to worry about, if one of those went in a diesel that wouldn't be long eating into the mpg and tax savings.

Don't think you got my point He said when originally buying he was worried about the timing chain.....on a 161 5 series with B47 engine. Timing chain was all but sorted by 2012 anyway. He was referring to a 161 car which does not have timing chain issue. That's why I questioned it.

166man

mickdw wrote: »

There is a significant difference between front drive or rear wheel drive. Maybe not to someone who just goes slowly from A to B but for anyone who actually drives there car, its a big difference. You refer to the smallest engine. That is true but at 180 190 bhp, its still well within the range where playing with throttle will effect balance / cornering and as such front / rear drive is a big part of that.

On paper there is a difference, in reality there isn’t. I have driven enough of both. They’re both 4 pot diesel auto saloons at the end of the day, mostly in basic paddy spec. None of the drivers really care how they handle.

Playing with the throttle affecting balance? Are you driving your 520d like Lewis Hamilton ffs, it’s a boring diesel saloon and 99% of drivers couldn’t care less if it’s RWD or AWD/FWD. it’s the badge that counts, imo of course.

Wailin

Have to agree with 166man on this one. For the everyday joe soap there is no real difference between fwd and rwd in standard diesel engines. Except in icy conditions!

bazz26

Both cars are too big, wide and heavy for handling to be a major selling point, you really need to go to the M5 or S6 for that. The diesels are designed for comfort and mile munching more than anything. And I doubt any diesel car is bought for image, as soon as you start up any diesel car you know it's derived from a Massey Ferguson unless that's the image your looking for.

MarcusP12

bazz26 wrote: »

Both cars are too big, wide and heavy for handling to be a major selling point, you really need to go to the M5 or S6 for that. The diesels are designed for comfort and mile munching more than anything. And I doubt any diesel car is bought for image, as soon as you start up any diesel car you know it's derived from a Massey Ferguson unless that's the image your looking for.

I understand what you are saying but if you are in the market for a luxury saloon for practical reasons but are into your cars then you'd obviously consider the better handling car, all else being equal.....

bazz26

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but if you are in the market for a luxury saloon for practical reasons but are into your cars then you'd obviously consider the better handling car, all else being equal.....

But judging by sales of both cars they are pretty much on a par with each other so I'd say it's not a huge selling advantage these days.

MarcusP12

bazz26 wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but if you are in the market for a luxury saloon for practical reasons but are into your cars then you'd obviously consider the better handling car, all else being equal.....

But judging by sales of both cars they are pretty much on a par with each other so I'd say it's not a huge selling advantage these days.

Maybe, maybe not....who's to know....I'd say for many people who'd favour beemers for their driver appeal, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a similar amount that go for Audi because it's not a beemer.....my point is that the sales dynamic is probably complicated and it's maybe a little simplistic to dismiss the handling of the car as a factor in people's choices, just because the sales figures are similar...For example, the very day I bought my m sport 318, I test drive a Lexus IS with an open mind....the Lexus left me cold while the beemer was like a go cart in comparison....so handling won out...just my own experience but one which I would suggest is not unique....I'd imagine Audi buyers favour the build quality which would be marginally better than a beemer...

Summer wind

Iv had both and for me the winner would be BMW.

mickdw

166man wrote: »

On paper there is a difference, in reality there isn’t. I have driven enough of both. They’re both 4 pot diesel auto saloons at the end of the day, mostly in basic paddy spec. None of the drivers really care how they handle.

Playing with the throttle affecting balance? Are you driving your 520d like Lewis Hamilton ffs, it’s a boring diesel saloon and 99% of drivers couldn’t care less if it’s RWD or AWD/FWD. it’s the badge that counts, imo of course.

Less of the ffs. When you are driving around the kind of roads i drive on, without driving very fast, you will be still playing with the throttle continuously if you have any feel for what you are doing. Fair enough if your typical drive involves a 50 kmph city commute, it wont really matter which wheels do the dfiving but you certainly dont need to be speeding to make use of all the controls of your car. The last car i drove that really made no difference in terms of what i did with the accelerator was a 1.6 avensis. It was so poorly powered that you could nail it or not in the heart of a bend and it made little to no difference to what the car was doing apart from making some more noise.
My current car at 170 bhp front drive while not particularly powerful will certainly react go application of power and as such car can be made to tuck in push wide on bend with throttle movements only for example
Similarly a rear drive approaching 200 bhp is not idiot proof and power input can be very critical to maintaining control etc.
If your name reflects you car history, well the 166 is a great example of a car that reacts strongly to throttle input. Having owned one for a few years, i found it handled very well for a large soft saloon. I found it had excellent rear grip and to be balanced right to get it into bends properly - loading the front somewhat on entry and picking up the throttle mid corner.
Interestingly, the poorly set up front suspension that would allow the sump to slap onto the road could be worked around to a degree by ensuring not to lift off or brake when the front suspension would be on a downward sweep after a heavy bump. Just another example of throttle control.

166man

So having read that essay, here is my response;

I don’t have a driving commute, I drive a variety of cars on a variety of roads. You’re trying to talk about balancing throttle on cars that have their throttle controlled electronically like

Your current car is a 170bhp fwd Audi which I believe to be a manual, of course it’s going to be more involving than an automatic diesel BMW.

Even Bazz said it, if you buy a 520d then you buy it for mile munching comfort, not throwing down backroads and “balancing the throttle”.

The simple reality is that for 99% of the time a diesel A6 these days is the same as a diesel 5 Series, and saying you buy the BMW because it’s more of a “drivers car” is just plain hilarious (assuming 520d and not an M5).

The 166 has excellent suspension and handles very well for what it is, but it’s a V6 petrol manual.

MarcusP12

166man wrote: »

So having read that essay, here is my response;

I don’t have a driving commute, I drive a variety of cars on a variety of roads. You’re trying to talk about balancing throttle on cars that have their throttle controlled electronically like

Your current car is a 170bhp fwd Audi which I believe to be a manual, of course it’s going to be more involving than an automatic diesel BMW.

Even Bazz said it, if you buy a 520d then you buy it for mile munching comfort, not throwing down backroads and “balancing the throttle”.

The simple reality is that for 99% of the time a diesel A6 these days is the same as a diesel 5 Series, and saying you buy the BMW because it’s more of a “drivers car” is just plain hilarious (assuming 520d and not an M5).

The 166 has excellent suspension and handles very well for what it is, but it’s a V6 petrol manual.

So why do you think so many people buy beemer 5 series over a6 if there's nothing between the engines as you say yourself and I'm sure you'll agree they're both similarly bland? Are you suggesting that the only ever reviews of 5 series which quite often state that it is the best drivers car in its class as for the M5??? Not so sure about that....

Wailin

The BMW is the better car to drive for those that like to push it on windy country roads....even with the "piddly" (sigh) 190bhp 2 litre diesel (a lot of people moan on here about the 2 litre diesel engine but its faster than probably 80% of whats on the road). In such cases, rwd handles better. Thats why its constantly rated as the better drivers car by most reviewers. But as i said earlier, majority of people will not notice an ounce of difference in them driving sedately on motorways.

Theboinkmaster

I own an f10 and I'd get that - msport with pro nav and auto.

I drove similar spec and year a6 and found it to be a complete dud, much preferred the drive of the 5 series which im assuming was down to rear wheel drive.

wouldn't say it's underpowered at all - at 184bhp it's probably faster than 80% of other cars on the road.

18" alloys on run flats - ride is fine, much improved over the "firmness" of the e60.

Test drive them both and see which you prefer, but make sure they're comparable models (m sport v s line etc.)

mickdw

166man wrote: »

So having read that essay, here is my response;

I don’t have a driving commute, I drive a variety of cars on a variety of roads. You’re trying to talk about balancing throttle on cars that have their throttle controlled electronically like

Your current car is a 170bhp fwd Audi which I believe to be a manual, of course it’s going to be more involving than an automatic diesel BMW.

Even Bazz said it, if you buy a 520d then you buy it for mile munching comfort, not throwing down backroads and “balancing the throttle”.

The simple reality is that for 99% of the time a diesel A6 these days is the same as a diesel 5 Series, and saying you buy the BMW because it’s more of a “drivers car” is just plain hilarious (assuming 520d and not an M5).

The 166 has excellent suspension and handles very well for what it is, but it’s a V6 petrol manual.

I think you are taking a strange meaning from my expression. Im referring to balancing the car via the throttle pedal. It makes little difference how the system is implemented.

MarcusP12

Wailin wrote: »

The BMW is the better car to drive for those that like to push it on windy country roads....even with the "piddly" (sigh) 190bhp 2 litre diesel (a lot of people moan on here about the 2 litre diesel engine but its faster than probably 80% of whats on the road). In such cases, rwd handles better. Thats why its constantly rated as the better drivers car by most reviewers. But as i said earlier, majority of people will not notice an ounce of difference in them driving sedately on motorways.

I think you're right there....you won't notice any difference cruising on motorways but the difference is when you're on the b roads.....ive had 3 Beemers and each was lovely to drive though none were diesel......i wouldn't turn my nose down at an Audi though....as stated many times, best to test both properly and just pick which you prefer. Probably best to go sports for both....

adam14

bazz26 wrote: »

Where did you hear that? An A6 won't be any cheaper to fix than a 5 Series.

A lot more problems with older bmws