Audi A6 or 5 series

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?

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.

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 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 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...

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 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....

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.)

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 wrote: »

A lot more problems with older bmws

OP should maybe clarify what vintage of car he's looking into......I don't think Audis are bullet proof either though....all about the luckk of the draw i'd say. I think the point being made is that if either require work done, there won't be much of a difference in price. What you're suggesting is that you're more likely to need that work done if its an older beemer. Maybe that's true but its a statistical issue so that's not to say that if the OP went for either an older beemer or audi that either might need something fixed (most cars beyond a certain age need stuff sorted anyway).....

166man wrote: »

Literally never met anyone who drove a 520d and used “balancing the throttle” in the same sentence..

Trying to make out that it’s such a superior “drivers car” because it’s a BMW is just silly, the A6 diesel these days handles just fine for what it is, with “what it is” being the key part of that sentence.

Ease up there Kimi Raikkonen

It seems to me you had not a clue what i was talking about and used google and found an article on balancing carbs or something and then came back making fun of my comment because that didnt apply to a modern diesel when quite obviously i was talking about something entirely different.
I damn sure anyone who drives anyway reasonably well is aware of the driven wheels and their accelerator inputs without thinking will be different depending on whether it front or back driven. Its a fact surely for anyone other than old grannies etc..... at least i hope so.

divs007 wrote: »

was considering the same couple of months ago, and included the E220d AMG Sport also...ultimately the 520d Msports won hands down and delighted with decision. No comparison driving wise between them. I had a 2010 SE before that, so Msport was nice upgrade.

But but but no one buys a 520d for its handling apparently :rolleyes::)

mickdw wrote: »

Its a fact surely for anyone other than old grannies etc..... at least i hope so.

Well having had 2 colleagues in last 2 years suffer career ending injuries in RTAs, I hope rather a lot more people than just grannies are driving their cars very far inside the performance envelope.