# Could someone please check these figures for me?



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Seen a really nice A6 Avant, but a 4.2 q. We we're originally looking at a 3.0TDi q and were worried about the extra cost of fuel.

However, after the post that Carl (I think) made, I wondered about the real difference in cost.

The figures used are Audi's official figures, so if they're wrong, they should at least be consistently wrong.

As follows.

Car	Power	Torque	0-60	Urban	Extra combine

4.2q	335	420	6.2	17.0	31.7	24.1

3.0TDi q (auto)	225	450	7.6	23.7	44.1	33.6

Average fuel prices:

Unleaded 95.7 Diesel 97.7

Average mileage 15,000 miles a year. Over 4 years = 60,000 miles.

4.2q 60,000 / 24.1 mpg = 2,489 gallons

3.0D	60,000 / 33.6 mpg = 1,785 gallons

1 gallon = 4.55 litres.

4.2q	2489 x 4.55 = 11,324 litres

3.0D	1785 x 4.55 =	8,121 litres

Cost over 4 years

4.2q	11,324 litres x 0.957 = Â£10,845

3.0D	8,121 litres x 0.977 = Â£7,934

Difference over 4 years = Â£2,911

Cheapest 4.2q = Â£26,995. Cheapest 3.0TDi q = Â£28,995

Difference in price = Â£2,000. So overall, it would cost Â£911 more over four years or Â£18 a month.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I would still go for the diesel i think in the 'real world' the differences in consumption would be a lot more, i also think when you come to sell you will make more than the current spread between the two


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

If you're having to quantify it by a thousand pounds or so, I'd say not to go for it.

If you have to stretch your budget to buy the car, then is it really worth taking the risk?

Rogue


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Rogue said:


> If you have to stretch your budget to buy the car, then is it really worth taking the risk?
> 
> Rogue


We'd be stretching the budget to buy the diesel. That why I was thinking about this other car. It's stunning and has every option box ticked. I was just worried about the extra cost of fuel. :?

However, the plan would be to alternate use of the car week in/week out with a smaller car, so the mileage may not be as much as stated. And the difference less.

I guess I want to justify it, because it's so nice a car.


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Justify it to yourself or to the Missus? 

Personally, I'd be of the opinion that if I settled for the 3.0 Diesel I'd always be thinking about the 4.2 and wishing I'd gone for it instead.
You've just got to be sure you'll be happy with your choice.

Rogue



Kell said:


> Rogue said:
> 
> 
> > If you have to stretch your budget to buy the car, then is it really worth taking the risk?
> ...


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

I think the issue is that you need to consider where your 15k miles per year is coming from.

My S3 in 6k miles averaged a little over 22mpg, mainly because the bulk of my m,ileage is taking the kids to school and going to the station.

Where as my o/hs A4 was actually averaging nearly 39mpg (1.8T petrol) because her trip was 75 mile steady motorway drive to work.

If I am honest I would have been suprised with the 4.2 if you got more than 22 mpg.

If you post up on Tyresmoke - I remember Danksy (was on here also) ran a 4.2 A6 for a while - he can probably give you a real world idea of runnign costs.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Rogue said:


> Justify it to yourself or to the Missus?


Honestly? We both really like it.

The only problem is that I swore I'd not get another black car and this one has acres of paint to keep clean compared to the TT.

:roll:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

How do the figures pan out once you factor in depreciation?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I guess it's difficult to judge the depreciation really...


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Kell, one of the things which concerned me going from the TT to the RS4 was the obvious increase in fuel consumption, however in real life, the increase has really not been noticed. I only do a small amount of driving during the week (about 16 miles each day to work and back) plus the normal amount at weekends.

Because of that, then the increase is only minor and nothing which I have to be concerned about. Maybe if I were doing a lot of miles then I would notice the difference. I know the miles I'm doing are low and I have to take into account the 'Short runs' to work and back but I was doing that in the TT so the comparison is the same.

HTH

Graham


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

It was me who made the original post. I spend far too much of my already limited brain power on this stuff.

My view is it would only be worth it if I calculated that it would be *cheaper* to run the petrol, not dearer. But in my case I have literally no preference for petrol over diesel, your preference either way would sway this decision.

I'd be looking for a much bigger difference than Â£2,000. 2 grand could easily be swallowed by the difference between a dealer who's prepared to cut a deal and one who isn't.

Also, with the political climate as it is, and oil prices only likely to go up (imo), the gap between petrol values and diesel values is going to get wider. Even the big diesel market is battered at the moment (and I'm just about to take a position in it, gulp).

It would be advantageous to buy petrol if you plan to keep the car for ages, until it's worth nothing. Otherwise the gap between values will be maintained (or worse), meaning that all you'll gain is the opportunity cost, or interest, on the difference.

That said, this Â£2k difference may not be reflected in the price you have to pay. My suspicion is that nobody is buying big petrol cars at the moment (and even big diesels are getting hammered), so you should be in a great position as a buyer.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Well, it looks like they may not be prepared to do a deal. I've left it with them that I want to pay no more than our TT plus 15k.

Given that he offered us 9.5k for the TT, then the deal is a no goer. But I'll be watching the car to see if it goes.

Just FYI, it was originally 54k new. It has every option ticked and is a lovely, lovely car.

http://www.paulwisecars.co.uk/GetDealer ... 6&pageid=1


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Nice spec.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

kell, that's very nice.

i really like the a6 avant kitted and booted up.

from those calculations, it's a good comparison, but in real life as others have said not really.

reasons i would go for diesel model:
- can get a remap, for better performance and mpg increases
- resale value i would imagine on the same spec car, diesel would worth more
- 4.2q service i can imagine being slightly higher than the 3.0tdi


----------



## redTT (Nov 16, 2006)

The 4.2 has lost 50% of its value in 2 years at average annual mileage not accounting for the price the trader actually paid for it!! It tells you something about its depreciation. Imagine if it lost another 50% over the next 2 years ? That's another Â£13.5k...makes Â£2k pale into insignificance ! Even at 30% over next 2 years its Â£9k. The depreciation is going to be your biggest ownership cost by far and therefore a much greater consideration than fuel.

I've got to say I'd personally be worried about spending Â£27k on a car from an independent car trader working out of his house...


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

The TDi is very good with a remap.

AmD remapped the old mans and its upto 280 ish now.

Goes like stink


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

LPG conversion material ?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

In the end, we didn't bother going to see it as it was too far to go for us to not have it.

However, we did go to Watford Audi as they had a 3.2 V6 S-line and a 3.0TDi S-line.

Had hoped, again, that the difference in fuel would be offset by the cost to buy.

It would be - based on the calculations as previous.

However, I'm afraid it just didn't cut it in terms of performance. Given that the car in question is getting on for almost 100bhp over and above our current A4 (albeit in a heavier car) the performance was sorely lacking. If anything it felt slower than our A4, but I will accept that could be due to quattro, auto box and non-turbo delivery.

The 3.0 on the other hand was excellent. But out of our price range with little or no movement on price.

IIRC the one we tested was the 225 version (later models are 233) but certainbly felt like it has some urgency to it.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

redTT said:


> The 4.2 has lost 50% of its value in 2 years at average annual mileage not accounting for the price the trader actually paid for it!! It tells you something about its depreciation. Imagine if it lost another 50% over the next 2 years ? That's another Â£13.5k...makes Â£2k pale into insignificance ! Even at 30% over next 2 years its Â£9k. The depreciation is going to be your biggest ownership cost by far and therefore a much greater consideration than fuel.
> 
> I've got to say I'd personally be worried about spending Â£27k on a car from an independent car trader working out of his house...


I take your point on that - but I would imagine that's less to do with the engine and more to do with the fact that, as we're all told, you never make your money back on options. It would be all the expensive options that made the car that price. However, I will accept, that if the car had that spec AND A 3.0 diesel engine, it would be a lot more expensive.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

That's a fine looking car. Nothing better to look at in that class than a black A6 S-Line.


----------



## redTT (Nov 16, 2006)

Kell said:


> redTT said:
> 
> 
> > The 4.2 has lost 50% of its value in 2 years at average annual mileage not accounting for the price the trader actually paid for it!! It tells you something about its depreciation. Imagine if it lost another 50% over the next 2 years ? That's another Â£13.5k...makes Â£2k pale into insignificance ! Even at 30% over next 2 years its Â£9k. The depreciation is going to be your biggest ownership cost by far and therefore a much greater consideration than fuel.
> ...


You're right, most options dont hold much or any value. Some of the more expensive and desirable ones can make a difference but that depends on the model and the specifications.

The other thing to consider is how desirable a 4.2 might be as a used car at 6 years old. At that age, perceived running costs in fuel and servicing will be much more of a factor to buyers in that price segement.

Don't get me wrong, it's a lovely car !


----------

