# views/ experience: BMW & Audi Estates?



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

diIdeally on an Automatic.
Any views, experience on any modern BMW/ Audi Estates i.e. 3 series, 5 series, A4, A6, petrol, diesel etc. ?

If I had a big budget I would love a RS6, RS4, but the main criteria and trying to find out more about these is practicality, economical, yet still comfortable for a bit of spirited over-taking acceleration ;-)

Wouldn't mind a 535d Touring, but again budget.

So for the time being, just want to hear of good, bad experiences and general feel of them on drive, live with etc.
Or any to definately avoid (for me I'm scared of the audi multitronic system)

thanks


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

Got a 330d estate. (e46)

Have to say overall its great. The 3.0d diesels engines are pretty good, however if your looking for economy and tend to drive around town beware that the mpg tends to average out to 30-35mpg depending on what variation you go for. Driven a 335d as well and would say if the budget can stretch that far then check it out!

Was looking at the Audi as well, but as you found some horror stories about the multitronic gearbox.

Ironically ended up having an issue on my gearbox on the BM! My car had a full service history but still had the issue with only 50k miles on the clock, Thankfully despite being out of warranty managed to get a goodwill claim out of BMW for the parts which helped soften the blow.

Drive wise does feel heavy but for me that's good as alot of my driving tends to be on the motorways. Handles well and ticked most of the boxes for me. As I needed the auto box as the Mrs is useless with a manual one!


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

interesting article in last issue of autocar about auto gearboxes.

they are becoming 'unfixable' for independent transmission specialists and vag shyte-tronic and multi-chronic were singled out as ones you would not want to own outside of warranty period.

a friend has a 3 y/old A6 estate that has cost Audi an absolute fortune in warranty repairs. i'd be looking at bmw for a big estate. or volvo.


----------



## TJS (May 6, 2002)

I did have a 330d Sport Touring Auto (51 reg) ... not sure of the E. no. but pre Chris Bangle.

After 6 months it was remapped by DMS which really suited the auto box. The ride was very lumpy on 18in wheels and sport suspension but it handled well. Not much rear space for an estate car, I think the same as the saloon, basically a design statement. Not very economical and ate rear tyres, especially after the addictive re-map was installed. The torque was huge !!

Currently use a E class 320cdi Merc Estate. A proper estate car. It's just out of warranty so fingers crossed it begins to behave itself. Not the most reliable vehicle !!


----------



## E (May 7, 2002)

My wife's X3 has the 3.0 diesel and auto box and it has got some get up and go, she mainly uses it to pop down the shops so only gets about 30mpg.

We are doing a run to Cornwall in a couple of weeks so will see how the mpg fairs on a decent run, although when I used it to collect my TT interior from oop north a while ago I got high 30's and that was with the cruise set on 80ish most of the way.

I'm impressed with the BM diesel that am considering one when I change the TT

E


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Having owned an estate from Audi (S2 Avant) and BMW (E39 540i Touring) I'd take the Audi every time. Apart from the lovely V8 in the BM, it is severely lacking in comparison with the S2.

The Audi feels like a solid, together car and in no way drives like an estate, whereas with the BM you always know there is a cavernous space at the rear and the self-levelling suspension crashes over any bump - especially when empty.

Plus the interior of the Audi is a far nicer place in my opinion. The switchgear in the BM - especially that controlling the heating and air con is really flimsy and I have lost many of these as they just 'drop off'.

But for load carrying the BM wins down. Although the Mercedes E430 I had prior to the BM beats that on that score and was also a nicer drive.

cheers

Rich


----------



## MP (Feb 22, 2008)

I had an A6 avant, 2.0 TDi Multichronic for a courtesy car last week when My TT was getting serviced. It was nice to drive, gear box very smooth, but underpowered and when you had the cruise control on there was no where to put your right foot.

It put me off getting one to be honest, just cos it was that big!


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Had an B6 A4 1.9TDi Saloon for about 6 months before moving to a B6 A4 2.5TDi V6 Avant.

Bizarrely, the length of the boot in the Estate is slightly shorter and it always annoyed me that the classic Mamas and Papas/Mclaren style pushchair would fit in the saloon lengthways, but not in the Avant. In the Avant, it had to be diagonal over the top of other things.

Small thing, but massively annoying.

Overall, I did prefer the 2.5, but as mentioned above, big diesels don't seem to like in-town driving. I could get the MPG down to single figures around town. However, it was a much smoother drive than the 130bhp 1.9. That said, the plus side of the 1.9 was 50+ mpg on a run.

Eventually though, it proved too small to be a real load lugger and we got rid of it for a 5 Series touring. Tried the 525d, but found it gutless.

Really wanted the A6 3.0D as I wanted quattro, but couldn't afford it at the time. Ended up being very happy in the 5-er - until all the problems started. It's been the singular worst car I've ever owned for things going wrong, but when it works well it's excellent.

After all the problems, we looked at chopping it in for an A6. Comparing the two... A6 felt a little smoother and has a little more power (our Beemer is the 218PS version, and the A6 was the 233PS).

But the A6 always feltr like you were sitting ON i, rather than IN it. I don't drive the Beemer hard enough for it to make that much of a difference to me, but it might make a difference to others.

Overall, I still prefer the looks of the current A6, and, depending on the engine, they have the added benefit of quattro. The only reason we didn't change is that we'd essentially be paying through the nose by going the dealer route and would have paid, at best 3k to change to an Audi on the same plate.

I don't think you'd be disappointed with either marque - it's going to come down to whether you want quattro or a real driver's car.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

thanks kell,

i do remember reading some of your Touring updates with some niggles. Is it common on the e60?
parents have a t reg e46 318 auto saloon, been an ok car 
bro in law has the 330cd think that has been fine, but he seems to go through tyres even on motorway cruising

i've read about the avant boot not being as big as saloon, so it's the depth which which causes this.
do you know if it's the same for the B7?

the scenario i have is that we have a mk5 R32 as a family car, which the wife drives more so and i'm using her ka for work commute.

anything would be better on space compared to the R in terms of Estate goes.

in no rush, but can't be changing cars all the time due to cost.

Auto would be a must have, which for the Audi which means Quattro only, as Multitronic i'm scared of.
Hold out for an early/ higher mileage A4 3.0tdi Quattro

Not sure i like the current 3 series that much, but the e60 touring post 2004 like yours has grown on me.

530D would be good, but do i hold out longer (next year or longer) for a 535D, and think it's more of a complete car and more of a long termer in the household.

which would give ultimate space, pace, mpg combo.

budget wise would probably be looking at early models 2005, 80k+ miles on any estate, auto, tdi.

i do like all the new current audi's though, especially with the led, dlr lights etc.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

on the above note, a mate has an x3 3.0d, think the weight and 4wd really hits economy.

kell, do you know the main difference between SE and M Sport on the 5 touring?
Only thing i don't particular like on the SE is the bumper which could be changed i guess, as they are alot cheaper


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> on the above note, a mate has an x3 3.0d, think the weight and 4wd really hits economy.
> 
> kell, do you know the main difference between SE and M Sport on the 5 touring?
> Only thing i don't particular like on the SE is the bumper which could be changed i guess, as they are alot cheaper


Off hand, I think it's the bumpers front and rear, the sideskirts, steering wheel, ride height and wheels.

WRT to the E61, from what I can gather, they're nowhere near as bombproof as the previous model and most of the faults I've had have been fairly common. The suspension failure; the little shark fin on the roof leaking and screwing up the electrics. Others to watch out for, apparently, are the wiring harness for the tailgate screwing up and leaky panoramic sunroofs.

I think many are preventable though. The rear suspension failures all seem to be caused by a tiny pipe for the air suspension. This wears through, dirt gets in and the compressor fails. It can be replaced with any piece of hose, but if you go to BMW, it's an expensive fix just for that. Think this happened the first time mine went. The second time was effectively caused by a loose connector.

On that note, I believe the A6 also has self levelling suspension and they can also fail.

What I would say though, is that a lot of my problems were problems that could affect any car and weren't particular to the 5-series. Three blowouts, a huge pothole wrecking two alloys and one tyre, people reversing into it, a tile falling off our roof and going through the rear screen then two weeks' later the front screen going due to a stone chip... it's all added to the overall perception.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> 530D would be good, but do i hold out longer (next year or longer) for a 535D, and think it's more of a complete car and more of a long termer in the household.


I think a good, tuned, 535d would be the ultimate car. If only it had 4WD. Having said that, with Winter tyres and wheels, it may well beat a quattro on summer rubber.

I've been looking recently, and many 535ds seem to be no more to buy than a good 530d.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

p1tse said:


> kell, do you know the main difference between SE and M Sport on the 5 touring?


The differences are body kit (front, rear and skirts), fatter steering wheel, sports seats (well worth it for the extra support) and wheels (a few different 'sports' wheels are available. I don't think the touring gets the sports suspension, due to having the self-leveling at the back.

Nice options to have are Pro Nav (Business Nav only gives arrows and has a smaller screen) and comfort seats (like sport seats, but with more adjustments and support), although those seats are pretty rare.

A sport body kit would cost around £1100, brand new, painted and installed. Damaged (minor splits, etc.) front and rear bumpers come up on eBay all the time though (for £100-£150 each), so if you can do without the skirts it's not too expensive a job. Retrofitting the Pro Nav is possible but painful due to the coding needed and a dealer won't do it so you'd need a good indy (I know this from experience, but I like the maps so I felt it was worth it).


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

thanks.

not many about 535d m sport touring, but when they are with higher mileage it's similar priced to a 530d touring m sport with say average mileage.

i guess budget is dependant, but do i go from a 25k mile R32 to a 80k+ mile high end tdi. yes it will run for a long time if looked after, still a phsycological battle owning something which still cost a fair bit sitting on the drive with soon to have 100k+ miles on it.

that's the other thing, audi would have quattro but be less powerful and less economical

kell, what's the average miles you get from a tank and roughly how many litres/cost to fill up?

the package of the m sport does look nicer. only just started looking so not seen the seat, steering wheel skirts difference. the main difference is the front bumper i see, which the SE doesn't appeal. seen ebay you can pick up a light damage front bumper for £100ish so let's say £500 all in fitted, grills etc. at that point would rather spend the inital difference when buying for a m sport.

but should the SE be written off?

can't believe i'm now thinking of the 535d touring, when i was thinking of chopping the R32 for a cheaper A4 auto and use the funds to upgrade the ka LOL.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

p1tse said:


> but should the SE be written off?


It's obviously down to the individual, but I have the SE and I have to admit I feel a pang of jealousy every single time I pass a sport model.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

true.

i guess i'm too young for an SE, when Sports is on the card LOL.

when reviews says Sports is more bumpy, it can't be as hard as the R32, TT, Lowered Celica I had before LOL


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> true.
> 
> i guess i'm too young for an SE, when Sports is on the card LOL.
> 
> when reviews says Sports is more bumpy, it can't be as hard as the R32, TT, Lowered Celica I had before LOL


The biggest thing yoiu can do to improve the ride is get rid of the RF tyres. I'm currently debating whether to do it with mine.

I've had winter wheels on and they're non RF. The difference in ride quality is astounding. An example: our estate has three pretty serious speed bumps. I used to take them very slowly in our car at first. When a mate came to pick me up in his A4 S-line (notoriously hard susp) I physically winced before he hit one as I thought he was going way too fast. The car went over with no fuss.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

p1tse said:


> true.
> 
> i guess i'm too young for an SE, when Sports is on the card LOL.
> 
> when reviews says Sports is more bumpy, it can't be as hard as the R32, TT, Lowered Celica I had before LOL


If you're looking at the Touring, then I don't think that has sport suspension, even on the sport model.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

that's interesting to know that the touring doesn't have sports suspension.

during the TT ownership i was thinking of the Z4, and never thought about runflats until then.

can you remind me about the situation on RFs. i remember people saying that the car was designed to run on RF and not running them would have some sort of adverse effect.

had a quick look on autotrader and could probably fetch a 530d m sport touring 2005 with average miles on it. in no rush for a bigger can to replace the golf just yet, so will watch the prices for the 535d, however touring in those on early examples aren't many about.

there's one on PH still £16k-17k 2004 535d sport touring 80k+miles
whilst for the same money a newer slightly lower mileage 530d


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

I wouldn't rule out the 5 Series Saloon. It rides and handles much more sweetly than the Estate and has a very usefully sized boot. Unless you have a dog or an antiques business it should be ample. Factor in also that the choice is greater and the prices lower! You're a winner all round. I recently sold my 5 Series M Sport on Autotrader. It was only a 2.0 diesel but had a massive spec. including Comfort Seats and gave a balance between comfort and handling, even on Run-On-Flat tyres that was excellent and certainly better than an E Class or A6. I sold mine at 44k miles and it was still immaculate, they tend to wear very well.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

ag said:


> I wouldn't rule out the 5 Series Saloon. It rides and handles much more sweetly than the Estate and has a very usefully sized boot. Unless you have a dog or an antiques business it should be ample. Factor in also that the choice is greater and the prices lower! You're a winner all round. I recently sold my 5 Series M Sport on Autotrader. It was only a 2.0 diesel but had a massive spec. including Comfort Seats and gave a balance between comfort and handling, even on Run-On-Flat tyres that was excellent and certainly better than an E Class or A6. I sold mine at 44k miles and it was still immaculate, they tend to wear very well.


if you don't mind me asking what age, price did you sell?

hatchback or estate would be better for us, due to baby gear i.e. fitting a travel system, travel cot, little trike etc.

but yeah the 4doors are more affordable


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

i've yet to have any test drives, as in no rush to change. but with a growing family in mind, i think i'll prefer the A6 5 series size over the 3 series or a4 to be honest.

i was just checking out stats on a6 quattro auto 2.7tdi and 3.0tdi. 
performance the 3.0tdi is obviously better, but the 2.7tdi doesn't seem to offer a mpg advantage, so apart from inital cost of outlay, why would people choose the 2.7tdi, when the 3.0tdi is more flexible and offers similar mpg.

to be honest i like the look of a6 s-line avant and 5 series m-sport touring


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

p1tse said:


> to be honest i like the look of a6 s-line avant and 5 series m-sport touring


I think the A6 avant is the better looking car on the outside, but the 5 series wins it on the inside. I'm one of the (seemingly few) people who gets on well with the iDrive system too. Not sure which I'd go for.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

p1tse said:


> [if you don't mind me asking what age, price did you sell?


Mine was an 06 and it sold for £14500. Like I said, it was a great spec and although I didn't realise it at the time it was a superb car. I have a C Class Estate now, it has a twin turbo 2.0d in it but the car is a real dog. Give me my old 5 series back any day!

'Though my kids are older now, fitting four people (including 3 women!) and all their baggage for a month away was child's play. Seriously, although we always had a dog cart estate as well we never, ever lacked space in the saloon.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> i've yet to have any test drives, as in no rush to change. but with a growing family in mind, i think i'll prefer the A6 5 series size over the 3 series or a4 to be honest.
> 
> i was just checking out stats on a6 quattro auto 2.7tdi and 3.0tdi.
> performance the 3.0tdi is obviously better, but the 2.7tdi doesn't seem to offer a mpg advantage, so apart from inital cost of outlay, why would people choose the 2.7tdi, when the 3.0tdi is more flexible and offers similar mpg.
> ...


I think it's just an initial cost thing. IIRC the 2.7TDi is merely an updated verion on the engine that first appeared in the Audi 100 as a 2.5.

The 3.0TDi is (or was) an entirely new engine and far more 'modern'. Smoother, quieter, as fuel efficient and more powerful. Plus you'll never feel like you've got the 'lesser' model.

For me, it would be either the 3.0 litre if you want the power, or 2.0 litre if you want economy.



ag said:


> p1tse said:
> 
> 
> > [if you don't mind me asking what age, price did you sell?
> ...


I think the reality is that if you're on a long journey, you never load an estate above the load liner anyway as it means your stuff is on show and therefore a bit of a target. Most saloons actually have more space than their estate counterparts when loaded in this way, so you're most likely right.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

ah i see

yeah defo, i'm not a fan of the lesser model LOL
i agree on the 3.0tdi or the 2.0tdi for economy, which would be ok if they did a normal gearbox on it.

well the parcel shelf is off on the R32 to fit the pram and shopping on top, mainly supermarket bags

overnight bags don't really fit and ride with the little one on the back seat.

i'm not sure which i prefer looks wise inside and out, as both nice in their own style, as long as it's sline and m-sport


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

however a saloon is definately off the cards, as i won't be able to fit say, trave cot, push chair and say little trike in it


----------



## Ancien-TT (Sep 22, 2007)

I have just been through the "which estate" question and ended up with a Subaru Legacy Sports Tourer. Went for a 10 month old REN diesel model and although I have only had it for 2 weeks am delighted with it. Good performance and very precise handling. Subaru are doing 24 hour test drives which was a big help.

Still have the tt but it may now get even less use than before.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

anyone know why the 3.0tdi in an A5 bhp and torque is more than the A6?


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

p1tse said:


> anyone know why the 3.0tdi in an A5 bhp and torque is more than the A6?


take that back, looks like newer lump has more power, however assume it's more than a remap though


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> p1tse said:
> 
> 
> > anyone know why the 3.0tdi in an A5 bhp and torque is more than the A6?
> ...


I think the one we looked at before getting the Beemer was 222PS and the newer ones are 233PS.

Probably more in relation to ensuring they had more output than the 5 Series which was 218 (ours) and then the later ones were 220-something I think.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

it's the torque figures which show a massive difference.

older 3.0tdi almost 50lb/ft down i think


----------

