Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Luxury Performance Sedans



  • dhamiltondhamilton Posts: 875
    those two guys after me said
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Posts: 402
    FROM Business Week online

    Audi A6

    Price: $44,492 - $58,730
    Diesel Fuel Economy: 47 (US MPG)/56.5 (UK MPG)
    Compare to: U.S. gasoline-version Audi A6

    Audi-owned Volkswagen Group has arguably been the world leader in diesel offerings. In fact, it's the only manufacturer to currently offer multiple diesel cars in the U.S. market. The European A6, Audi's flagship sedan, which is increasingly capable of taking on similar offerings from Mercedes-Benz and BMW, manages an astonishingly high miles-per-gallon ratio. Note, though, playing to stereotype, the diesel A6 takes a full second more to get to 60 than its gas-guzzling counterpart.
  • quemfalaquemfala Posts: 107
    I do have to admit that I'm rooting for Cadillac to keep improving their lineup. I know that for some of you guys, you wouldn't even put an STS in the same grouping as a 5-series or an A8 when making comparisons. Price points of the vehicles shouldn't always be the decider, but if the STS can give some serious driving pleasure, I wouldn't be averse to not spending the 20 to 25 thou difference between it and the two German marques. There might be enough left over so my wife could get that T-Bird convertible she's been wanting. (You'll notice that I'm only thinking of this now that they're no longer in production!)
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    But, I know not if Cadillac, alone, has woes.

    Yes and no. If they didn't have the Escalade, Cadillac I think would be in big trouble. That does well, and I think the CTS does ok, especially considering how old its getting. The rest of the lineup, not so much. I know they are past the 100 day supply mark for the STS and SRX. The SL outsells the XLR something like 3 to 1.

    The problem with GM is of course, too many divisions, too many models. They have a history of lavishing attention on a division to get it into decent shape, and then leaving it to rot while they rush into emergency mode on another failing division. If they do that with Cadillac again while desperately trying to fix Pontiac and Saturn, Cadillac could fall back into the sorry state it was in 10 years ago.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    The following statement:

    Note, though, playing to stereotype, the diesel A6 takes a full second more to get to 60 than its gas-guzzling counterpart is NOT correct, even though out of context it is accurate.

    Audi, in the US, for example, markets ONLY two versions of the A6 -- 1 V6 and 1 V8 both with gasoline engines, both requiring, in fact, premium grade gasoline.

    The A6, outside of the US is offered with many engines - 4's, 6's 8's [soon even a V10, which will be a US offering too] in gasoline and of course in diesel versions (although as of TODAY, the A6 with the 4.2 V8 TDI is not offered, there is no under-hood space constraint one would imagine to offering this powerplant.)

    Apples to apples, then, the top o' the line A6 V6 gasoline engine is called a 3.2 and the top model V6 TDI is called a 3.0 (and there is a 2.7TDI too, and so on down the line in both gas and diesel variants.)

    Audi publishes 0-100KPH times (~0-62MPH) of:

    o 3.2 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.1 seconds (gasoline)

    o 3.0 V6 = 0-100 kph in 7.0 seconds (diesel)

    The fuel economy advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is ~20% and the MSRP advantage of the TDI over the gasoline version is (converted to $, approximately) about $1,000.

    Were the same $ and MPG numbers to translate to the US versions of the A6, this would mean some VERY impressive gains could be had for the American Audi owner.

    Generally, a quicker car (the 3.0TDI has weapons grade torque) for the stop light drag race we call urban driving.

    Generally, a more durable car (the diesel should go much further before a major overhaul.)

    Generally, no impact at all in top end or freeway cruising.

    Generally, fewer dollars per fill up, considering that often diesel is at least slightly less per gallon than premium gasoline.

    Generally, over 20% effective dollars less per tankful based on the mileage improvements the diesel offers coupled with the slightly lower cost per gallon.

    And: a lower MSRP (unless Audi wanted to capitalize on the benefits, above, of the diesel version and jack up the price due to probable market demand once the "truth" -- you can't handle the truth -- got out.)

    The information you have presented is correct if you compare one of the smaller displacement TDI's to the A6 3.2 gasoline version we have here in the US.

    For, the equivalent A6 V6 TDI is NOT slower it is slightly quicker and more economical at the same time!

    Your facts, then, are correct but the comparison was skewed -- not intentionally, I am certain -- by what can only have been a comparison of a lesser TDI to the 3.2 gas version.

    Despite this slight correction -- this is GREAT news.

    Add to this, two unspoken data points: #1 The Audi A6 3.0 TDI can run "fine as wine" on Bio-Willy (B20) which is, considered a "renewable" fuel; #2 The Audi A6 3.0 running on such "clean diesel" (here now or coming soon to a pump near you in 2006, by law) lowers greenhouse gas emissions by up to 60% over traditional gasoline powered versions.

    Oh yea -- the car is actually smoother AND quieter too with the diesel and the 6 speed tiptronic, than the gas version.

    Hmm. . .no mileage penaltly, no performance penalty, lower acquisition cost, longer life span, decreased pollution, actually a mileage benefit (CAFE) that GM would kill to have, and a quicker to accelerate vehicle.

    These things would sell like hotcakes, especially if you extrapolate and interpolate and cogitate and masticate on this -- wonder what it would be like were we to take this mature, proven technology and put it in 1/3 of all cars sold commencing in 2008?

    Well, according to Margo Oge, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation & Air Quality, as quoted in the February 20, 2006, issue of Business Week:

    “The U.S. could save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day – roughly the amount it imports from Saudi Arabia – if a third of U.S. vehicles ran on diesel.”

    Sign me up. :shades:

    P.S. The Audi 4.2 TDI, powering an A8L was driven from London to Wales and back on a single tankful of diesel on the normal traffic congested streets/roads between the two places -- the mileage demonstrated by this experiment using a completely stock A8L exceeded 40MPG.

    The 3.0TDI in the A6 driven with a similar touch, SHOULD exceed this -- meaning that the advantage of the diesel over the gasoline version would be OVER 40%.

    Put that in your CAFE pipe and smoke it (no pun intended.)
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    . . .don't get me started about Audi or VW or BMW or Mercedes coming to market with an FFV (flex fuel vehicle) and using E85 -- this approach, given what we know we can do with clean dielel and bio-diesel is, frankly, "not ready for prime time."

    A wealth of additional ethanol fuel information is, of course, available on-line. An excellent high-level overview is available from, in an article titled “Top Ten Facts about E85.” One of the facts discussed is the differences in mileage that can be expected between gasoline and ethanol. Today, a car (e.g., an FFV) running on gasoline will travel about 25-30% farther than it would on a gallon of E85. To this, add the current cost per gallon and it is easy to see that E85 will “cost” an average of about $15 - $20 more per thankful (assuming we include the government -- yours and my tax dollars subsidy of $.51 per gallon.)

    Simply put, this means an SUV that gets 13 MPG on gasoline will achieve only 10 MPG on ethanol. Comparing a gallon of “gasoline” (90% gasoline 10% ethanol – i.e., E10) at $3.00, to a similarly priced gallon of “ethanol” (85% ethanol 15% gasoline – i.e., E85), it is clear that it will take about $3.90 worth of E85 to travel the same distance as you can with $3.00 worth of E10. Of course, without the subsidy it would take some $4.40+ worth of E85 to travel the same distance as with $3.00 worth of E10 – almost a 50% cost penalty for using ethanol.

    Like I said, don't get me started.
  • quemfalaquemfala Posts: 107
    I think what we ought to do on this board, is tool up a business model for GM. Starting with your thoughts on too many brands, too many models, too many of everything! Let's figure out what they ought to do.

    Obviously, they're stuck with the dealer network. What do you do with the dealers who've invested time and money into marketing one of the GM brands. Although, it's fairly rare that there are any "exclusive" brand dealers out there anymore.

    What do they need to eliminate? Which models or brands can go away? How many different brands do they have, anyway? Then, how about this one; no dealers at all, just service centers! Market by TV, Radio, internet and fish-wrappers (newspapers)! Do they need to think out of the box? Is this the only product that we buy at a specific name-brand store? Why is that? How can other commodities succeed at this and cars can't?

    Come on, let's give GM the answer. I don't want them to give in to the Chinese!

    Maybe each of the current brands would be a certain level of automobile, whether that be performance, economy, luxury or ???? Each one can't be everything to everyone. Then, make 2 or 3 excellent machines and not 8 or 10 mediocre ones.

    How about it, will they be here in the next 5 or 10 years???
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 4,056
    Or, more importantly, will anyone care one way or the other?
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Posts: 402
    COMPANY NEWS; Audi Sees Recovery In American Sales

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    Published: September 14, 1988

    LEAD: United States car sales of Audi A.G., a subsidiary of Volkswagen A.G., are finally recovering from adverse publicity about reports of safety defects, Ferdinand Piech, its managing board chairman, said. Audi sold about 3,200 cars in the United States in August, twice July's total, he said. ''It looks as if we have reached the end of the tunnel,'' he said.


    From Bloomberg, Jan 2006

    Audi's full-year sales last year climbed 6.6 percent in the U.S. to 83,066 vehicles, the carmaker said yesterday.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Simply put, this means an SUV that gets 13 MPG on gasoline will achieve only 10 MPG on ethanol. Comparing a gallon of “gasoline” (90% gasoline 10% ethanol – i.e., E10) at $3.00, to a similarly priced gallon of “ethanol” (85% ethanol 15% gasoline – i.e., E85), it is clear that it will take about $3.90 worth of E85 to travel the same distance as you can with $3.00 worth of E10. Of course, without the subsidy it would take some $4.40+ worth of E85 to travel the same distance as with $3.00 worth of E10 – almost a 50% cost penalty for using ethanol.

    Its actually worse than that. C&D did a huge article on Ethanol and E85 this month in the July issue. They used a flex fuel Chevy Tahoe, tested it on E85, emptied the tank, then tested it again with regular 87 octane.

    EPA ratings were 11\15 for E85, 15\21 for gasoline. At a steady 30mph, C&D reported 17.4mpg for E85, 25.7mpg for gasoline. At 50mph, 15.8 E85, 22.9 gas. At 70mph, 11.4 E85, 16 gas. They said total tank range would be 390 miles for gas, 290 for E85. Considering E85 isnt really much if any cheaper than gasoline, it makes very little sense.
  • heel2toeheel2toe Posts: 149
    I bet the general public doesn't understand yet that E85 gets 30% fewer miles per gallon on average.

    I wonder what they will think when they do?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    It is even worse than we think. Not only did our President give us the addicted to oil speech, the follow up from our Congressional representatives has been beating the E85/ethanol drum as if it were the cure for all our energy woes.

    In an age where the sound byte is about all you get, I almost understand. But I received a very lengthy Newsletter from my Congresswoman that was entirely devoted to E85.

    E85, "Switch Grass" and even things like Hydrogen Fuel cells are "sexy" (I guess) other currently more feasible options just don't get it in the competition for our 30 second attention spans.

    Imagine a BMW 5 with an FFV option: MPG on E85 would plummet. The effective cost to fill up would rise at least by $15 - $20. And, minus a subsidy the impact would be more like making a decision to drive X miles for Y dollars or driving X miles for 1.5Y dollars.

    I am not against renewable energy, I am not against continuing to develop ethanol as ONE possible (but not near term) solution to our "addiction."

    The recent published information praising Audi and VW (and BMW and Mercedes) turbo "clean" diesels has somehow gotten buried deep in our newspapers and as passing mentions on our newscasts.

    Further, based on what I have read, the Audi TDI's "see" biodiesel and diesel as equivalent fuel sources. Biodiesel can be made from biomass, coal and of course can be "cut" as in B20.

    Our LPS cars should be offered in the US this next model year with the top o' the line diesels just like they are in the Fatherland/Europe (so to speak.)

    I guess it just isn't newsworthy enough to provide information on the consequences that go along with the various approaches.

    No one solution or approach is likely to have been proven prudent a couple of years from now -- and hopefully we will not rush headlong into the FFV craze only to find that there is a short term glut of oil that drives prices down or another government mandate that drives E85 prices up and all we have are cars that are not as capable of going as far on a gallon of juice that, even with subsidies, costs significantly more -- because using it causes mileage to take a huge nose-dive.

    Help us Obiwan. :confuse:
  • quemfalaquemfala Posts: 107
    It certainly is interesting when you can cut-through all of the hype on alternate fuels (energy), and make an honest analysis of the real costs involved. Somewhere, way back when I flunked physics, there was some notion about "every action had an opposite and/or equal reaction". Likewise, that it takes "BTU's" to make "BTU's". If we'd quit being intellectually dishonest with ourselves we would admit that there is no free ride when it comes to energy. Even the "Hydrogen" approach is flawed if one looks at the cost and energy required to process, store and deliver it to a vehicle. It takes energy to make energy!

    Alternate fuel is a great idea, and I agree with you, we should explore it. But not in the direction our brain-dead politicians seem to be pointing us. They're about as honest as the next promise they break! What's the idea du jour? They'll latch on to it. Let's get our oil out of the ground, quit throwing money at hybrid vehicles (tax benefits or tax rebates)and get serious about the problem. The solution is out there but our politicians don't have the stomach for it.

    Diesels? Maybe, but you can't convince me that they're non-polluting. I'm about asphyxiated when the city bus passes; I can only imagine a street full of diesel cars adding their exhausts to the buses and semi's out there.

    Are we addicted? Are we being gouged? Do we have a financial gun to our heads as we keep filling up? We passed laws in this country many years ago to eliminate the economic strangle hold that monopolies can have on the public. With little or no competition, one has no choice in what he buys or what he pays. But, now we have OPEC, a monopoly if I ever saw one. They meet to discuss pricing and what to charge. They meet to discuss production and how many barrels to pump. How long do you think that you could have a business that colludes with your competition and sets prices? Not very long, I'll warrant. It wouldn't matter if you were McDonalds talking to Burger King and Hardee's.

    So, our politicians continue to do business with a monopoly because it's easier for them, and they just love cozy relationships like that. It's been going on for too long for things to change.

    I think I'll go back to the beach and make sea-shell lamps.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    A couple of points...

    Diesels? Maybe, but you can't convince me that they're non-polluting. I'm about asphyxiated when the city bus passes; I can only imagine a street full of diesel cars adding their exhausts to the buses and semi's out there.

    Ummm, a short walk around in Mexico City and one might be inclined to say the same thing about gasoline engines. The fact is that holding up a city bus with a diesel engine that was essentially designed in WWII and using that as proof that modern diesels are horrible polluters is disingenuous at best.

    The truth of the matter is that the test results are out and readily available that support Mark's claims that modern diesels can be made to be cleaner than our current crop of gasoline engines.

    But, now we have OPEC, a monopoly if I ever saw one.

    Errr, well, no. I believe the word you are looking for is "Cartel". And while OPEC would certainly qualify as a true Cartel, they really aren't a very good one as there is enough in-fighting and such to make them fairly impotent when it comes to setting quotas and prices.

    Best Regards,
  • quemfalaquemfala Posts: 107
    Point well taken re: Mexico City pollution (I lived there for 3 years). But, you CAN stand on a street corner of most any U.S. city and NOT be overwhelmed by the exhaust. Maybe we ought to throw out the last 40 years of some of this environmental b.s. and the excessive costs to manufacturers to comply, and maybe we could charge "3rd world" prices and play on the same field. We beat ourselves up in America because we pollute, we use, we abuse and force ourselves to ever more stringent policies. And yet, the country is lining up a the Wal-Marts to buy everything they can without a thought to the pollution caused in manufacturing that great, "always low" priced item.

    What a country!
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    I know the bad rep about diesels and dirty soot coming out the tailpipe of a city bus seems to be proof positive.

    It just isn't so -- and I just can't (and our host won't allow it anyway) take the megabytes of space required to point to the volumes of information from all fronts that demonstrates:

    diesel has more energy in it than gas
    diesel engines get better MPG's than gas
    gas gets way better mileage than ethanol
    diesel gets way way way better mielage than ethanol

    in most areas, diesel costs equal to or less than premium gasoline

    where ethanol IS less money per gallon (not even accounting for its poorer mileage) it is due to a subsidy that comes from our pockets

    a diesel car vs its fraternal twin gasoline car, using the clean petroleum based diesel that is or soon will be available BY LAW in the US (this year, starting June 1) will accelerate quicker, get better mileage, be more durable and pollute less -- this is not wishful thinking or propaganda.

    Today -- and for the near term (and that is all I am suggesting) we need to beef up our education about and adoption of diesel powered vehicles and fuel.

    And we need to remember that these modern (not the old stinky bus) cars equipped with diesels can also use biodiesel with equal results with respect to power and economy.

    The good stuff always seems to trickle down from the top -- put out a flock of LPS diesel cars and watch the market clammor for near lux cars and so on and on down the automotive food chain.

    This is not voodoo or doo doo -- this is where we've come in our refinement and evolution of the diesel powerplant and our ability to actually contemplate at least partially renewable to fully renewable diesel.

    I do not think we should put all of our eggs in one basket as we apparently have done for decades with petro based fuel. But, today, hybrids and fuel cells and E85 -- while all laudable attempts to discover an alternative, do not have the "power" that diesel has to immediately give us not only first aid but perhaps even some meatball surgery on the field of battle, before we're shipped off to the hospital (this, analogy, based on M*A*S*H.)

    Clean Turbo-diesel LPS cars would be HOT RODS, frugal and fun -- and they would go at least 20% greater distances per gallon than gasoline. And, a heckuv a lot further than that when compared to ethanol.

    Whew! :blush:
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    But, you CAN stand on a street corner of most any U.S. city and NOT be overwhelmed by the exhaust.

    How about this:

    But, you CAN stand on a street corner in most any European city and NOT be overwhelmed by the Diesel exhaust. It really is uncanny to have an E320 CDI pass you and you NOT realize it's a diesel until you read the model designation on the rear of the trunk lid.

    FWIW, I took an early morning taxi ride from the 8th in Paris to CDG a year or two back and what with the lack of any significant traffic, the driver nailed the throttle as we got on the motorway. I was stunned how clean and quiet the car was, and how fast the damn thing accelerated up to 160 kph.

    Best Regards,
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Posts: 402

    "The diesel-powered Audi A8 4.2 TDI is not only more economical than the gasoline-powered A8 4.2, it also produces fewer greenhouse gases and, most importantly for readers of this Web site, it's also significantly quicker."
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    "The diesel-powered Audi A8 4.2 TDI is not only more economical than the gasoline-powered A8 4.2, it also produces fewer greenhouse gases and, most importantly for readers of this Web site, it's also significantly quicker."

    It is amazing that an A8 with V8 power can pull down 35+ mpg. Hybrids simply cant come close to that. CR's average mpg with an EX-V6 Accord was 23mpg. The hybrid? 25mpg. Wow.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    A stock A8L 4.2 was driven, 800 miles from London to Wales and back, on a single tank of fuel.

    This was for a TV show segment on British TV and there was a camera in the cockpit and in the fuel tank ("Tank Cam") -- the driver/story editor quips as the mileage per gallon exceeds 40MPG, "Audi have apparently created an engine that runs on air. . ."

    I would have said "Audi has. . ." but that is just because "Audi have. . ." sounds a bit off to my American ear.

    The point though is that this was an A8L with one guy driving, some equipment and doing so on crowded UK highways -- and the damn thing came back home under its own power.

    The engine would be OK with biodiesel made from Burger King's waste oil from the fryer, too.

    The clincher though is that when you're not trying to sip fuel, the 4.2TDI will out accelerate the 4.2 gas version.

    Did I mention this was in an A8L?
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    A stock A8L 4.2 was driven, 800 miles from London to Wales and back, on a single tank of fuel.

    This was for a TV show segment on British TV and there was a camera in the cockpit and in the fuel tank ("Tank Cam") -- the driver/story editor quips as the mileage per gallon exceeds 40MPG, "Audi have apparently created an engine that runs on air. . ."

    For anyone that would like to see the show, it can be found in two parts here:
    and here:

    I caught the actual broadcast during the five minutes when Discovery channel was showing TG in the US. Thanks to Youtube though, anybody can watch the best parts of the show whenever they want. Take that, Discovery channel.
  • sfcharliesfcharlie Posts: 402
    In today's SF newspaper, there is a half-page Audi ad:

    2006 Audi A6 3.2
    $499 mo
    00 Month lease (that's realy short term - no commitment)
    Down payment $0,000
    Security deposit $000
    Acquisition fee $000
    First month's payment $000

    Amount due at lease inception $0,000

    "Rate based on $00,000 MSRP"

  • quemfalaquemfala Posts: 107
    I've heard of the new diesel formulation; that combined with the newest technology certainly ought to make the "modern" diesel much more attractive, especially the "miles per gallon" feature. But, do you remember when diesel was the least expensive fuel at th pump? With the new "clean burning" stuff, I can only imagine what the price will be. Probably enough of a difference to negate the economy of use, especially when the original cost differential of diesel over gasoline engines is factored in. But, it will be interesting. I know that if it were available, I would have chosen diesel over gas for the last couple of SUV's we've bought.
  • cmybimmergocmybimmergo Posts: 265
    Wow. The ad cost more than the car does.

    What a great deal for all those commitmentphobes out there. :P
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    I speaketh only -- in this regard -- about whateth I knoweth:

    West Virginia

    Current fuel costs (that can be had at a retail level) in rank order by cost from lowest to highest:

    regular - mid-grade - diesel - premium - super premium and racing (over 100 octane)

    My A6 3.2 requires premium which is variously from 91 to 93 octane here in this part of the US.

    Were I to have the A6 3.0TDI, my fuel cost per gallon (based on today's retail) would go down anywhere from 2 to 11 cents and the mileage would improve by at least 20%.

    If "gasoline" is $3.00 per gallon, diesel would have to rise to $3.60 to break even.

    In the geography noted above, diesel prices and diesel cars would be a win for my wallet, my stoplight drag racing capabilities and were I a member of the C. Wright Mills Sociological Imagination crowd, and 1/3 of my fellow Americans would do the same, we would cut our importation of foreign oil by 1.4 million barrels PER DAY.

    Home run. You bet.


    Moreover, if we tweak the the TDI technology (which we have been doing now every year for the past several), we may even see the 40MPG that the A8L achieved in our LPS cars -- but they will be cheaper to acquire, fuel, operate, be cleaner -- and they will be quicker to boot.


    All this does, by the way, is buy us [humans] time -- time to develop even better efficiency, better technology, alternatives to moving people and things in vehicles from point A to point B.

    Further, none of this suggests we should not continue to at least attempt to develop and refine ethanol, hybrid and even convention fossil fueled vehicles.

    The LPS cars are where all the downstream cars get their technology from -- lets just see what happens if the LPS mfgrs offer up conventional, FFV, hybrid, diesel (which implies biodiesel by default) vehicles in an "unsubsidized" (by tax dollars) market and see where the market votes with its dollars.

    My bet is, the market will go with the alternative that impacts the wallet the least, regardless of foreign oil or greenhouse effects.

    Luckily, the alternative to the status quo that lowers our national fuel costs, lowers greenhouse emissions, raises a car's performance, increases durability, has a lower acquisition and operating cost and reduces our use of middle eastern oil is also currently the lowest cost.

    Another bit of icing on this cake is that, despite its pitiful production record, the alternative cars that will help us achieve these desirable objectives can also run on renewable and non petroleum based (soybeans and waste cooking grease) biomass.

    As Dr. Brown (Back to the Future) said, "why not do it with class?" (was he referring to the Mr. Fusion that ran this flying car on banana peels or the DeLorian he was zipping off in?)

    Monty, I'll take both! :blush:
  • jlbljlbl Posts: 1,333
    Modern diesels are not only attractive especially because the 'miles per gallon' fact. An Audi diesel prototype (Audi R10 TDI) was the absolute winner of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, France, yesterday. ;)

    More information at

    Anyhow, the figures of my E60 BMW 530d (torque 368,75 lb/foot; 218 hp; 147 miles per hour, max. autolimited) in its third year of life are:

    44.0 miles per gallon, averaged at legal speed on the highways

    40.2 miles per gallon, averaged at a not so legal speed but still a reasonable one on a mixture of highways and mountain winding roads

    The car has been flawless to date.


  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,343
    "First victory of a diesel engine in 24 Hour race
    - Historic triumph in front of record crowd
    - Both Audi R10 TDI cars with podium finishes

    AUDI AG has written an important chapter in the history of motor racing with its historic triumph in the Le Mans 24 Hour race. The new Audi R10 TDI was the first diesel car to win arguably the toughest car race in the world. In front of a record crowd of 235,000 spectators, Frank Biela (Germany), Emanuele Pirro (Italy) and Marco Werner (Germany) clinched the sixth and most important Le Mans win for Audi so far. Dindo Capello (Italy), Tom Kristensen (Denmark) and Allan McNish (Scotland) also achieved a podium in finishing third overall.

    The fans on the race track and a worldwide audience of millions of TV viewers saw an impressive demonstration of Audi TDI Power and the performance of modern diesel engines. The brace of Audi R10 TDI cars, powered by a 650 hp V12 TDI engine, were by far the fastest and most economical cars. During the entire race, one of the new diesel sportscars from Ingolstadt was at the head of the field. Le Mans record winner Tom Kristensen drove the fastest lap of the race, setting a 3m 31.211s time, and he was the first driver at the wheel of an LM P1 sportscar to cover 16 laps with one fuel load. Completing 380 laps, Audi also set a new distance record.

    In the race, the advantage in fuel consumption of the Audi TDI Power was visible for the spectators too: on average, the Audi drivers only pitted every 14 laps to refuel 90 litres of Shell V-Power Diesel. The opposition, who relies on petrol engines, had to pit considerably more often. The fans were also impressed just how quiet an environmentally friendly 650-hp sportscar can be.

    Although the roll-out of the new Audi R10 TDI took place only 200 days before the race, the victorious Diesel sportscar ran as reliably for 24 hours as its predecessor, the R8 that scored five Le Mans victories. The only unscheduled pit stop was carried out at 3:47 am when Audi Sport Team Joest decided to replace the gear cluster after trouble with fifth gear. In spite of the fact that the change of the entire rear end – as it had been done with the R8 – is no longer allowed by the rules, the team needed less than ten minutes war this exercise thanks to an innovative gearbox design. One more minute was lost for Frank Biela, Emanuele Pirro and Marco Werner on Sunday morning when one headlight of their R10 TDI was broken so the front bodywork had to be replaced. Apart from that, their Audi run like a clockwork."

    Source Audi AG

    Add this to the Sebring win and you have a tri-fecta:

    LeMans &
    Diesel did it!

  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Here's an article for ya. The ex head of Bosch talks about the future of diesels in the states: ewsletter02&refsect=newsletter02
  • jlbljlbl Posts: 1,333
    Thank you for the link. Some time ago I posted that hybrids were not frequently seen on our streets probably because of so many diesels rolling here in Europe.

    My sister in law, Spaniard, is married to an American citizen and lives in NY since the last Century. They and their (adult) sons very much love german cars with a stick . When I bought my first Diesel bimmer two years and a half ago, I told them, on occasion of a trip to the States, how impressed I was of its power, acceleration, quietness, clean exhaust, and so on. They looked at me with wide-open eyes: I had been against diesel cars til then. I am a 'sporty' driver. Also, my relatives remembered me coughing and crying due to big irritation caused by diesel exhausts when driving behind a diesel. A few months ago one of my nephews come to Spain and drove my car. No more ironic sights. He is now looking for more Diesel stations and Diesel car choices at the USA.

    As for hybrid BMW engines, they are developing hybrid steam power and gas (and diesel?) ones. There is some information at


  • sfcharliesfcharlie Posts: 402
    A couple of weeks ago you offered an interesting ranking:

    "I would rank the brands in just terms of "badge effect" in the US market like this:

    Tier 1: Mercedes, BMW
    Tier 2: Lexus, Cadillac
    Tier 3: Audi, Infiniti, Acura, Jaguar"

    MarkCincinnati added Tier 4 and demoted Cadillac to it.

    Then, there was someone asking about buying a car without test-driving it. The two sets of postings linked up in my mind and led me to wonder ... If we had to pick (in attempt to predict what would make him/her happiest to have gotten that car after, say, first two years owning it and driving it everyday) a car for a mythical buyer (mid-40s, married, two kids who ride in the car regularly, likes driving and not just getting from point A to point B), and we knew the person wouldn't drive all the ones we compare here, how much influence do you think "badge effect" would have on your recommendation and how what would your five top recommendations (brand and model) be in rank order?
Sign In or Register to comment.