True, but it's got something like 439 or so bhp compared to about 375bhp in the LS460. The unknowns relating to battery life and replacement costs would be more than enough to put me off, though.
If I were looking at a car with a pikey hat on, then it would be the A8
4.2 diseasel over the Lexus. Both are big, stupid, soulless barges so there's not much to choose between them, and the Audi is better at around 38mpg than the Lexus. Actually, I'd even take the relatively puny 2.7 diseasel Jag over both of them. As Clarkson showed recently the Jag can actually maintain 59mpg on the motorway, it's got more character than the Audi and it's not bad for a poverty specced "executive car".I'd still have an XJR over the lot of them though.
No that one fills the "Smug self satisfaction" and the "I could have bought a S500 but look I saved the world instead" market.
I was quite surprised as to how handy the 3.0 diesel A8 is, thirstier than book though as you spend all your time revving it out and it's got all the quattro nonsense.
Which is completely irrelevant to the buyer of a 730d... but 40 to 60% extra range isn't.
The stated figures of fuel economy are quite hilarious.
In the real world an Audi A8 4.2TDI does Brussels to Munich *non-stop* (880 km in 4.5 Hr), where as a similar A8 but with a V8 3.7l had to stop halfway to refill and arrived after the TDI. Actual range of any big engined petrol car is around 500-600 km when taking it easy, driving in town or fast and you can double the fuelflow, hence destroying the available range.
A client (Brussels embassy) swapped completely to diesel engines for reasons of range and safety: they also have armoured cars and 130 l diesel is far safer than 130 l of petrol in such application.
Our company cars: a Subaru 3.0R (240 HP): 18/20 liters petrol per 100 km. a Volvo xc70 (185 HP) = 7 to 9 liters diesel per 100 km. Both are town-driven (150-200 km a day) by the same driver in the same way. Both cars have 70l fuel storage.
Tom De Moor
Rubbish.
We have many thousands of petrol stations here in the UK and no-one needs the ability to drive from London to Glasgow and back on a single tank of fuel.
If you're going to post to a UK group, perhaps you could use UK measures? - litres / 100kms mean absolutely f*ck all to most UK readers.
Well quite. Who'd want to even try it without stopping?
That'd help too..
Mike P
Quite handy for me, I can save up to 8 quid per tank by fuelling locally and not on the motorway, and there are few journeys I do where I'll use more than one tank in the E270 (600-700 miles) so I can easily save over 500 quid/yr by not having to refuel where I don't know where to get good value.
Jeezuz. Now you've done it. We'll have a 20 page lecture about how we do it wrong now. Probably followed by a page of how everyone should buy an Elise or 928.
Y'know, I would never buy a car based on how many MPG it does, or if it will do 200 or 800 miles to a tank of fuel. I want to get out after 250 miles even when I'm driving something spectacularly comfy. Stretch my legs, have a coffee, go for a piss, etc.
The idea of driving 600 miles, non stop, staring at the fuel gauge / economy reading, trying to get the most from every drop of fuel is just too hideous to contemplate. Yet there seems to be a whole subset of drivers out there who don't care about anything else. "I'm not buying a
1.6, think of the fuel. Must cost thousands a year to tax that. I want a 1.3 diesel".... makes my skin crawl, luckily, it's a fabulous indicator that the people who are likely to utter these statements are the exact same people who I like to avoid, so at least they're easy to spot.Even easier to spot 'em in summer, they're the ones sweating like f*ck in cars fitted with air conditioning "Can't use that, air conditioning means I lose 20 miles to every three tanks of fuel".
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Except you don't pay the Congestion Charge.
Tom De Moor gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
That sounds like a very low estimate of the range to me - I used to EASILY get 500 _miles_ from my old XM petrol turbo auto - at an average of about 27mpg. Taking it a bit easy saw the range over 600 miles, with
700 probably within reach if driven like a granny.
Much easier way of dealing with the CC. Don't go to London. Works for me :-)
I'm with you on this one, and to cite Tom's example - who really wants to drive 4.5 hours without stopping to quickly stretch their legs at least once?
I thought about this, and then thought that in terms of comparing fuelling costs of one model to another, something like fuel per distance travelled does in many ways actually make sense (much as it pains me to say it). Ok, we're all acclimatised to mpg - it's something we're all familiar with - but you've got to admit, it is actually simpler, mathematically, to work out running costs of stuff with stuff quoted in l/100km.
Using that example above......
Scooby: 18l/100km = 15.7mpg (petrol) ovloV: 7l/100km = 40.4mpg (diseasel)
To work out comparative costings of the two, here's doing it from the mpg figures (assuming petrol at 90p/litre and diesel at £1/litre just to make things simple):
£0.90 * 4.546 / 15.7 = 26.05p/mile £1.00 * 4.546 / 40.4 = 11.25p/mile 26.05/11.25 = 2.3155So the petrol Scooby costs 2.3155 times as much to fuel than the Volvo, or
131% more, or however you look at it. Ok, the maths isn't exactly complex, but it's a million times simpler just using the l/100km figures:(18 * 0.9) / (7 * 1)
= 2.31
(actual figures vary slightly as I've rounded things up at various points).
For once, I must admit that some new fangled Euro ways of thinking do actually make sense. I'll still always think in mpg though.
Pete M gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Yes - and no.
The XM used to do 500 miles on a tank. The Saab does about 300.
They're both roughly the same economy, but the Saab has a much smaller tank (and a paranoid warning light) - as a result, it *feels* like I spend a helluva lot longer in petrol stations - because I'm going to 'em more often.
Add in the fact that I find it physically impossible not to buy chocolate or a bag of sweets when I'm in there, and I _much_ prefer a longer range.
The key thing with hybrids is the usability and the reduction in local pollution. They do nothing overall for the environment but with the motor and regen braking, and the fact that the engine is off when idling and not started until moving (unlike stop-start engines) makes a massive difference to local pollution at peak times. The fact that they run on petrol makes them usable on long journeys too. If I went into the big cities more often I'd probably be tempted by a GS450h.
I don't pay it anyway.
I regularly drive 500-600 miles a day. I've never yet done that distance without a stop. Usually I time it so that I stop and fill at the same time even if I don't really need to fill the tank. However by doing so, I save about 20 minutes that I would have to spend if I filled the tank only when it needed filling. The car does 320 miles between fills which is just about ideal in terms of "distance I can drive before needing a coffee/break/piss. Anything more wouldn't speed up journey times because I'd still have to stop after 280-320 miles of driving.
Dervy's isn't paranoid enough...
I've never actually filled the tank on the E30, or the Rangie. I know an indicated 3/4 tank on the E30 will do around 300 miles if I take it easy. The Rangie, I don't know how far that'd go. Not a clue. It gets more fuel when the light comes on.
LOL - and that was from me, of all people...
Not guilty on that count.
Heh. I'm hearing ya. This is why I drive a 27mpg Citroen Xantia (to get to work and back - around 200 miles/week) and an LPG Sprinter that does 220-230 miles on a tank (keep reading about the modern Trannies that do silly mpg).
In an average day of delivery driving I lose count of the amount of times I've stopped for a piss/food/drink, and that's nowhere close to 250 miles of driving.
LOL - I stopped using the air-con in the van ages back, but only 'cos I finally realised that it wasn't just me - it had genuinely stopped working. A visit to Humphries (who were doing regassing for £25) confirmed it. Tell me - could driving through 2 foot deep flood water have done serious damage to anything air-con wise, or just caused some pipe or other to rust up a bit/snap/start leaking (I'm guessing here, help me out....)?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.