At long last I have decided that my head must rule my heart and the x-type has got to go. I do about 20k business miles each year and coupled with a 3k trip around France a month ago, has convinced me that I need something a tad more economical. My previous prejudices against diesels have recently disappeared after driving various cars which were OK.
I have narrowed down my search to Audi A4 2.5 TDI quattro and BMW 330d (both in tourer form). Given that the Jag is an auto, leather, cruise etc, it's got to have all the toys, and having driven both on extensive test drives recently I am 50:50. one half of me is swayed towards the Audi due to its 4x4 for the odd occaison when it may prove useful, but the other half likes the improved performance of the BMW.
So it's over to you - which would you prefer?
|
|
The 2.5 TDi in the Audi never sounds very refined to me. The new A4 will have a new 3.0TDi as an option (see HJ report on the 2005 A4 under road tests). If the choice has to be made now it would be the BMW, if you can wait consider the Audi with the 3.0 engine.
|
|
|
With regard to the Jag's replacement, it absolutely must be diesel - no argument there.
Are you still paying for the Jag? What would the cost to change be and how would it be paid for? How old is it and when would you normally expect to replace it?
The additional money you're paying in fuel may be very little compared to increased cash outlay, whether in finance or cash. Of course you might be able to get a car the same age as the X-Type, but again, a lot of that outlay won't be recouped over time and indeed you may lose more in additional depreciation than you would in fuel.
|
David
Good points - in danger of letting the heart rule the head again.
Yes I am still paying for the Jag its 3 years old, and I would have replaced in one years time. I am awaiting the dealer to tell me what the jag will be worth part ex against a one year old BMW 330d se (cost 25k), so I I'm just going to have to wait and see. I would pay on finance of some sort, looking to ensure my monthly outlay does not increase much from now.
Time to get the calculator out I fear.....
|
Roughly, £8.5k p/x value vs. £25k new value = £16,500 to swap into a car two years newer. In a year's time, I'd guess your car would be worth a little under £7k, and a new 330d from www.autocarsource.com is £26,500 + metallic so call it £27k. You'd then be swapping into a car four years newer for £20k.
After a further two years (i.e., three years from now) you'd have saved £1,440 in fuel over the first year (assuming 25 v 40 mpg). You'd have also saved £3,500 on the cost to change, a total of £5k.
However your 330d would be worth about £12k (4 years, 100k) as opposed to £18k (2 years, 50k). In other words, your assets would be reduced by £6k.
Obviously by choosing three years into the future, and making some educated guesses, the financial sense behind a move can probably be tweaked either way. However I would say that there is no financial imperative for you to change cars now rather than in a year's time, though I'd definitely choose diesel then.
|
David - thanks for that.
Sounds like the maths say don't change now & wait until fully paid up in a years time. Now I need to spend money on some 17" wheels - e-bay here I come...
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with the refinement of my A4 Avant 2.5 TDI. The Quattro was too expensive and as I don't drive like Autocar road testers, front-wheel drive suits me fine.
Also you can't get the quattro with the multitronic CVT automatic, so there is probably a penalty with mpg. Mine is a multitronic and does 42 mpg on a long run, 37 in town, but I could get 50 mpg if I tried. That's only about 7-8 mpg worse than its predecessor, a manual Golf TDI estate - and this could be mostly because of the bigger engine and higher performance.
Dulwich Estate should be able to tell us how economical his new 1.9 TDI Avant is - I think he said he'd got the multitronic. If he too can get 50 mpg on a long run, then there's very little penalty compared with the manual.
|
|
I test-drove an Allroad with the 2.5TDI and Multitronic and it struggled to get into the low 20s MPG. 4wd and Multitronic a thirsty beast does make.
|
What about the Honda Accord 2.2i-CDTi Executive?
Andy
|
Like it or loath it - that's your choice, but so many do not seem to understand or maybe want to understand the way the multitronic gearbox works. First of all it isn't a gearbox. It comprises a fancy chain running over shafts of varying diameter giving in effect an infinite number of ratios. The electronic gizmo just gives you six "fixed" ratios if that's what you want. It has no torque converter, no fluid gurgling about causing loss of energy and slow pick up. The official fuel consumption figures show it to be more econimical than a manual box.
As long as any long term reliability problems are resolved it is the way forward with automotive transmission.
|
"The official fuel consumption figures show it to be more econimical than a manual box."
Oops! obviously "economical" or maybe comical even.
Anyway, there's a huge fan base out there of drivers hooked on this system. It goes a long way to explaining why I chose another Audi for my new car.
PS It's still too new, I've only filled it up once and can't give you much idea on fuel consumption yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Had a look at these on Sunday - quite like them and I've always been a fan of Honda engines - but not recent styling. Probably worth a test drive eh?
|
|
|
|
|
