- Messages
- 14,857
- Name
- Derek
The review is average, and the result is predictable, it is pretty much similar to what others have said. Mr.Mercedes was talking about this article before.
Wheels - On your Deutsche marques...
On your Deutsche marques...
Mike McCarthy | August 26, 2008
Audi's new A4 takes on its toughest rivals in a battle of the sharp-suited compact execs.
Think Holden v Ford v Toyota is the toughest fight in auto alley? Close, but the local trio’s barely veiled pugilism is little if any more intense than the slugfest that rages (albeit less visibly, perhaps) between Audi, BMW and Mercedes.
Until comparatively recently, the main bouts almost always featured BMW and Mercedes, or Mercedes and BMW, with also-ran Audi relegated to throwing punches from the sideline. Of late, however, Audi has fought its way into the main game and is taking no crap from anyone, least of all from arch rival BMW.
Inevitably, the battlefront extends through every level from the affordably compact A3, 1 Series and A-Class models to the rich list A8, 7 Series and S-Class. But nowhere is the three-pronged stoush more intently joined than on the executive market’s second front, where sabre-rattling turns to cut and thrust and where head-on clashes between variants of the A4, 3 Series and C-Class count as part of everyday business. They are their makers’ most important models for sales volume, and spreading the brands’ reach and grip.
So it is that this particular confrontation revolves around the A4 1.8T, 320i Executive and C200 Kompressor. They’re automatics because that’s the box ticked by the overwhelming majority of their buyers. Only Audi offers a manual option ($50,900) as a part of its standard line-up, while Mercedes doesn’t even offer a manual version. Even driver-centric BMW now lists only the automatic 320i Exec, though a little arm-twisting and a specific order will produce a manual, at no difference in price.
Speaking of which, it’s enough to know that our three contenders each enter the bout at around $57K. However, comprehensively long options lists offer many opportunities to further enhance these models’ material charms and Luxury Car Tax components.
The latest A4 is this group’s youngest model, having been launched here just months ago, whereas the current C-Class arrived locally in mid-2007 (and went on to win the Wheels Car of the Year award). That leaves the 3 Series as the most mature member by virtue of its mid-2005 introduction.
The 320 engine is also the group’s sole advocate of natural aspiration, for the others boost their outputs by means of an exhaust-driven turbocharger (A4) or belt-driven supercharger (C200 Kompressor). So while the 2.0-litre BMW has a modest edge in engine capacity over its 1.8-litre peers, their pressurised solutions more than overcome the difference.
Although the 118kW A4 1.8T claims little more squirt than the 115kW 320i, there’s a gulf between the Bimmer’s useful, but comparatively modest, 200Nm maximum torque and the Audi’s appreciably huskier 250Nm peak, which is delivered over a much broader rev range. As is the Merc’s Audi-equalling 250Nm torque which fully complements the C220K’s class leading 135kW delivery.
On paper, the 320i just shades the A4 1.8T in the power-to-weight context, while the C200K easily eclipses them both. However, the respective performances fare differently on the road and at the test track.
As presented for this contest, the A4 1.8T proved just a whisker quicker than the C200K in both the standing- and rolling-start acceleration tests. But at that point the Merc had less than 500km on the odometer, where the Audi and BMW each had the benefit of about 2000km behind them. It follows that the C200K, given the same running-in, would almost certainly equal the A4 1.8T’s alacrity, or even nose ahead.
Regardless, for mid-size four-cylinder automatics, the Audi and Merc both do well to post 0-100km/h in 8.5 seconds or less while putting paid to the standing 400m dash in 16 seconds, with the lure of even maybe getting into high 15s in ideal test conditions.
Honest performer though the BMW is, it has no answer to the others’ full-throttle rush and eats their dust whenever there’s a call for emphatically responsive action. For example, the 320i takes about two seconds longer than its rivals in 0-100km/h acceleration, and when kicked-down, spends over an extra second climbing from 80-120km/h. So, when in company with the 1.8T and C200K, you’re always aware of having to stir the 320i more vigorously to stay in touch.
Not that that’s an unappetising prospect for the Bavarian 2.0-litre. With its sophisticated Valvetronic variable valve system and Double Vanos variable camshaft phasing, the 320i revs freely and responds purposefully without feeling or sounding strained.
The BMW’s only problem is that the turbocharged, direct-injected Audi engine spins just as sweetly, sounds as urbane and works more willingly, all the while offering much more spirit underfoot.
The Merc 200K engine tone is noticeably flat and mumbly at low speeds; more aurally ordinary than you’d expect from $57K’s worth. But it’s no party pooper, and just needs a bit of a tickle to join the fun. The faster it goes, the better it sounds and the stronger it feels. Good excuse for ankle exercises.
For all performance’s stimulation, it goes without saying that fuel consumption is increasingly influential, even among cars at this level. On the official drive-cycle numbers, the A4 1.8T scores a laudably economical 7.4L/100km, the 320i manages 8.0L/100km and the C200K posts 8.2L/100km.
Our real-world test revealed a different (and somewhat thirstier) pecking order, as the BMW came home clearly ahead on 9.2L/100km, from the Audi on 10.0, with the again likely-to-improve Mercedes on 10.2L/100km.
There’s no question that the Audi’s well balanced driveability, performance and economy owe more than a little to the multitronic CVT-type transmission. With D selected, the multitronic behaves, feels and sounds like a conventional automatic as it slurs seamlessly through the range rather than suffering the slipping-clutch perception that afflicts most CVTs.
The stepped effect is clearly evident in Sport mode, which retains each electronically-determined ratio, of the eight such points available, to just over 6000rpm before automatically up-shifting. DIYers can also effect sequential ‘manual’ shifts by tapping the lever forward to change up and backward to change down.
The six-speed BMW auto’s sequential shift is the other, biomechanically correct, way around, while Merc’s five-speeder uses sideways travel for its sequential system.
If the Merc loses anything in driveability or refinement through being one gear short of the BMW’s half-dozen, it’s not obvious or inhibiting. One thing the Merc and BMW transmissions have in common is the ability to creep smoothly through barely moving manoeuvres, such as tight parking, where the Audi can be a touch jerky and less precise. And unless you’re consciously light-footed, the A4’s initial step-off from standstill is noticeably sharper than the others.
The multitronic is also characterised by distant low moans in some operating conditions, where the other transmissions are conspicuously quiet.
In case you’re wondering, it didn’t escape our notice that the drivetrains’ other big difference isn’t in the engines or automatics, but in the Audi having front drive. While it’s true that for most drivers and most driving, the front- versus rear-drive disparity is not glaringly influential, a keen driver will always spot the difference.
However, about the only time the A4 really identifies itself through front-drive animation is when attacking steep, winding climbs. Where the road’s jiggly and turns are tight, enthusiastic ladlings of the plentiful torque induce brief, chirpy scrabblings at the front end and lightly chattery feedback in the steering. It happens, but is no big deal and at very least registers signs of life in the steering. Lack of which is the BMW’s biggest killjoy.
At first encounter it might be argued that the C200K’s steering weighting is on the light side for most tastes, but it’s accurate, well connected, the quickest from lock to lock and delivers the tightest turning circle.
The BMW’s weighting is at the other extreme; relatively heavy and so wooden you’d swear the power-assist has gone AWOL. With speed, the steering lightens, gains some feel, and points well enough through corners. But in everyday ambling around city and suburbs, the wheel’s dour mood is a drag on BMW’s sports-driver image.
The A4’s steering offers weighting halfway between the overly light Merc and artificially heavy BMW but, like many Audis, lacks outright feel. However, neither of the others match its unwavering tracking stability at straight-ahead regardless of rough or smooth roads. There too, the Merc trumps the BMW for directional integrity.
Despite the promise of Audi’s new Modular Design System (MDS) architecture with its engine mounted farther rearward, the A4 feels a touch nose-heavier than the others during initial change of direction, but that doesn’t hamper its turn-in or lessen the efficacy with which it puts its power to ground.
So while there are shades of difference in the respective models’ handling, their respective corner-carving dexterities invariably impress because all three are similarly sure-footed and responsively well balanced. Although the 1.8T, 320i and C200K lack the sheer grunt of bigger-engined siblings, the polished dynamics turn forceful corners and flowing squiggles into their playgrounds, and yours.
Slight but perceptible differences are found in the respective ride qualities, however. Overall, the C200K does a noticeably better job of blotting bumps, levelling dips and ignoring jiggly distractions while also making less noise about the road surface.
The Audi rides pretty well too; in general terms it’s a touch firmer than the Mercedes in roll, a bit less absorbent in bump, and a tad more vocal on some surfaces, without any suggestion of belligerent harshness.
Whichever way you cut it, the 320i’s ride is the least consummate of the three. The comparatively stiff-walled run-flat tyres must shoulder some blame for the irritable fidgets over every little surface variation, while rough roads bring rear-end float and crash-through that point to unexpectedly soggy damping. Road rumble is more obvious in the BMW too, particularly to rear passengers.
Each set of brakes is up to its task, affording good pedal feel with consistently arresting braking, and keeping the faith even when repeatedly hard pressed. The only quirk is that, in characteristic Audi manner, the A4’s pedal response is too eager at low speeds.
There’s very little to choose between them for very acceptable front-seat shape, support and comfort. Besides the basic fore-aft and backrest rake adjustments, the cushion height/tilt variability and lumbar adjustment cater to almost all occupants’ seating preferences. There are differences however, in the means by which such adjustments are made.
The A4 1.8T, for example, has manual front seats as standard, but the test car’s optional Comfort package fully electrifies the driver’s adjustments and includes passenger electric lumbar support. The 320i Executive’s front pews include electric seat height/tilt and backrest rake as standard, while offering electric lumbar adjustment for an extra $600.
Electric height and rake provisions are included on the C200K’s front buckets, in conjunction with manual cushion tilt, fore-aft and lumbar adjustability.
Where the 1.8T and 320i Executive have leather seat coverings, the C220K Classic is trimmed with a man-made Artico (nee MB-Tex) alternative.
The multi-function steering wheels that rule these roosts are adjustable for rake and reach, helping to ensure ready availability of comfortable and commanding driving positions. In that environment, the BMW’s non-adjustable B-pillar belt anchorage isn’t optimal.
And although the respective instrument clusters differ graphically in appearance, their faces and digits rate similarly well for legibility.
It’s noticeable, and commendable, that while each model’s windscreen A-pillars are fairly thick in side view, they present occupants with unobtrusively slim profiles.
Each model has amply roomy rear seating; three headrests, side and/or curtain airbags and central ventilation outlets.
Our back seat volunteers rate the BMW’s bench as having the most comfortable cushion and backrest, but the headroom is just-average and the toe-space is more dependent than the other two cars upon the front seat height adjustment.
Given the A4’s extra wheelbase (2808mm versus the others’ 2760mm spans), it not surprisingly offers most rear knee-room. Headspace is fractionally less than the BMW’s, and toe-room noticeably deeper. But while the backrest rivals the 320i’s for support and angle, the cushion is flatter and not as supportive under thigh.
Although the C-Class has less shoulder width than the others, it provides more foot space than the BMW and as much knee room. In other respects the Merc’s rear seating is on par with the A4’s, albeit with a cosier, quieter ride.
So, time now to reflect on the contenders’ relative merits and otherwise. Everything considered, what promises to be a boots’n’all three-way turns out to be a two-horse run to the wire. The 320i Executive isn’t one of them.
This is a car not without tangible attractions, but at the same time the unpalatable steering, confronting ride quality, arrogant interior and comparatively poor performancerice balance make the 320i a test of BMW’s brand power.
Whichever way you look at it, for virtually the same money (and same Redbook resale prospects) the Audi A4 1.8T out-points the 320i in being bigger, roomier, quieter, better steering, better performing, fresher looking and more occupant-orientated than the model from Munich.
But good as the A4 is, it ultimately concedes to the Mercedes in a photo finish. A very close result, but no less convincing for all that.
If the C200K initially seems conservative, it soon reveals itself persuasively competitive on the styling, accommodation and driving fronts, and in resale leadership, too. Demonstrating top value in buyer, user and driver contexts alike, the C200K emerges as the group’s most fully rounded package, bar none.
Wheels - On your Deutsche marques...
