2011 Audi A8 2011 Audi A8 front 3/4 view 2011 Audi A8 rear 3/4 view 2011 Audi A8 side view 2011 Audi A8 front view 2011 Audi A8 front view (with bird) 2011 Audi A8 rear view 2011 Audi A8 grille badge 2011 Audi A8 grille 2011 Audi A8 headlight 2011 Audi A8 lower front bumper 2011 Audi A8 wheel 2011 Audi A8 wheel 2011 Audi A8 sideview mirror 2011 Audi A8 door handle 2011 Audi A8 taillight 2011 Audi A8 taillight 2011 Audi A8 badge 2011 Audi A8 badge 2011 Audi A8 exhaust pipes 2011 Audi A8 trunk 2011 Audi A8 engine 2011 Audi A8 engine 2011 Audi A8 engine detail 2011 Audi A8 engine detail 2011 Audi A8 interior 2011 Audi A8 interior 2011 Audi A8 gauges 2011 Audi A8 tachometer 2011 Audi A8 speedometer 2011 Audi A8 information display 2011 Audi A8 clock 2011 Audi A8 navigation display 2011 Audi A8 navigation display closed 2011 Audi A8 center console 2011 Audi A8 climate controls 2011 Audi A8 seat warmer/cooler 2011 Audi A8 gearshift 2011 Audi A8 touchpad 2011 Audi A8 touchpad 2011 Audi A8 push-button start 2011 Audi A8 dashboard 2011 Audi A8 speaker 2011 Audi A8 front seat 2011 Audi A8 front seat leather 2011 Audi A8 center armrest 2011 Audi A8 door controls 2011 Audi A8 door detail 2011 Audi A8 door detail 2011 Audi A8 door detail 2011 Audi A8 door detail 2011 Audi A8 door detail 2011 Audi A8 seat detail 2011 Audi A8 turn signal stalk 2011 Audi A8 back seat 2011 Audi A8 back seat center armrest 2011 Audi A8 seat massage controls 2011 Audi A8 interior illumination 2011 Audi A8 interior illumination
When Audi announced the 2013 A8 with the 3.0T V6, it didn't mention fuel economy numbers but did tout the 333-horsepower engine's "great efficiency." According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the V6 efficiency exactly matches that of the more powerful 372-horsepower, 4.2-liter V8 – the 3.0T was rated the same 18 city, 28 highway as the naturally aspirated 4.2.

It's figured that the stop/start system fitted to the V6 will provide a slight bump, which, since the EPA doesn't factory such tech into its testing, doesn't register in the official numbers. It's difficult to make fuel economy comparisons with the same engines in other countries since they have different power ratings; in Germany, for instance, the V6 is rated at 286 hp, the 4.2 isn't offered and the 4.0 TSFI V8 makes 414 hp – but in that case, the V6 does get better gas mileage, if you're wondering.

Speaking of wondering, that's what many including our own commenters are doing about the space between the 333-hp V6 and 520-hp V8 in the S8. The report in Car and Driver posits a detuned version of the S8's motor. No matter what, the V6 A8 will be less expensive than all of them, which was the real point all along.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 44 Comments
      leo
      • 2 Years Ago
      wooo, Now that's a big failure. I'd never would trade the V8 for a turbo V6 that get's no better mileage. the start stop can be put on the V8 as well and there again the V6 would be rendered useless
      Kronos
      • 2 Years Ago
      Strange. In every other application that the 3.0 V6 has replaced the 4.2 V8, fuel economy has improved (S4, S5, Touareg). Performance too. Wonder what happened in this case?
      Sims
      • 2 Years Ago
      Yeah, um 18 city/28 highway is pretty damn good for a big awd car with a V8.
      Papi L-Gee
      • 2 Years Ago
      Oops.
      IBx27
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wah wah wah waaaaaah...
      vripper
      • 2 Years Ago
      I definitely prefer the early designs. I'm not a fan of the boring A4/Passat design or that clunky shifter. Those crazy meth addict headlights have to go too.
        Alex740
        • 2 Years Ago
        @vripper
        ha! I thought the headlights make it look like a zombie but I prefer meth addict.
      TDIMeister
      • 2 Years Ago
      How is matching a larger engine's fuel economy (and making no progress on the EPA numbers) considered a good thing??
        transam
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TDIMeister
        Its only a good thing to greenies who like to demonize V8s even though real world economy is worse with the smaller engines. Chalk up another one to the tree huggers.
      RobbieP
      • 2 Years Ago
      Come on Audi your engineering is great but do something about the faces of your cars ... the front of this is like a Chrysler 300 gone wrong!
      TrueDat
      • 2 Years Ago
      i think what's more impressive is not that the V6 matches the V8, but that the V8's numbers are as good as they are in the first place.
        Twittavelli
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        True Dat
        montoym
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        No doubt. It's an AWD land barge with a nearly 400hp V8 and gets 28mpg hwy. That's awesome! I said that way back when it was released.
      Ak74
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wow impressive Audi engineering.
      graphikzking
      • 2 Years Ago
      EPA - update your testing! This is just stupid. Start Factoring in Start/Stop already into city mileage! It will save our country SOOOO much fuel because people take notice. If both cars are rated at the same 18 city - I know I'd choose the cheaper option. Now if one was listed at 20mpg and the other was 18mpg - then I'd probably go with the start/stop option! Considering it makes long term financial sense. But really, in the days where these compact cars are rated at 40mpg but you realistically can't get 40mpg unless your not using ac/heat, windows up and traveling level road at 55 mph. I had a 2005 sentra rated at 33mpg highway and I would consistently get 36mpg highway with a 4 speed auto trans! Now with the new "lower" ratings on a 2005 car they rerated it at 31mpg. These newer cars have "gamed" the system. There is no way that a 2013 Elantra (2900lbs) is getting 33% better mileage than a 2005 sentra with 1.8 liter and 2500lbs. Realistically this elantra should be rated at 28 / 36. Those are the REAL numbers after 2 seperate rental car stints with it.
        futuramautoblog
        • 2 Years Ago
        @graphikzking
        "There is no way that a 2013 Elantra (2900lbs) is getting 33% better mileage than a 2005 sentra with 1.8 liter and 2500lbs." Yes you can, as fuel mileage is dependent on many things including weight you mentioned, but also gear ratio, engine tune & technology, efficiency of engine and other components and etc.
          graphikzking
          • 2 Years Ago
          @futuramautoblog
          yeah - I agree - but I was just trying to state that the epa ratings are sooooo far off from actual and getting worse. With all these technological advances that the epa aren't taking into account, and all the "gaming" of the system so their engines are tuned for lowest rpm at the exact epa testing, it's becoming worse for consumers than the old numbers. I've rented that elantra on 2 occasions, drove is EXACTLY like I've driven the Sentra and gotten LOWER gas mileage than the old sentra yet it's rated 33% higher? There is no reason for that at all. No TPS lights on so I wasn't low on air etc. The one car had just about 10,000 miles on it so it should have been perfect to get an accurate reading.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @graphikzking
        [blocked]
      larshafner
      • 2 Years Ago
      who needs a house, i want to live in that car!
    • Load More Comments