Audi adds new 1.6-liter TDI to European A3 lineup
Audi A3 TDI – Click above for high-res image gallery
Audi has added a pair of new 1.6-liter TDI diesel engines to its home market A3 lineup with fuel economy up to 57.4 mpg (U.S.) on the EU combined driving cycle. The engines are available in 90 hp and 105 hp forms with both of them getting new common rail injection systems. The lower power engine gets a fuel economy rating of 52.3 mpg (U.S.) and drives the A3 to 62 mph in a sedate 12.9 seconds with CO2 emissions of 118 g/km. For the 105 hp version, Audi also includes an automatic start/stop system and brake energy regeneration. The latter function uses a smart alternator that loads up during deceleration and coasting to add to the engine braking and charge the battery. Under other conditions the alternator load is reduced and electrical systems in the car are driven off the battery. This variant achieves 57.4 mpg (U.S.) and CO2 emissions of just 109 g/km. Both engines are available in Euro A3s this month although we won't get them in the U.S. American buyers will have to make do with the 2.0 TDI late this year.
Gallery: Review: Audi A3 TDI
Photos Copyright ©2009 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
Ingolstadt, 2009-06-02
Further efficient engines added to the Audi A3 range
* 1.6 TDI engine with output of 66 kW (90 hp) or 77 kW (105 hp)
* 1.6 TDI with 77 kW: 4.1 l/100 km of diesel (57.37 US mpg), equivalent to CO2 emissions of just 109 g/km (175 g/mile)
* Market launch in early June
With its new 1.6 TDI engines, Audi demonstrates once again that driving pleasure and efficiency are not mutually exclusive. With consumption of just 4.1 liters of diesel per 100 kilometers (57.37 US mpg), the A3 1.6 TDI with an output of 77 kW (105 hp) emits a mere 109 grams of CO2 per kilometer (175 g/mile). These excellent figures are made possible by efficient technologies such as the start/stop system and energy recovery. Performance is also impressive. The version with an output of 77 kW (105 hp) allows the Audi A3 to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in 11.4 seconds and powers it quickly up to a top speed of 194 km/h (121 mph). The smaller 1.6 TDI delivers 66 kW (90 hp) and transmits 230 Nm (170 lb-ft) of torque. The A3 1.6 TDI can be ordered at once; the basic price is 22,550 euros for the engine with 66 kW (90 hp) and 23,550 euros for 77 kW (105 hp).
The new 1.6 TDI engine, delivering 77 kW (105 hp) in the Audi A3, reinforces the enhanced efficiency and customer benefits of downsizing: vastly superior fuel efficiency and performance comparable to engines with higher displacement.
For Audi, downsizing means offering customers vehicles with a turbocharged engine and smaller capacity as well as excellent efficiency and handling. Audi achieves this by blending several components of the modular efficiency platform. The standard start/stop system is especially effective during city driving. As soon as the vehicle comes to a stop, the shift lever is in neutral, and the driver removes their foot from the clutch pedal, the system turns the engine off. The engine then turns back on as soon as the clutch pedal is depressed.
Yet fuel savings begin before the A3 even halts at traffic lights. Aided by the energy-recovery system, the alternator works hard to convert kinetic energy to usable energy during a vehicle's coasting and braking phases before temporarily storing it in the battery. Upon driving off or accelerating the vehicle, the battery supplies this stored energy to electrical components – thus reducing the load on the alternator. This saves as much as three percent fuel.
In conjunction with the TDI's common-rail high-pressure injection technology, these systems work together to facilitate fuel consumption of just 4.1 liters per 100 kilometers (57.37 US mpg). This equates to just 109 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometer (175 g/mile).
The 1.6 TDI with an output of 66 kW (90 hp) also offers good performance and fuel efficiency. With its high torque of 230 Nm (170 lb-ft), this engine version propels the Audi A3 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 12.9 seconds and a top speed of 180 km/h (112 mph). Even without a start/stop system or energy recovery, it sips a mere 4.5 l/100 km of diesel (52.27 US mpg) – thereby emitting just 118 grams of CO2 per kilometer (190 g/mile).
Both versions of this new four-cylinder turbocharged diesel with common-rail technology further cement Audi's reputation as a pioneer. Despite lower displacement, fuel consumption is lower while handling remains as outstanding as ever.
The Audi A3 1.6 TDI is also available as the A3 Sportback. The extra charge for the Sportback versions is 900 euros. The basic price is 22,550 euros for the version with 66 kW (90 hp); the model with an output of 77 kW (105 hp) starts at 23,550 euros.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt 8:01PM (6/02/2009)
Thank you, VW/Audi, for once again screwing the US market out of the smaller, more efficient engines.
Reply
Snowdog 8:32PM (6/02/2009)
More choices mean more expenses to the car companies. Streamlining to fewer choices makes for better business, especially when you are shipping the cars across the globe.
The are already adding one diesel. Adding yet one more will not increase profits and will almost certainly lower them.
The 2.0 would be the choice for the majority of people. If diesels ever become more than a niche, then they might consider another diesel in the same model that most people aren't interested in. But that day is a LONG way off.
Matt 9:26PM (6/02/2009)
They market the diesel as a fuel efficient option anyway, why not use the one with the best mpg if they have to pick only one diesel. Besides, isn't VW putting the 1.6 in the Polo next year anyway? If so, they've got to have the parts, etc. in the country for that vehicle, so why not add it to the Audi line?
jharlan 9:38PM (6/02/2009)
They really think we in the US are pretty stupid, unsophisticated idiots don't they? I can't make up my mind if they are right or not, but I resent always being left out. I would be tickled if Ford would unload a line of modern efficient diesels here and cut into that market share. A decent hybrid-diesel could get some astonishing numbers.
Snowdog 11:48PM (6/02/2009)
I would consider the 2.0L TDI (I am in the VW Golf when it gets here) but I would not consider if it had the 1.6 TDI.
I would rather have decent performance and very good fuel economy (2.0L), than slug like performance and excellent fuel economy (1.6).
I wager more people would have my preference as well.
The Polo with a 1.6 might be feasible as it is a lighter weight car than the A3 and won't be quite so slug like.
You also have people clamoring for the 170HP 2.0L as well. You can never please everyone, but I think the 2.0L 140HP TDI is the best compromise for the largest number in North America.
Snowdog 11:50PM (6/02/2009)
edit: That should be "I am considering the VW Golf TDI..., (it is not definite).
Matt 9:01AM (6/03/2009)
Yeah, the new Golf is going to be SWEEEEEET. Cheaper, quieter, better looking, more fuel efficient... can't go wrong there man.
I think it really just bothers me that we don't have options in the diesel. It might be more expensive for Audi to provide them initially, sure, but is it really significant if the powertrain in question is already in existence elsewhere in the world in the exact same car, and in the same part of the world in a different car? Seems like it should bolt right in (and, it does). I just wish I had the option to test drive and choose. Oh well, I was planning on the Polo anyway.
Zeph 7:29AM (6/03/2009)
As someone who drives a 1.6 diesel I submit that the performance is more than adequate for everyday use. 2.0 is of course better, but in a small car like the A3 the 1.6 will still get this car up to 120mph and it should have 10 second time to 60. This is more than enough for most people.
My car is a 308sw, weighing in at around 3000lbs. 110hp from the PSA 1.6, which I believe is now in the mini and possibly the 3 series bmw, although I'm not 100% sure it's the same engine it is without a doubt the same common rail technology. It's some of the best commercially available technology out there.
And let's face it, if we really want good engines there are none in the classical auto industry anyway and we shouldn't buy a car, forcing them bankrupt. I can prove it: http://www.angellabsllc.com/ And also search for MYT engine on youtube to see it running in prototype versions. Same power and displacement as a classic engine, one tenth the weight, far less friction and presumably heat generated. This is what the combustion engine should have always have been, and it even has a better power to weight ration that jet engines, so with this thing we could, maybe, make prop planes that are as quick as jets and yet more economical (although possibly slower, I'm not sure this would work at altitude). Amazing evolution, yet will the mainstream use it?
My guess is no, they are corporate vampires.
Reply
Zeph 7:32AM (6/03/2009)
Just to clarify my last post, since we don't have an edit button, the MYT on a plane could possibly be as powerfull as an equivalent jet engine and smaller, but maybe the overall performance of the plane would be lower because I'm not sure it would work as well as a jet at altitude. Perhaps it would be viable with a lower cruising altitude, I don't know.
Either way, for ground transportation it's excelent.
Mattias 8:39AM (6/03/2009)
Yes, a 1.6l/110hp diesel is totally adequate for compact cars.However, the 2.0l/140hp (that I have in the 307SW) is more fun -- at the expense of a 0.5 to 1.0l higher consumption per 100km. So a 1.6l diesel makes sense (economically) in those markets where displacement is taxed and gas is between $7 and $9 per gallon.
Hey, here in Europe even the Volvo V70 and S80 are sold with the same 1.6l engine that powers your 308SW.
Mattias 8:41AM (6/03/2009)
Yes, the Mini has the same engine, the 3series uses a BMW developed engine. Maybe the next gen 1series 116d and 118d get the PSA engine.
downtoearth 10:05AM (6/03/2009)
Zeph:
> but in a small car like the A3 the 1.6 will still get this
> car up to 120mph and it should have 10 second time to 60.
The article says at the very beginning that the 0-62 acceleration time of this Audi A3 1.6 TDI is 12.9 seconds. Which is painfully slow.
This is pretty much similar to what your Peugeot 308SW 1.6 HDI 110HP is getting. It does 0-62 in 11.9-12.5 seconds, depending on tires. Saying it in a politically correct way, its "adequate". Saying it for real, it's slow too.
But at least you get 40 mpg (U.S) combined of the real life fuel economy. And so will this new A3 1.6 TDI.
To put things in perspective, the new 2010 Toyota Prius III does 0-62 in 10.5 seconds and returns 50+ real life combined mpg (U.S.).
Sources:
http://ww3.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/PPPWEBUK/Brochures_Peugeot/technical/308SW_Future.pdf
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/36-Peugeot/1041-308.html?fueltype=1&power_s=80&power_e=85
Zeph 11:03AM (6/03/2009)
In real world usage 12 seconds to 60 is fine. In the real world we don't drag race off traffic lights because we know it's silly. That said...
My car, which is the sport version with the 17" wheels does the 0-60 in about 11-12, yes, but do bare in mind that it has a very conservative engine tuning and a 6 speed manual geared for economy. I have little doubts that if one were to modify this car it could probably get down to the 9's. But at what cost?
As it is it's a great car, a bit slow off the line, more to gear box and engine electronics setup than actual power imo, but with loads of low rpm torque between 1500 and 2000. What this means is I can cruise all day at 160kmh, if the law let me, and can do it at legal speeds with very low fuel consumption, comparable to a hybrid (and diesel so cheaper than gasoline). It also has plenty of power for overtaking, again, in real world situation.
Of course, if you lust after a subaru impreza or a porsche, then it won't do. But once you live with the massive cost of running a high performance car with current technology, then it looses it's appeal. I am not rich, so I'm very happy with what I have. Hey, it's even got a glass roof and seats 7...
But again, this is just what corporations want to sell, as the MYT shows, they could do far far better, but they are dishonest liars who always think in terms of artificial scarcity and the highest cost to user possible, while marketing the exact opposite. The only reason I even have this car is because I got it under extraordinary circumstance, as, to be honest, I think most car makers, because of their technological suppression and poor choices, do not deserve our money, even if they sure know how to make outdated technology look pretty...
Were I in the US I would rather get a Tesla S than the A3 diesel. Overtime the tesla will probably have lower total cost of ownership, and it's a whole other concept of car. The A3 is great for what it is, but what it is has to be considered outdated by now.
my 5c.
PeterG 10:00AM (6/03/2009)
A3: 3200lbs
mini: 2500lbs
What is adequate for the mini is not adequate for a car that weighs in a 700 lbs more. They state 11.4 seconds 0-60 for the 1.6L, possibly the only thing slower in America is the "Smart" car.
A dog slow car like this won't sell here and it isn't worth destroying performance to eek out a couple of MPG when you are already at 40mpg.
If you are picking one diesel engine to bring. The 1.6 is not the one. It will reinforce the image of diesels as dog slow.
Reply
Zeph 11:10AM (6/03/2009)
There are gasoline Audi's. There is an S3 version around 250hp. You either focus on economy or performance or a compromise in between, there's no real getting around that with currently available engine tech. However, this car, 1.6d audi, will be slow off the line but it will cruise fast, I can garantee that as I drive a similar engine and similar weight.
Just get a Tesla S, if you want speed, praticality and confort and can live with 300 mile range. For longer take a plane...
PeterG 12:22PM (6/03/2009)
It is about the best engine to bring.
By far everything points to the 2.0L which is already set up for emissions in NA, and has already passed all federal testing and is already here in other vehicles.
People may whine about getting the wimpier 1.6L or the more powerful 170HP 2.0L. But in the end the 140HP 2.0L is the closest thing to being "Just right" that VW/Audi have available to them.
This isn't Europe and we aren't going to get 10 engine choices for each car. That is probably another reason why NA has much better vehicle prices. Streamlined choices saves money.
Instead of whining that you aren't getting the 1.6L, you should be counting your lucky stars that you get the option of diesel at all given the market in NA.
Richard 11:28AM (6/03/2009)
Actually, many things are slower. Older vehicles, for example. My daily driver is a '94 Ford Ranger with the 2.2L engine that had, oh, 98 HP and 130 lb-ft of torque when it rolled off the factory floor. It also weighs about 3,000 pounds (a touch less than the A3) and is as aerodynamic as a brick. Compare that to the diesel's 170 lb-ft of torque, and you've got a very acceptable vehicle for daily use, city and highway.
Reply
Audi Merchandise Delhi 5:38AM (6/04/2009)
Wow what a car, i have really impressed by the car picture, people love to see and ride it almost every where in the world,
Good :)
Reply