Have Audi 'cleaned up' the tdi engines ?

Amchlolor · Feb 6, 2007

Doing Co2 searches,just to make sure the tax people have everyone's coding right.
My car (140bhp 2.0tdi DSG) has a CO2 rating of 159,which tallied with Audi's rating when I bought the car.
I note that,according to Audi,the CO2 rating is now 151 for the same engine and gearbox combo.
The manual version is 148.

Both Co2 ratings are a good bit lower than when the 140bhp was launched.

Why ???

HeliChris · Feb 6, 2007

The CO2 rating is based on the weight of the vehicle, so maybe the sportback and options are affecting the rating. What does your V5 say? I remember a couple of years back seeing the weight of each option printed in the dealers pricelist, and was told at the time it was for company car tax calculations.

Last possibility is has the engine changed for EU4 compliance, is your engine EU4? If its EU3 then they have defiantly cleaned the engine up to meet EU4.

Chris.

Vertigo1 · Feb 6, 2007

To my knowledge, the TDI140 has always been 148g/km for the manual, where di you get 159 from?

The TDI170 is 157.

Regards EU4, the 2.0TDI was EU4 compliant from the outset. The 1.9 was modified shortly after the 2.0TDI was launched to make it compliant.

Amchlolor · Feb 6, 2007

Yup,the car is euro 4.
When I ordered the car,the Audi website said it had a CO2 rating of 157/158,with my particular car being measured at 159 on the V5.
Something has definitely happened to make the engines 'cleaner',but I'm damned if I know what.

Boydie · Feb 6, 2007

im paying £110 in northern ireland for a years tax on my PD140

Amchlolor · Feb 6, 2007

Boydie said:
im paying £110 in northern ireland for a years tax on my PD140

That'll be roadtax.
I'm talking about company car BIK tax.

HeliChris · Feb 6, 2007

It must be the options, i.e. sportback, DSG, Bose and the armrest adding more weight to the vehicle, after all the CO2 rating is going to be based on the weight of the vehicle its pulling around not just the engine.

Could anyone else post their V5 CO2 rating to help prove this.

Chris.

Amchlolor · Feb 6, 2007

I can't see Bose and a centre armrest making so much of a difference to the car's CO2 rating that it moves it into a different tax band.
It's very strange but the way things are now if I went out and bought exactly the same car again,I would pay less in tax than I am just now !

HeliChris · Feb 6, 2007

But thats my point, you need to find another same (or near same) spec car and look at the V5. I am sure audi changes the values based on the weight.

Chris.

steve184 · Feb 6, 2007

My 04 Manual TDI was 148 on the logbook which i was surprised at cos it did have 4k worth of extras on it - i guess it depends on what extras you have and how heavy they are - i expected mine to topple mine over the 150 threshhold for the next rate up in tax but it didn't.

I don't understand why the DSG would make the CO2 higher as it offers (supposedly) better fuel economy and better performance (meaning more efficiency) than the manual so you would expect an appropriate reduction in CO2 as these are very much connected.

Vertigo1 · Feb 6, 2007

bowfer said:
Yup,the car is euro 4.
When I ordered the car,the Audi website said it had a CO2 rating of 157/158,with my particular car being measured at 159 on the V5.
Something has definitely happened to make the engines 'cleaner',but I'm damned if I know what.

Sorry but I have to dispute this. I clearly remember mine being quoted at 148g/km and it was one of the early ones, on a 53-plate.

This is, however, for a manual 3-door rather than a DSG Sportback, is this where the difference arises?

Amchlolor · Feb 6, 2007

Must be.
I definitely remember the sportback DSG being around the 157/158 mark,so the 159 rating my V5 states wasn't too much of a difference.
I'd have queried it if my V5 said 159 but Audi said 151,as that's a fair old difference.
Dearer tax band.

Perhaps they've done something to make the S-tronic more efficient than the 'old' DSG ?????

h5djr · Feb 6, 2007

Has the method of calculating the CO2 level for company car tax changed?

Looking at the current V5 for my 3-door 2.0TDI DSG the figure is given as 156. When I looked back at a copy of the 2004 prices lists for my car it listed the weight for C02 and the weight for each of the options.

The current November 2006 price list does not list a weight for CO2 purposes or the weight for any of the options. It just lists the 2.0TDI-140 as 148/151 for manual/s-tronic and 157/156 manaul/s-tronic for the 170. The figures are the same for both the 3-door and the Sportback.

In the back of the 2004 price lists there was a table to calculate the tax from the weight of the car plus any option but there is no such table in the lastest price list.

Doesn't really effect me personally, just interested.

ScottTDI · Feb 6, 2007

You can find your CO2 emissions here

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/

DSG and quatttro all make the emissions higher.
Regards,
Scott.

steve184 · Feb 7, 2007

Well bowfer - i found i had an old 04 price list on my comp from when i was buying my old 04 TDI. If you go to the page near the back it gives a table on co2 data. It clearly shows the TDI manual as having 148 (but max 150 if options added weight) and 141 for the DSG version (with a maximum of 143 if the weight was increased to the max possible with options)

Have uploaded this for you to download yourself. See link below.

So dunno why your v5 has 159 on it. This actually isn't possible according to these figures.

But one thing for sure - the engine co2 emisions have not changed since 04 - albeit some engine have been introduced since then 2.0TFSI, 1.8TFSI, TDI170 etc, as well as the Sportback being introduced - the ones which were available since 8P launch have not changed.

http://homepage.mac.com/scrowther/A3_Price_List.pdf

I've looked at the Audi website and all the figures are the same whether it be a 3 door or 5 door. This must be where the mistake is, as i'm damn sure (although don't have figures to hand) that the sportback is a good 50kg heavier than the 3 door - this would definately affect the co2. Id say some web monkey who does audis site has coped the 3 door spec page to create the sportback page and forgot to change all the data to the sportback data.

h5djr · Feb 7, 2007

Looking at the link provided by ScottTDI, it lists A3 models and A3 models from 2007. The figures for the 2007 model year engines are lower than the previous figures. The 2.0TDI DSG 3-door is listed as 156 pre-2007 and 154 post 2007. For the Sportback S-Line the pre 2007 figures are 159 and the post 2007 154. So it does seems that the latest engines are 'cleaner' than previous models.

mikep · Feb 7, 2007

It also list a 170 Quattro DSG Sportback, a car Audi claims not to make and I want one!

giblets46 · Feb 7, 2007

There was some talk of particulate filters being fitted, tough i don't think that should affect the CO² output.

h5djr · Feb 7, 2007

The 2.0TDI - 170 engines have particile filters as standard.

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

h5djr said:
Looking at the link provided by ScottTDI, it lists A3 models and A3 models from 2007. The figures for the 2007 model year engines are lower than the previous figures. The 2.0TDI DSG 3-door is listed as 156 pre-2007 and 154 post 2007. For the Sportback S-Line the pre 2007 figures are 159 and the post 2007 154. So it does seems that the latest engines are 'cleaner' than previous models.

Spot on David,thanks for confirming my thoughts.
I knew my V5 figure of 159 was consistent with Audi's claims when I bought the car.

I wonder what they've done ???

FYI,the method of calculating company car tax is still the same.
For example,for my car.

CO2 rating of 159 gives a BIK tax rate of 21% of the full list price.
So £24400 x 21% = £5124.00
£5124.00 x 22 % tax payer = £ 1127.28 per year (£93.94 a month).
£5124.00 x 40% tax payer = £ 2049.60 per year (£170.80 a month)

'Free' fuel is based on a figure of £14400.
So fuel is £14400 x 21% (co2) = £ 3024.00
22% tax payer = £ 665.28 per year (£55.44 a month)
40% tax payer = £ 1209.60 per year (£100.80 a month)

Any company car buyer wanting to keep their tax bill to an absolute minimum needs to try and get a car down around the 145-150 CO2 level.

h5djr · Feb 7, 2007

FYI,the method of calculating company car tax is still the same.

As I right in thinking that the weight of the car plus it's options are not involved as the price lists no longer give these any more.

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

h5djr said:
As I right in thinking that the weight of the car plus it's options are not involved as the price lists no longer give these any more.

Weight doesn't any direct involvement in the calculations at all,no.
Just full RRP (on the road charges aren't included,but they're negligible) + the price of option + CO2 rating.

It's interesting how the same engines can have vastly different Co2 ratings based on who uses them and what they're used in though.

For example,the GM 1.9 Jtd engine is used by Vauxhall,Saab and Alfa.
Vauxhall and Saab are able to keep the Co2 low,but the same engine in the Alfa has a much higher figure,making it move up a tax band or two.
No discernable difference in power figures to show why Alfa's use of the engine makes it less efficient,so god knows !

Same with the usually very low Co2 engine used by Honda.
In the Accord and Civic,it's a very low reading (less than 150).
Slap it in the new CRV and it suddenly shoots up to 170+
I suppose that can be explained by weight/4x4/aerodynamics though,whereas the GM/Vauxhall/Saab/Alfa difference can't.

Sorry,not a very interesting subject,but I've become a bit of an expert on it.
The result of a slack company accountant who keeps getting P11D's wrong !
Everyone comes running to me for the correct calculations !

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

Anyone any ideas how Audi have reduced the CO2 then ??
Higher compression ratio (doubtful,power/torque would go up)
Better injection methods ?
Different exhausts ?
You'd think they'd make a big deal about the engines becoming more efficient,but it seems to have sneaked up on us !

HeliChris · Feb 7, 2007

bowfer said:
Anyone any ideas how Audi have reduced the CO2 then ??
Higher compression ratio (doubtful,power/torque would go up)
Better injection methods ?
Different exhausts ?
You'd think they'd make a big deal about the engines becoming more efficient,but it seems to have sneaked up on us !

Or just an updated map.

Chris.

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

Yeah,could be.
Wouldn't it be nice if Audi were to offer the updated map to all 140tdi owners and I could write to the tax people telling them I should be paying 18% instead of 21%...

HeliChris · Feb 7, 2007

Maybe its the new tuning market. "Eco Chips"

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

Not a bad idea Helichris !
If the tax people were to take notice of aftermarket chips that reduce the CO2 rating,I dare say a few company car drivers would take advantage.
Unfortunately,I would imagine they would still refer you to the manufacturers/official ratings,which would just prove they are about as green as a methanol burning dragster.

steve184 · Feb 7, 2007

if this is true then the whole co2 thing is a farce because it is not just the engine which governs this - its how much weight/options/areodynamics etc and would even be altered by say, having 3 people in the car and only one person (extra 120kgs?? - damn right that would affect the co2)

So what a waste of time it is for the government to be taxing based on this figure?????

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

steve184 said:
if this is true then the whole co2 thing is a farce because it is not just the engine which governs this - its how much weight/options/areodynamics etc and would even be altered by say, having 3 people in the car and only one person (extra 120kgs?? - damn right that would affect the co2)

So what a waste of time it is for the government to be taxing based on this figure?????

I do believe it's the fairest way though,don't you ?
I can't think of a better way.
Simply doing it by engine size was wrong,coz you get efficient and inefficient engines of the same size.

HeliChris · Feb 7, 2007

steve184 said:
if this is true then the whole co2 thing is a farce because it is not just the engine which governs this - its how much weight/options/areodynamics etc and would even be altered by say, having 3 people in the car and only one person (extra 120kgs?? - damn right that would affect the co2)

So what a waste of time it is for the government to be taxing based on this figure?????

You are 100% correct, the CO2 is dependent on the weight, drag, etc etc. All the same things that effect the fuel consumption.

giblets46 · Feb 7, 2007

From thye latest Auto Express (the one withthe 'new' Audi A1 on the cover. Obviously this states volkswagen, but as we know they use the same engines

Volkswagen has improved the economy of its cars without even touching their mechanicals. A new measuring system has changed the mpg and CO² figures for the better. Now the golf 1.6FSi averages 42.2mpg - up from 140.4mpg- while the polo 1.4TDI 70 achieves 62.8mpg instead of 60.1mpg. A spokesman said the new calculation brings the cars into line with their competitiors

As for if this changes the company car tax as far as the tax man goes, who knows!?

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

bowfer said:
FYI,the method of calculating company car tax is still the same.
For example,for my car.

CO2 rating of 159 gives a BIK tax rate of 21% of the full list price.
So £24400 x 21% = £5124.00
£5124.00 x 22 % tax payer = £ 1127.28 per year (£93.94 a month).
£5124.00 x 40% tax payer = £ 2049.60 per year (£170.80 a month)

'Free' fuel is based on a figure of £14400.
So fuel is £14400 x 21% (co2) = £ 3024.00
22% tax payer = £ 665.28 per year (£55.44 a month)
40% tax payer = £ 1209.60 per year (£100.80 a month)

Quick PS to the above.
Knock off 3% if the car was registered before 1.1.06
So my car is actually 18%,not 21%.

Vertigo1 · Feb 7, 2007

bowfer said:
I do believe it's the fairest way though,don't you ?
I can't think of a better way.

No actually, I don't.

Despite the rantings of the green/carbon loonies, CO2 emissions from vehicles constitute but a tiny percentage of overall man-made CO2 production.

This aside, the system takes no account of how many miles you do, which is just stupid. If one employee does twice the miles of another, the fact that their car emits a few percent more CO2 is hardly relevant, is it?

I actually feel the old mileage based system was fairer to the company car driver in general. Those who were provided with a car because their job demanded it paid the least tax whilst those who had a car as a perk and did little business mileage were taxed the most. I even feel this was fairer despite the newer system costing me less personally, as I do very little business miles these days.

Amchlolor · Feb 7, 2007

Looking at the bigger picture though Vertigo,CO2 is surely the fairest way to apply roadtax ?
I always objected to the proposed '4x4 tax' (copyright The Sun..) because it was punishing people unfairly.
You're lumping efficient little Honda diesel 4x4's (for example) in with ****** great Range Rover sports or Merc ML's.
Or you're punishing said-same efficient Honda diesel 4x4 driver just because it has 2 more driven wheels than that bloke in the BMW750.
The fairest way,as far as I'm concerned,is by C02,regardless of how many wheels are driven etc.

Vertigo1 · Feb 7, 2007

I don't think CO2 is the fairest way for two reasons.

1. As I said, the global contribution to CO2 emissions by motor vehicles is almost negligible.

2. It takes no account of distance covered. A small, efficient vehicle which puts out 100g/km may do 20k miles a year whilst another one which puts out 200g/km may only do 8k miles. The second vehicle will be taxed to death compared to the first yet is creating less pollution. I do approximately 15k miles a year in my car which is taxed at 21%, yet someone who does 25k miles a year could choose a Toyota Prius and get taxed at 12% when in fact they'd be producing more CO2 than I. Where's the logic in that?

Not quite sure where the 4x4 element came from, I have no issue with 4x4 vehicles whatsoever.

Nelson_R32 · Feb 7, 2007

The DSG 140 now has a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) hence the change in emmissions.

h5djr · Feb 7, 2007

The DSG 140 now has a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) hence the change in emmissions.

Where do you get that information from? According to the Prices and Specification on Audi UK it's only the 170 that has the DPF. I think the DPF is available for the 140 in Germany but not the UK. But I may be wrong and the Audi UK website could well be out-of-date.

killbill · Feb 7, 2007

bowfer said:
Doing Co2 searches,just to make sure the tax people have everyone's coding right.
My car (140bhp 2.0tdi DSG) has a CO2 rating of 159,which tallied with Audi's rating when I bought the car.
I note that,according to Audi,the CO2 rating is now 151 for the same engine and gearbox combo.
The manual version is 148.

Both Co2 ratings are a good bit lower than when the 140bhp was launched.

Why ???

Bowfer, got me thinking here, as I new I had read this somewhere, anyway yes Audi has recalculated the way it works out the CO2 here is the answer :
http://www.audi.co.uk/etc/medialib/cms4imp/audi2/uk/Products/fleet_sales/pdf/fullScreen.Par.0011.File.pdf

Good news all round !!

:icon_thumright: :icon_thumright: :icon_thumright:

Have Audi 'cleaned up' the tdi engines ?

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Registered User

Boydie

Guest

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Learning to fly 3D

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Similar threads