Engines

[pav767]

Why is Audi so behind on diesel engines? They need to look at BMW and compete. Just been looking at the 1 series 120D, and in returns 58.9mpg. I know you wont actually achieve that but it makes the audi diesel look uneconomical. Instead of investing in 50,000 million new models they should start developing new engines...especially diesel!

Sorry about the rant!!

 

[TDI-line]

Can't agree more with you.

And the 1 series has the new 2.0 TDI with twin turbos, producing 200 horses stock. It's called the 123d.

 

[Wes G]

A friend of mine was telling me about the 123d last weekend-(whilst very drunk) he was talking about how smooth it is on acceleration due to having a small turbo for low revs and a big turbo for high revs...sounds great-come on Audi pull your finger out:icon_thumright: ...(not sure if thats the proper way of explaining how they work)

 

[pav767]

Really? Never knew of that. Just goes to show how far behind audi and VAG really are in terms of diesel engines. They might have won Le Mans but thats no good the customer. I mean why do the need the 140 diesel for anyway? Its loud, uneconomical, and underpowered. Even the 170 aint that great either!!!

 

[Amchlolor]

They are terribly behind.
Honda and BMW have generally been considered to be making the best diesels around, but I read a test saying the new Renault 2.0 diesel surpasses them.
BMW also make very good use of their stop/start technology, which dramatically cuts Co2 levels and improves consumption.

 

[mfspen]

Why is Audi so behind on diesel engines? They need to look at BMW and compete. Just been looking at the 1 series 120D, and in returns 58.9mpg.

It's because VAG have doggedly stuck to their antiquated PD technology for so long, when the rest of the industry has moved on to common rail.

Fortunately, things are at last changing.
The A3 facelift will get the new 2.0 143 CR engine (as fitted to the new A4) in the Summer, which is a massive improvement.
Also, they have produced a twin-turbo version of the same engine producing 204bhp (equiv to the 123D) which is going in the new diesel TT.

 

[mister.c.]

Great post and follow up information. I wondered if it was just me, but clearly not!

 

[pav767]

mfspen, yes i know the 143 CR is an improvement, but only by audi standards. It is still underpowered and uneconomical compared to the competition. they really need to stop competing with themselves.

 

[mfspen]

mfspen, yes i know the 143 CR is an improvement, but only by audi standards. It is still underpowered and uneconomical compared to the competition. they really need to stop competing with themselves.

Yes indeed.

According to Autocar, there will also be a single turbo 175bhp version in due course (to compete with the 120D).

As yet, there is no sign of an Audi equivalent to BMW's 'Efficient Dynamics', which uses a trick alternator and stop/start technique to boost fuel economy. But I would expect all manufacturers to be working on the same kind of thing.

 

[Twizzler]

Firstly, I have to say I find the 170 a fabulous engine. However, I am prepared to admit the BMW engine as fitted to the 123 is better. Problem is, the 1 series is a far poorer package than the A3 sportback. So, all we need is a 123 type engine in an A3 Sportback chassis. I'd buy one. Oh, and a MFSW and a dipstick designed by someone who isn't a dipstick would also be appreciated.

 

[Amchlolor]

mfspen, yes i know the 143 CR is an improvement, but only by audi standards. It is still underpowered and uneconomical compared to the competition. they really need to stop competing with themselves.

Hear hear, well said.
It was obviously designed to compete with the 318D, as their output and Co2 were practically identical.
Unfortunately for Audi, BMW updated their engines, which immediately made the new Audi look a bit silly, before they've even been delivered!
The 320D, which puts out 177bhp,now has a much lower Co2 than the 143bhp Audi, never mind the 318D!

 

[pav767]

just goes to show how far audi are in terms of engine development. another thing, off topic but i read the other day that the a5 is not 50/50 weight distribution. how can this be? they designed a whole new platform yet still cant get 50/50 weight distribution. someone over at audi needs to be shot!!

 

[Amchlolor]

Believe it or not, my (soon to be) Alpina D3 has the same Co2 as my A3.
Both 156g/km.
Except the Alpina has 60bhp more than the A3...

 

[RGBArgee]

Believe it or not, my (soon to be) Alpina D3 has the same Co2 as my A3.
Both 156g/km.
Except the Alpina has 60bhp more than the A3...

What's with all this save the planet stuff. I had to buy a sub 165co2 car a year or so back to get 6k car allowance (instead of £1400) BUT my heart was elsewhere. Fortunately I am now buying on overall style, performance, comfort, image etc. and for me it's AUDI 100%.. Would not want a BMW or one with an Alpina badge .. Sorry Bowfer... and Yes I have tried them before you ask.

TT
R

 

[RGBArgee]

Believe it or not, my (soon to be) Alpina D3 has the same Co2 as my A3.
Both 156g/km.
Except the Alpina has 60bhp more than the A3...

What about Torque as you will know bhp is less relevent in real life Diseasel motoring than Torque!!

TT (petrol!)

R

 

[Amchlolor]

What's with all this save the planet stuff.

Although I am becoming more aware of my carbon footprint, seeing as I have a child whom I would rather didn't have to live in a subterrainean world for fear of instant death from the sun, I look for a car with a low Co2 level because I pay less tax on it (company car).
BTW, the Alpina D3's torque is 410nm.

 

[pav767]

can we please stay on topic. No point discussing global warming!!

 

[Amchlolor]

can we please stay on topic. No point discussing global warming!!

I would have thought Co2 levels were "on topic", given that they are a good indicator of an engine's efficiency.


You better start taking an interest, have you seen the Co2 targets governments are setting manufacturers for the not-so-distant future?
It's going to mean some pretty serious work for them.

 

[RGBArgee]

I would have thought Co2 levels were "on topic", given that they are a good indicator of an engine's efficiency.


You better start taking an interest, have you seen the Co2 targets governments are setting manufacturers for the not-so-distant future?
It's going to mean some pretty serious work for them.

CO2 is important but car emmissions contribute only a small part ( I think less than 5%) of the problem. The bland Govt figures are based on an average over different types of motoring (like the Urban, 56mph and combined figures). BM seem to have cracked the formula. I read somewhere that a properly set up petrol motor can return lower CO2 than diseasel(not sure where). I understand the financial pressures and employer and government 'blackmail' to get us into lower Co2 cars but for what other reason??? Maybe Darling wants a BMW!! BTW 2006 Mini One (a BMW) emits more Co2 than a 2007 Audi A6 2.0Tdi... How bizarre!!

TT petrol and A3 diseasel soon !!

 

[Amchlolor]

BTW 2006 Mini One (a BMW) emits more Co2 than a 2007 Audi A6 2.0Tdi... How bizarre!!

What kind of comparison is that?
That's bizarre.
Apart from the difference in capacity, one's a petrol and one's a diesel.
Even small petrol engines struggle to beat diesels, for Co2 emissions.
A better comparison would be the 1.6 Mini one petrol and the 1.6 Audi A3.
Mini = 138 g/km
Audi = 171 g/km
So Audi's petrol engines are lagging behind too.
Of course, the 1.6 is going to be replaced by the 1.4Tfsi, but that's not a fair comparison again, as the 1.4Tfsi is not naturally aspirated.
If you want to make the comparison though, it's as follows

Mini = 138 g/km
Audi 1.4tfsi = 154 g/km.

Although the 1.4Tfsi puts out 30bhp more than the Mini.
Which you would expect with forced induction gubbins.

 

[RGBArgee]

What kind of comparison is that?
That's bizarre.
Apart from the difference in capacity, one's a petrol and one's a diesel.
Even small petrol engines struggle to beat diesels, for Co2 emissions.
A better comparison would be the 1.6 Mini one petrol and the 1.6 Audi A3.
Mini = 138 g/km
Audi = 171 g/km
So Audi's petrol engines are lagging behind too.
Of course, the 1.6 is going to be replaced by the 1.4Tfsi, but that's not a fair comparison again, as the 1.4Tfsi is not naturally aspirated.
If you want to make the comparison though, it's as follows

Mini = 138 g/km
Audi 1.4tfsi = 154 g/km.

Although the 1.4Tfsi puts out 30bhp more than the Mini.
Which you would expect with forced induction gubbins.

My point is that such comparisons are pretty meaningless, BMW seem to be able to make better use of 'creative accounting' techniques to press the right buttons

 

[RGBArgee]

What kind of comparison is that?
That's bizarre.
Apart from the difference in capacity, one's a petrol and one's a diesel.
Even small petrol engines struggle to beat diesels, for Co2 emissions.
A better comparison would be the 1.6 Mini one petrol and the 1.6 Audi A3.
Mini = 138 g/km
Audi = 171 g/km


NOT CORRECT LOG BOOKS FOR BOTH SHOW THE FOLLOWING

Mini 1.6 One Reg 7.3.06 CO2 =165

Audi A6 2.0 TDi SLine Avant = 163
(Reg 08.03.07)

Are we really suggesting an A6 is more eco friendly!!

 

[Amchlolor]

My point is that such comparisons are pretty meaningless, BMW seem to be able to make better use of 'creative accounting' techniques to press the right buttons

Creative accounting has feck all to do with Co2 figures.
BMW's better Co2 figures are party because their engines are more efficient than Audis and partly because of their stop/start technology, which means the engine stops when you select neutral, like at traffic lights, and restarts itself when you depress the clutch.
Very clever and, according to an ex member of this forum who now owns a stop/start Mini, works very well.

 

[Markm49]

Really? Never knew of that. Just goes to show how far behind audi and VAG really are in terms of diesel engines. They might have won Le Mans but thats no good the customer. I mean why do the need the 140 diesel for anyway? Its loud, uneconomical, and underpowered. Even the 170 aint that great either!!!

how do you know the 170 'ain't that great' ? Have you actually driven one ? I have a 170 and I am telling you it is a fantastic engine - who gives a sh*t about the co2 !

 

[Amchlolor]

Are we really suggesting an A6 is more eco friendly!!

Why is that so hard to believe?
Because it's the bigger car, so it 'can't be'?
That's a ridiculous argument.
God forbid they ever make an electric Humvee, coz that'll blow your mind.

 

[Kef9]

Beemer Engines are in a different league to audi engines. They are miles more powerfull per litre in both petrol and diesel versions and produce alot less CO2.

Audis engines are embarrasing in comparison.

At least my S3 does well running at 125bhp/litre which is good by any standards.

 

[Amchlolor]

who gives a sh*t about the co2 !

You may not have chosen the car specifically because of it's low Co2, but it's a by-product of your choice.
There are people who specifically choose cars by Co2 though.
Apart from those with a 'green' ethic, there are the likes of those that wish to avoid the London congestion charge.
So they will deliberatly choose a car with under 119g/km.
My wife's Clio falls into this bracket, as does the A3 1.9tdi.
A nice by-product is the £35 a year roadtax.

 

[Amchlolor]

At least my S3 does well running at 125bhp/litre which is good by any standards.

Ahem,,,may be good by car standards, but it's pish by bike standards...
They're pushing 200bhp per litre, normally aspirated too.
That's in full road-legal trim.

I know I'm being a pedant, but you did say any standards....

 

[Macduff]

It's not just diesels that Audi are behind on.

Compare the power, CO2 and MPG of a 3.2 FWD A4 and a 330. The BMW is miles better on paper. In fact I find it hard to believe that the BMW figures are real.

 

[marklad2020]

CO2 is important but car emmissions contribute only a small part ( I think less than 5%) of the problem.

You can apply that argument to almost anything you like. Most things are only a small part of the problem, which is why all things need to be addressed in parallel. Providing, of course, that you believe that there is actually a problem in the first place.

 

[RGBArgee]

You can apply that argument to almost anything you like. Most things are only a small part of the problem, which is why all things need to be addressed in parallel. Providing, of course, that you believe that there is actually a problem in the first place.

I agree Mark which is why I make the point. We are getting hung up on this in the UK I fear. The creative use of CO2 figures based on non realistic IMHO real life driving situations are not helpful. I am just suggesting that BM have been quick off the mark, inc Stop Start to give pretty meaningless figures.

I would strongly argue the assertion that BMW engines are better. Hasn't the 2.0TFSi won prizes. IMHO Audi engineering knocks spots off BMW!! And that's before we even consider aesthetic issues!!

R:icon_thumright:

 

[h5djr]

BM have been quick off the mark, inc Stop Start to give pretty meaningless figures.

Volkswagen used Stop-Start technology many years ago in both versions of the Polo and the Golf but decided not to continue with it after a while and they found that their customers did not like the system.

 

[RGBArgee]

Volkswagen used Stop-Start technology many years ago in both versions of the Polo and the Golf but decided not to continue with it after a while and they found that their customers did not like the system.

You are not wrong and as us older folks will recall VW did the old 'Formel E' thing and now the going 'Green' 'Blue Motion'..

Let's not allow the Marketing competition and IMHO BMW current 'spin doctoring' get in the way with supporting Audi (VAG) who seem to take a more considered approach to car making!! :icon_thumright:

TT

R

 

[dm_irish]

As yet, there is no sign of an Audi equivalent to BMW's 'Efficient Dynamics', which uses a trick alternator and stop/start technique to boost fuel economy. But I would expect all manufacturers to be working on the same kind of thing.

as mentioned above they did it years back and are reintroducing it this year most likely, to help c02 levels.

when you say 'no sign' presumably that is just because you haven't heard about it? have a search online. it's pretty easy.

there was even a big report on another audi site recently where a A5 2.0T with regenerative braking and stop start was tested giving > 40mpg.

surprised at the over the top rants on this thread. bmw have only overtaken audi very recently with all the new engines with stop-start included. audi are now behind but will catch up, simple as that. as far as I can tell BMW are ahead of all other car makers and audi are the nearest to them. someone has to be top of the pile at any particular time..

 

[RGBArgee]

as mentioned above they did it years back and are reintroducing it this year most likely, to help c02 levels.

when you say 'no sign' presumably that is just because you haven't heard about it? have a search online. it's pretty easy.

there was even a big report on another audi site recently where a A5 2.0T with regenerative braking and stop start was tested giving > 40mpg.

surprised at the over the top rants on this thread. bmw have only overtaken audi very recently with all the new engines with stop-start included. audi are now behind but will catch up, simple as that. as far as I can tell BMW are ahead of all other car makers and audi are the nearest to them. someone has to be top of the pile at any particular time..

Here here, Seems a shame so many people on an Audi Blog want to keep knocking Audi

 

[mfspen]

when you say 'no sign' presumably that is just because you haven't heard about it? have a search online. it's pretty easy..

On the contrary, I am fully aware of the old abandoned VW stop/start system. But I (and I think the original poster of this thread), was refering to cars you can actually buy today !

My post wasn't knocking Audi per se, but merely pointing out that VAG are behind BMW when it comes to diesels. But, I also said that they are rectifying this, starting this Spring with the new A4.

With petrol engines, I think that BMW and Audi are pretty evenly matched. The 2.0T which I own is brilliant, for example, and BMW still don't have a 4 cyl petrol unit which even comes close.

 

[Nelson_R32]

On the contrary, I am fully aware of the old abandoned VW stop/start system. But I (and I think the original poster of this thread), was refering to cars you can actually buy today !

My post wasn't knocking Audi per se, but merely pointing out that VAG are behind BMW when it comes to diesels. But, I also said that they are rectifying this, starting this Spring with the new A4.

With petrol engines, I think that BMW and Audi are pretty evenly matched. The 2.0T which I own is brilliant, for example, and BMW still don't have a 4 cyl petrol unit which even comes close.

I'd hardly say they are behind when it comes to diesels. Look at the new 3.0TDi for instance...

One crucial innovation is the ultra-low emission system in the exhaust tract, which largely eliminates nitrogen oxides by means of a carbonic acid diamide solution. With this system on board, the 3.0 TDI fulfils the toughest emission standard in the world – the LEV II Bin 5 classification, which is operative in the US states of California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. The high-tech diesel from Audi also already complies with the emissions limits that are due to come into force in Europe from 2014.

The PD engine is by no means proof of poor investment by VAG on there engine range. It just shows they poured money into an injection system that didn't win the battle with Common-Rail. The 143bhp CR is the first of many new 4 pot Diesel engines to come, give them a chance to release them!

Even I admit that BMW currently have some important technical innovations such as electric Water Pumps and Alternators which reduce load on the engine therefore increasing consumption. Got to give them credit for that, but it won't be long before Audi are doing the same.

 

[dm_irish]

On the contrary, I am fully aware of the old abandoned VW stop/start system. But I (and I think the original poster of this thread), was refering to cars you can actually buy today !

as mentioned above, I wasn't talking about just the old system, but the imminent new system. you said 'no sign' when there have been numerous reports on developments and testing of stop start etc lately by audi. So there are loads of signs, you just aren't aware of them.

eg, again as mentioned above:
http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_3658.shtml

 

[mfspen]

as mentioned above, I wasn't talking about just the old system, but the imminent new system. you said 'no sign' when there have been numerous reports on developments and testing of stop start etc lately by audi. So there are loads of signs, you just aren't aware of them.

eg, again as mentioned above:
http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_3658.shtml

I was aware of this article too, but an ethanol powered A5 test mule in the US hardly means that it is imminent.

I won't be able to buy a CR diesel powered A3 until the Summer at the earliest, and it will most probably not have stop-start either. That is the point of the original poster's thread. Audi are behind, and no amount of semantics will disguise that.

 

[RGBArgee]

I was aware of this article too, but an ethanol powered A5 test mule in the US hardly means that it is imminent.

I won't be able to buy a CR diesel powered A3 until the Summer at the earliest, and it will most probably not have stop-start either. That is the point of the original poster's thread. Audi are behind, and no amount of semantics will disguise that.

I read on this blog that the 170 DPF was basically a CR diesel (maybe not!) But what is so important about being ahead.. Remember the Hare and Tortoise story! IMHO Audi design, quality performance (as an overall package) is far superior to BMW stuff! Anyone out there agree? :icon_thumright: