1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

4x4 Ba****ds

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by trims, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. trims
    Offline

    trims Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 19, 2007]
    I guess if you own a Quattro you must be a 4x4 pariah like me?

    The A3 TDI Quattro exhales 173g/km CO2, about the same as the base 1.6 petrol A3.

    Is there a mainstream 4x4 which produces less CO2 ?? :think:
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Sep 17, 2014]

  3. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. alfiejts
    Offline

    alfiejts Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    4
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    Mountain Goat
    #3
  5. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    I've been doing a lot of research on CO2 figures lately.
    There isn't really a mainstream 4x4 that produces less than around the 170g/km I'm afraid.
    Even engines which are normally very efficient,like the Honda 2.2ctdi,jumps up several tax bands when it's installed into their 4x4 CRV.
    The saloon version (Accord or Civic) produces less than 150g/km.
    It's 171g/km when installed into the CRV.

    So it seems it's impossible,at the moment,to make a 4x4 as efficient as it's normal counterpart,even if the 4x4 is only 'on demand'.
    In the case of the CRV,I can understand the greater drag contributes to the greater CO2.Possibly greater weight too.

    Slightly less understandable when it comes to the A3,as the drag co-efficient must be the same for normal and quattro.

    So it must just come down to weight with the Audi.
    #4
  6. alfiejts
    Offline

    alfiejts Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    4
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    And I suspect down to the fact that even the "on demand" 4x4 systems draw more power from the engine, even in their least demanding state, hence the extra fuel consumption and higher CO2 just to undertake the same activities.
    That ties in with the fact that automatics use more fuel and produce higher CO2 ratings than their manual counterparts, even though they probably only weigh the same as a manual gearbox version - again, because the engine's doing more work to deliver the same performance.
    #5
  7. stewarta13wsb
    Offline

    stewarta13wsb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    2
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    Is that true for an A3 with DSG too? I thought I read somewhere that they had better mpg than a manual :readit: ... but of course that could just be me :redface:
    #6
  8. benw123
    Offline

    benw123 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    It's hard to believe, given that autos are nearly always worse on fuel than manuals, but this is true. According to What Car's website, the 2.0T DSG has a combined cycle of 36.7 mpg, and the same car with a manual has a lower combined of 36.2 mpg.
    #7
  9. OutLore
    Offline

    OutLore VOIP Dude

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    The DSG gearbox is more efficient than a manual because there is no huge torque convertor as in a normal auto and the clutches used are much much smaller, therefore less effort is taken spinning the G/B than a regular manual or auto.

    Effectively, the DSG is an auto clutch, rather than an auto box, I think...
    #8
  10. MattW
    Offline

    MattW Reverse

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 20, 2007]
    The CRV is 2 wheel drive.
    #9
  11. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 21, 2007]
    No it isn't.
    It's 2wd until the front wheels spin,at which point the back wheels are kicked in electronically.
    I've owned a Honda HRV which uses the same system.

    With regard to DSG being more efficient,I can't see how it is when it has a higher CO2 rating than it's manual counterpart.
    DSG - 151 g/km (140bhp diesel)
    Manual - 148 g/km (140bhp diesel)
    Higher CO2 usually goes hand-in-hand with greater fuel consumption,when everything else is equal.
    #10
  12. benw123
    Offline

    benw123 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 21, 2007]
    Both sets of figures (MPG and CO2) are both so marginal it could easily be reversed. But I agree though, I would still expect the DSG to be less fuel efficient.
    #11

Share This Page