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

Have Audi 'cleaned up' the tdi engines ?

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by Amchlolor, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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 ???
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Dec 28, 2014]

  3. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [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.
    #2
  4. Vertigo1
    Online

    Vertigo1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    319
    [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.
    #3
  5. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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.
    #4
  6. Boydie
    Offline

    Boydie Guest

    [Feb 6, 2007]
    im paying £110 in northern ireland for a years tax on my PD140
    #5
  7. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 6, 2007]

    That'll be roadtax.
    I'm talking about company car BIK tax.
    #6
  8. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [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.
    #7
  9. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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 !
    #8
  10. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [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.
    #9
  11. steve184
    Offline

    steve184 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [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.
    #10
  12. Vertigo1
    Online

    Vertigo1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    319
    [Feb 6, 2007]
    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?
    #11
  13. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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 ?????
    #12
  14. h5djr
    Offline

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    628
    [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.
    #13
  15. ScottTDI
    Offline

    ScottTDI Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 6, 2007]
    #14
  16. steve184
    Offline

    steve184 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [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.
    #15
  17. h5djr
    Offline

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    628
    [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.
    #16
  18. mikep
    Offline

    mikep Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    It also list a 170 Quattro DSG Sportback, a car Audi claims not to make and I want one!
    #17
  19. giblets46
    Offline

    giblets46 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    There was some talk of particulate filters being fitted, tough i don't think that should affect the CO² output.
    #18
  20. h5djr
    Offline

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    628
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    The 2.0TDI - 170 engines have particile filters as standard.
    #19
  21. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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.
    #20
  22. h5djr
    Offline

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    628
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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.
    #21
  23. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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 !
    #22
  24. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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 !
    #23
  25. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    Or just an updated map.

    Chris.
    #24
  26. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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%...
    #25
  27. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    Maybe its the new tuning market. "Eco Chips" :)
    #26
  28. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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.
    #27
  29. steve184
    Offline

    steve184 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [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?????
    #28
  30. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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.
    #29
  31. HeliChris
    Offline

    HeliChris Learning to fly 3D

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    You are 100% correct, the CO2 is dependent on the weight, drag, etc etc. All the same things that effect the fuel consumption.
    #30
  32. giblets46
    Offline

    giblets46 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    [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
    As for if this changes the company car tax as far as the tax man goes, who knows!?
    #31
  33. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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%.
    #32
  34. Vertigo1
    Online

    Vertigo1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    319
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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.
    #33
  35. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [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 bloody 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.
    #34
  36. Vertigo1
    Online

    Vertigo1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    319
    [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.
    #35
  37. Nelson_R32
    Offline

    Nelson_R32 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    The DSG 140 now has a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) hence the change in emmissions.
    #36
  38. h5djr
    Offline

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    628
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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.
    #37
  39. killbill
    Offline

    killbill Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 7, 2007]
    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:
    #38

Share This Page