1.6 engine

H

hburnett

Registered User
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Weston S Mud, England
What is the point of this?!?!?

I put my 2.0TDi in for a service today and got an 07 Sptbk 1.6 S-Line... Not saying the trim isn't good - the car is packed with nearly all the gadgetry add-ons you can think of, but that 1.6 engine.... WHY??? It has to be the worse engine I have ever driven!! Even my mum's metro 1.3 avantguard automatic (when I was learning to drive mainy moons ago!!) had more pull.... Gutless engine!

That's my view on it....

H
 
They put it in the range for exactly the same reason you can buy a BMW 316 or 318 i.e. so they can sell the car to someone who just wants the badge and doesn't care about the performance
 
We have a 1.6Fsi Golf and 2.0Fsi A3 here.
Their performance is identical.
Absolutely identical.
I was in the A3 and a colleague was in the Golf (private,closed road of course).
Along a twisty country road and down a dual carriageway,there was nothing in it all,right up to a good bit over 100mph.
I was thrashing the pants off the A3 too.
I was VERY surprised,as I have driven the 1.6 Golf and wasn't impressed.
It would appear Fsi engines are just equally slow.
I reckon my tdi would have lost them,especially on drive out of slow corners.
I was dipping the clutch on the Fsi A3 to try and get some meaningful drive !
Like riding a two-stroke bike and trying to get it into the powerband !
 
hburnett said:
What is the point of this?!?!?
Click to expand...

Well in all fairness, not everyone needs loads of power...

In its favour the 1.6 FSI engine is alright around town (a friend was surprised how torquey the engine was for a petrol engine) and gives a pretty good MPG on the motorways, the insurance is cheaper than most of the other engines in the A3 range and it helps that it has 6 gears, I owned one and did 17000 miles in 10 months when I first got to Germany, like all cars it loosened up after about 5000 miles.

Yeah it aint a 2.0 TDI, but then again it isnt claiming to be either.
 
its a good car for a rich daddys son or daughter who would get slaghtered by insurance at such a young age - also, its a big safe car incase of an incident.

if i had a 17 year old i would prefer them to be in a 1.6 a3 than a 1.6 clio or saxo
 
The 1.6 non-FSi is awful (abysmal in Auto model)

The 1.6FSi is actually not that bad an engine; I'd have one were I not a car nut and power obsessed ;)
 
audi upgrades
I think the very nature of the type of people that frequent this forum, means that we all like a bit of power under the right foot.

I think people as a whole are more obesssed with the amount of power that a car has than ever before. We were given a 1.6 as a loan car for a week before we took delivery of our 'proper' car and found that for normal use it was quite a nice car and extremely quiet.

Its definately the sort of car my father in law would buy for the cheap running costs and wouldn't even think about how much raw power it had.

I remember as a kid that a 2.0ltr engine was considered BIG and reserved for the speed machines. :)
 
You can't really compare chalk with cheese, you're comparing a bottom of the range petrol with your mid-range diesel. I guess a 3.2 petrol owner would say the same about your 2.0tdi, particularly the noise.

I guess the 1.6FSI is aimed at those who want a nice car as a run around town car but don't need performance - perhaps as a second car for the wife or someone with a poor insurance rating or just someone who doesn't drive like they stole it and just wants to pootle along.
 
Man i'm glad I didn't get the standard 1.6. I was quite close to doing so as well because I was getting impatient on saving for the 2.0TDI heh.
 
Far too heavy car for that engine. Too slow... My next cars will always have a turbo wether it be petrol or diesel. I love my TDI.
 
Too slow for this forum perhaps, but not too slow for the market it is probably aimed at! We are called audi-sport after all! Horses for courses.
 
Never driven the 1.6 but had a 2.0FSI loaner once and it was utterly gutless. Needed the nuts revved off it to get anywhere and I found it very tiring to drive after a while.

They loaned me a 1.4 A2 once - oh dear god :(
 
Hrmmmm - I have an 8l 1.6 and i have to say that whilst its slow it absolutely ****** all over the 1.6 fsi in the 8P, seriously gutless engine i had one for a few weeks, was the guy i work withs old company car that was going back. You have to absolutely thrash it for it to go anywhere, and not in an enjoyable way.

The power or lack of doesnt bother me so much in mine as i have an mr2 turbo for that, the A3 just gets me to work and out to work related things etc where i dont actually need any poke.
 
Thinking about it ........ if the 1.6 model was sooo bad and people were not buying it in enough volume to make it financialy viable, Audi would drop it from the range like a stone.

I guess the fact its still available does mean that alot of people find it quite adequate for their driving style and needs.

Wouldn't suit me tho and I wouldn't even have the 140 TDi, cause I do like to plant my right foot on occasions.!! :)
 
you think that is bad! Try my mums 1.4 Golf.... completely anemic! You don't feel like revving it, like gearing it, you just feel like trashing in the wall and get at least a 2.0TDI... piece of crap! Mum is happy though, and that's all that matters...

Pedro
 
I'd never have one as my own car, but I'm seriously looking at one for my wife. She only potters around town and to work and back, so only does about 4000 miles a year. Never goes on motorways, so power isn't a factor. Safety is though, and with her biological clock ticking, it won't be long before a baby seat is on the shopping list.
 
arthurfuxake said:
I'd never have one as my own car, but I'm seriously looking at one for my wife. She only potters around town and to work and back, so only does about 4000 miles a year. Never goes on motorways, so power isn't a factor. Safety is though, and with her biological clock ticking, it won't be long before a baby seat is on the shopping list.
Click to expand...

The A3 isn't any safer than a lot of other cars in it's price range though.
It gets a Euro encap rating of 4 stars for adult crash protection,but only 3 stars for child crash protection.
My wife's new style Renault Clio gets 5 stars for adult crash protection and 4 stars for child crash protection.
So to go for an A3 on safety grounds is a bit wide of the mark.
 
bowfer said:
The A3 isn't any safer than a lot of other cars in it's price range though.
It gets a Euro encap rating of 4 stars for adult crash protection,but only 3 stars for child crash protection.
My wife's new style Renault Clio gets 5 stars for adult crash protection and 4 stars for child crash protection.
So to go for an A3 on safety grounds is a bit wide of the mark.
Click to expand...

Yes I was surprised at this! 4 stars!! I mean for the money it's a bit harsh.. Even the golf managed 5. The only other car newer than the A3 managing 4 stars is the robocop honda civic.
 
Fair point.
But I'll never own another Renault. I had too many breakdowns in my Laguna.

PS, Bowfer, where did you get the ratings from? I've been onto euroncap.com and they only list the 8L A3, not the new sportback.
 
arthurfuxake said:
Fair point.
But I'll never own another Renault. I had too many breakdowns in my Laguna.
Click to expand...

The new boss really seems to be taking them in a good direction though.
I wouldn't have considered a Clio for the wife,until the new one.
It swept the boards when it came out though.
It's build quality is superb,as are the materials used inside.
It's more refined than my A3 (honestly) and hasn't had a single thing go wrong in 14 months of ownership.
More than I can say for my A3 !
Throw in the 5 star crash rating,60mpg,free servicing,group 3 insurance and £35 a year roadtax and it's the best car we've ever bought.
It's not slow either,with the 90bhp turbo diesel.
More torque than a 1.6 Audi.
Women like torque,they don't like revving engines.
 
arthurfuxake said:
PS, Bowfer, where did you get the ratings from? I've been onto euroncap.com and they only list the 8L A3, not the new sportback.
Click to expand...

I went into euro encap,small family cars and Audi.
A3 (2003) was there.
It's not an 8L in the picture,it's an 8P.

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/audi_a3_2003/176.aspx

No tests for the sportback,but I can't see it being any different can you ?
Everything's the same apart from the number of doors.
 
Look closer at those ncap ratings for golf and A3.

For a start 12+16+2 = 30 not 29 as stated.

The golf get 2 extra points for a seatbelt reminder, so that gives a score of 31 for crash protection, which looking at the results is down to increased risk of injuries in the foot area, but this is one to of the least repeatable parts of the test so I'd call them equivalent.

Don't just take those star rating at face value

But also note this was for a 1.6 , results will be worse for bigger, heavier engines. Also Sportback is heavier so expect reduced performance.
 
I do take your point bowfer, but as with all stats and tests, the details need to be investigated.
The audi lost points because of inadequate signs warning of the dangers of a forward facing baby seat in the front of the car, and they feel that the airbag de-activation could be misused. Now, how many points it lost because of those 2 things isn't clear, but it certainly has affected it's rating.

A3: Both children used Fair Bimbo Fix Type II vehicle-specific ISOFIX restraints. The 18-month-old’s was rear-facing and the three-year-old’s was forward-facing. These protected their heads from hitting inside the car, but the 18-month child suffered higher chest loading. The labelling on the restraints was clear and permanent. There was inadequate warning against placing a rear-facing restraint on the front passenger seat opposite an airbag. Although there is a switch fitted to turn the airbag on and off, the danger of misuse and serious harm remains.

Clio: A four-language, permanent text and pictogram label warning against placing a child in a rear-facing restraint on opposite an active airbag is fitted on both sides of the passenger’s sun visor. The vehicle had a manual switch for the passenger airbag on the end of the passenger’s fascia. Its status cannot be changed when the ignition is on and, if this is attempted, a warning light glows. The restraint used by the 3 year old child was a forward-facing Renault branded Britax Romer Duo Plus, which was fitted using the ISOFIX anchorages and top tether. The restraint used by the 18 month old child was a rear-facing Renault branded Britax Romer BabySafe Plus fitted using the ISOFIX anchorages and a support leg. Both children were protected in the side impact but, in the frontal impact neck loads on the younger child and chest loads on the 3 year old were a little high.
 
Sportback also has seatbelt reminder, but it is deactivated by VAG-Com, So activating it will add another point to the score.
 
The A3 has got a seatbelt reminder?? I've got it anyway. Am I missing something here?
 
Seatbelt reminder has to be audible above a certain dB to count. I think Mercedes once asked to a retest so they could increase the loudness to get the points.

Some manufacturers do know how to play the euroncap game (like Renault) other couldn't care less (like BMW). It is as much about marketing as safety. Who last bought a BMW or Audi due to it's NCAP rating.

Talking of Renault, they used to package there engines in a way that left maximum space in front of the driver for LHD cars. RHD cars would score entirely differently. Not sure if this is still the case.
 
While talking about NCAP ratings. I thought the rating was only relevant within the same class of vehicle. i.e. if you crash a Range Rover into a Clio the Clio occupants will come off worse than if another Clio had crashed into them. Obvious really but I think a lot of people assume that a 5 star car will protect regardless of what hits them
 
While talking about NCAP ratings. I thought the rating was only relevant within the same class of vehicle. i.e. if you crash a Range Rover into a Clio the Clio occupants will come off worse than if another Clio had crashed into them. Obvious really but I think a lot of people assume that a 5 star car will protect regardless of what hits them
Click to expand...

You are correct. The following paragraph appears in the document GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF EURO NCAP’S VISUAL IDENTITY AND RATINGS on the Eurocap web-site:

5. It is essential that neither media nor manufacturers try to compare the Adult Occupant Ratings of vehicles in different size categories.

The Renault Clio is in the Supermini class and the A3 is the the Small Family Car class.


 
There is also a theory that cars are now being designed to get a good mark in the Euro NCAP tests rather than in real world accidents, much like a graphics card manufacturer tuning their hardware and drivers to perform better in benchmarks than actual games.
 
h5djr said:
You are correct. The following paragraph appears in the document GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF EURO NCAP’S VISUAL IDENTITY AND RATINGS on the Eurocap web-site:

5. It is essential that neither media nor manufacturers try to compare the Adult Occupant Ratings of vehicles in different size categories.

The Renault Clio is in the Supermini class and the A3 is the the Small Family Car class.
Click to expand...

Oh give me some credit pleeeeeease.
OBVIOUSLY an encap 5-star Mercedes ML is going to be safer in an accident than an encap 5-star Clio,but the Clio and A3 are not MASSIVELY different.
The new Clio is a fair bit bigger than it's predecessor.

Sportback 1.6 5 speed manual;
Overall length 4286mm
Overall width 1765mm
Unladen weight 1245 kgs

Clio 1.5dci Dynamique 5 door
Overall length 3986mm
Overall width 2025mm
Unladen weight 1175 kgs

Hardly massive differences,so I would say the crash test results can definitely be compared,despite them being in different and(given the increase in size of the Clio) outdated categories.
The new Clio is way past supermini and into Golf territory.
 
Vertigo1 said:
There is also a theory that cars are now being designed to get a good mark in the Euro NCAP tests rather than in real world accidents, much like a graphics card manufacturer tuning their hardware and drivers to perform better in benchmarks than actual games.
Click to expand...

Sorry,but that theory sounds like tripe to me.
Benchmarks are benchmarks for a reason.
They are standards by which things can be measured.
How else would you suggest crash tests are done ?
If a car does well in a benchmark crash test,tell me why (using this theory you mention) it won't do well in a 'proper' crash ?
Are encap's tests so seperated from reality as to be dismissed ?
I don't think soooo...

If a manufacturer seeks a good encap rating,it means he is spending a fortune on safety research.
In seeking improved crash test results in an encap test,surely it's inevitable that the safety of the car as a whole is improved ?
If you'll excuse the pun,one impacts on the other.
Dismissing encap and dismissing manufacturers' efforts to do well in their tests is just dismissing safety research.

Unless this is just a daft "meh,a Clio can't be safer than an Audi" thing...
The Audi may give an impression of being more substantial,but that doesn't mean it's safer in a crash.
A 1960's Land Rover feels like a tank,but they make no provisions for crash protection at all.
It's all about how the car reacts to a crash,not how it 'feels'.
 
bowfer said:
Sorry,but that theory sounds like tripe to me.
Click to expand...
Didn't say I agreed with it, merely mentioned that the theory exists and that this opinion appears to be held by some (many) people.

Of course no crash test system can reproduce every eventuality and we have to settle for some standard method of testing and the Euro NCAP system is better than any that has gone before.

Parts of the system still leave me aghast, however. Awarding safety points for seatbelt warnings!? Give me strength. They should be measuring how safe the cars are with all safety mechanisms being used correctly. Docking points from a manufacturer for failing to warn the driver/passenger about things they should ****** well know is pathetic.

As for the Clio comments, sorry but it just doesn't wash. Bigger than the previous model it may be but it's still a fair bit smaller than an A3. I'd much rather be in an accident in a 4 star A3 than a 5 star Clio.
 
Sorry,but that theory sounds like tripe to me.
Benchmarks are benchmarks for a reason.
They are standards by which things can be measured.
Click to expand...

So manufacturers will alter their designs, engines, gearing etc to meet the 0-62mph benchmark but not the crash test benchmarks.

The manufactures probably know far more about designing car bodies and other parts to meet various requirements than anyone else and I'm sure that if they wanted to they could quite easily adjust their designs to do well in certain crash testing. After all they know exactly what tests the car will be subjected to can design accordingly. Whether that will make the overall car a better car in an accident is someting else. If adding silly little things like seat belt warning gains them extra points then they will no doubt add them.

The Eurocap testing is no doubt the best testing thats available at the moment and I'm sure that manufacturers design with those and whatever the US equivalent tests are in mind.
 
I've had my 8P 1.6FSI for 18months now, it's done its job insurance is a bit of killer in much bigger engines with not much NCB and at 22 when I bought it new. Obviously it's not a hot hatch but drives nice and fine on the motorway.

Although saying all that I've just ordered a 2.0TDI 170 lol.
 
Vertigo1 said:
As for the Clio comments, sorry but it just doesn't wash. Bigger than the previous model it may be but it's still a fair bit smaller than an A3. I'd much rather be in an accident in a 4 star A3 than a 5 star Clio.
Click to expand...

And there we have it..
Exactly why cars with disastrous crash test results,like the Chrysler Voyager for example,still sell well.
Because people refuse to accept evidence.
Oh well,it's their necks.
 
But Bowfer, the A3 is 300mm longer than the Clio and you're dismissing it as negligable. The A4 is only 261mm longer than the A3, and yet you wouldn't put them in the same class. The clio isn't in the same size class as the A3.
 
arthurfuxake said:
But Bowfer, the A3 is 300mm longer than the Clio and you're dismissing it as negligable. The A4 is only 261mm longer than the A3, and yet you wouldn't put them in the same class. The clio isn't in the same size class as the A3.
Click to expand...

Their class has sweet feck all to do with it,in my opinion.
Think about it.
Would you think the extra 261mm of an A4 gives you any greater crash protection than a A3 sportback ?
I'm guessing not.
So what does the class have to do with it ?
As long as the cars are close in size,the crash figures are comparable.
I wouldn't dare claim a 5-star Clio is as safe as a 5-star X5 (if they are 5-star).
I'm not daft !
 
bowfer said:
Their class has sweet feck all to do with it,in my opinion.
Think about it.
Would you think the extra 261mm of an A4 gives you any greater crash protection than a A3 sportback ?
I'm guessing not.
So what does the class have to do with it ?
As long as the cars are close in size,the crash figures are comparable.
I wouldn't dare claim a 5-star Clio is as safe as a 5-star X5 (if they are 5-star).
I'm not daft !
Click to expand...
if I follow the logic here, a clio and A3 are comparable as they are "near enough" in size, and an A3 and A4 are comparable as they are "near enough" in size, therefore the Clio and A4 are comparable because they are both "near enough" in size to an A3.

QED.
 
Their class has sweet feck all to do with it,in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not according to Eurocap, who's tests and rating we are talking about.

I repeart - 5. It is essential that neither media nor manufacturers try to compare the Adult Occupant Ratings of vehicles in different size categories.

The Renault Clio is in the Supermini class and the A3 is the the Small Family Car class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
1.6 engine discontinued?
Replies
11
Views
1K
FranA3
FranA3
cameronm
1.6 engine judder?!?!?!?!?
Replies
17
Views
10K
zed535
Z
J
Engine mounts 1.6 FSI
Replies
1
Views
697
JohnE
J
F
Most Economic Engine Above 1.6????
Replies
17
Views
1K
Amchlolor
Amchlolor
LukeTDi
CAYC Engine 1.6 TDI Turbo
Replies
0
Views
2K
LukeTDi
LukeTDi
Top
Back