Facelift Cost of ownership; 1.5TFSI vs. 2.0TDI & 2.0TFSI quattro vs. S3

Vertigo1

Registered User
Basically, I conclude that if you do 10k miles per year, the 1.5TFSI is the best option for economy over a 2.0TDI, and if you want more performance, the S3 is the better option over the 2.0TFSI quattro.

Thanks for the validation :)

I do 10k miles a year and switched from a 2.0TDI to a 1.5TFSI. Now, I'm moving to an S3 and have previously commented that I think the 2.0TFSI is a waste of time as it offers little additonal performance over the 1.5TFSI for more money and lower economy.
 

DrEskimo

Registered User
Thanks for the validation :)

I do 10k miles a year and switched from a 2.0TDI to a 1.5TFSI. Now, I'm moving to an S3 and have previously commented that I think the 2.0TFSI is a waste of time as it offers little additonal performance over the 1.5TFSI for more money and lower economy.

No problem :)

Yea I mean it’s pretty obvious when you think about it, but always nice to see it in objective numbers!

I take it insurance costs was similar between the 2.0TFSI and S3?
 

Vertigo1

Registered User
I take it insurance costs was similar between the 2.0TFSI and S3?

Couldn't tell you as I never considered the 2.0TFSI. If you mean between the 2.0TDI and 1.5TFSI then both of these were on a company fleet policy so hard to compare but I image they'd have been very similar.
 

VWNCC

Registered User
No problem :)

Yea I mean it’s pretty obvious when you think about it, but always nice to see it in objective numbers!

I take it insurance costs was similar between the 2.0TFSI and S3?

Not sure about your country, but in mine, the difference in insurance cost is again about 10% for 2.0TFSI vs. S3.
 

Brumbrum1

Registered User
I’ll qualify my comments up front by disclosing i’ve Enjoyed a lovely meal and (quite) a few glasses of grape juice.
Compliments (genuinely) to the actuary for a fine piece of analysis.
I’ve paid in hard currency for the (theoretically) duffers choice ie the 2.0 petrol....
Indeed to add weight to the popular view, according to we buy any car I’ve dropped £13k in just over a year yet, I have the car that suits me.
I make decisions re my pensions / mortgage / investments / life insurance (dare I say decreasing term with cic ) with my head.
Cars will always lose money. It’s a matter of degree.
The sensible car for all of us is probably in the Skoda range. Fine cars.
I make an emotional choice when it comes to cars, tempered with a bit of practicality given a city centre commute and a family.
If my 2.0 A3 S Line with a few bells costs more than an S3 (which I believe it will) over the term of ownership then so be it.
I tried both.
The S3 is not by definition a better car for everyone everyday.
B*gg*r the money.
Off to bed now.
 

Brumbrum1

Registered User
I’ll qualify my comments up front by disclosing i’ve Enjoyed a lovely meal and (quite) a few glasses of grape juice.
Compliments (genuinely) to the actuary for a fine piece of analysis.
I’ve paid in hard currency for the (theoretically) duffers choice ie the 2.0 petrol....
Indeed to add weight to the popular view, according to we buy any car I’ve dropped £13k in just over a year yet, I have the car that suits me.
I make decisions re my pensions / mortgage / investments / life insurance (dare I say decreasing term with cic ) with my head.
Cars will always lose money. It’s a matter of degree.
The sensible car for all of us is probably in the Skoda range. Fine cars.
I make an emotional choice when it comes to cars, tempered with a bit of practicality given a city centre commute and a family.
If my 2.0 A3 S Line with a few bells costs more than an S3 (which I believe it will) over the term of ownership then so be it.
I tried both.
The S3 is not by definition a better car for everyone everyday.
B*gg*r the money.
Off to bed now.
Sore head (apologies if off topic)
 

4K

Registered User
Did you factor in all the extra miles in the 2.0 TDI to clear the DPF warning light, the heavy use of the accelerator in the S3 because it puts a smile on your face or the light use of throttle and feathering technique that typical 1.5 COD owners use to see just how much they can squeeze out of a gallon?
The only engine that really makes no sense in the range is the 2.0 TFSI - that's why they will be a bargain to buy at three years old.
You missed out Drive By Wire throttle lag.
 

4K

Registered User
There you go mate.

Depreciation in terms of proportion of its RRP is above all other model A3’s at 44% of its value after 4yrs. His coupled with the lower fuel bill make it the cheapest option at about £900 cheaper over the 48m.

Added the RS3 in for giggles too. Since the RS3 is not discounted, while the others can achieve 12% discount, I have adjusted the figures to reflect to make it a realistic comparison.

The RS3 was the best in terms of depreciation at 51% after 4yrs, but the adjusted discounted rate for the S3 make it the best value at 54% after 4years.

The adjusted cost including discounts show the RS3 is a £9,000 more after 4yrs....

At 36 months, the average yearly total spent for each car is:

1.0TFSI = £4,500
1.5TFSI = £5,100
2.0TDI = £5,100
2.0TFSI = £6,000
S3 = £5,900
RS3 = £8,900

Obviously this is just fuel and depreciation, so need to factor in insurance, servicing and wear and tear....

View attachment 142428
lol, anyone getting 30mpg out of their S3 needs to go have a word with themselves. I've never achieved that from mine, and never expect to. If you're doing that kind of driving, you probably should've opted for a weaker engine.
 

Corb2000

Million miler
Sore head (apologies if off topic)

Great comment. I spent days collating and analysing purchase and running cost data for several potential cars in an Excel spreadsheet before buying my A7.

In the end I just wanted an A7, even though it came out as one of the highest costs of ownership in the figures...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Vertigo1

Registered User
lol, anyone getting 30mpg out of their S3 needs to go have a word with themselves. I've never achieved that from mine, and never expect to. If you're doing that kind of driving, you probably should've opted for a weaker engine.

Hahaha :)

I've averaged about 35mpg overall out of my 1.4COD but I do 90% urban driving.

I'm fully expecting that to drop by 10mpg in the S3 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4K

DrEskimo

Registered User
lol, anyone getting 30mpg out of their S3 needs to go have a word with themselves. I've never achieved that from mine, and never expect to. If you're doing that kind of driving, you probably should've opted for a weaker engine.

The actual number is irrelevant. It’s the difference between the models that’s important as it relative cost to each other.

Whatever you achieve in the S3, you would expect to get about 10MPG less in the RS3, 5MPG more in the 2.0TFSI quattro, 10MPG more in the 1.5TFSI, etc.

That’s the only good thing the NEDC figures are good for, showing relative differences between engines and models if you drive exactly the same way in the same conditions.
 

DrEskimo

Registered User
Great comment. I spent days collating and analysing purchase and running cost data for several potential cars in an Excel spreadsheet before buying my A7.

In the end I just wanted an A7, even though it came out as one of the highest costs of ownership in the figures...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely agree.

The point wasn’t to show the cost of each car and show the 1.0TFSI is cheaper than an RS3....that’s blindingly obvious!

The idea was to challenge someone deciding to go for a 2.0TDI over a 1.5TFSI (as by and large they are the same performance) because they think the diesel will be cheaper due to the higher MPG, even though they do relatively low miles.

Likewise, someone deciding to opt for a 2.0TFsI because they think it will be cheaper than an S3.

There are instances where this is the case, but in this typical scenario it shows it isn’t always.

Obviously there are other reasons, but this is just the economics of it, which could be the deciding factor for someone deciding between those engine choices.
 
The idea was to challenge someone deciding to go for a 2.0TDI over a 1.5TFSI (as by and large they are the same performance) because they think the diesel will be cheaper due to the higher MPG, even though they do relatively low miles.

Likewise, someone deciding to opt for a 2.0TFsI because they think it will be cheaper than an S3.
Great work Doc and very interesting.
Now you've gone this far, for completion you really need to include the 184 2.0TDI against the 2.0TFSI as these are closer in terms of performance.

This may have been my choice instead of the S3 if Audi had still sold this engine with manual/FWD in a nice blue. The tempting economy/ridiculously low VED (last year) may have swayed it.

They didn't and I've never regretted the S3 since collecting it.:):):)
 

infernox

Registered User
Added the RS3 in for giggles too. Since the RS3 is not discounted, while the others can achieve 12% discount, I have adjusted the figures to reflect to make it a realistic comparison.

The RS3 has been getting discounts for a while now. On carwow you can easily get 3%, ukcarbroker gives 6% discount, Audi Worcester used to give 5-6% to everyone but I think they stopped now and some people have even managed 10% discount.

Also RS3 economy isn't 10MPG less than S3. From what I've read from past owners of both cars, they get 2-3MPG lower on average. My S3 FL can get around 25-28mpg in town and 40+mpg on motorway quite easily but it's not as fun. I usually get 20-23MPG in town driving in S mode Dynamic.
 

DrEskimo

Registered User
The RS3 has been getting discounts for a while now. On carwow you can easily get 3%, ukcarbroker gives 6% discount, Audi Worcester used to give 5-6% to everyone but I think they stopped now and some people have even managed 10% discount.

Also RS3 economy isn't 10MPG less than S3. From what I've read from past owners of both cars, they get 2-3MPG lower on average. My S3 FL can get around 25-28mpg in town and 40+mpg on motorway quite easily but it's not as fun. I usually get 20-23MPG in town driving in S mode Dynamic.

Ah really!

In which case it needs some adjusting

Unfortunately I’ve just been adjusting the MPG based on the Audi figures. It quotes a difference of about 9MPG between the S3 and RS3.

Appreciate you may disagree with the method, but obviously everyone’s anecdotal MPG figures are subject to so many factors that it would be hard to pin point exactly what figure to use. At least the NEDC figures from Audi are somewhat objective and theoretically the difference in fuel economy...
 
Last edited:

infernox

Registered User
Ah really!

In which case it needs some adjusting :)

I'd say 5mpg less than S3 and 6% discount should be about right since anyone can get that 6% discount by just using that broker website.
 

4K

Registered User
The actual number is irrelevant. It’s the difference between the models that’s important as it relative cost to each other.

Whatever you achieve in the S3, you would expect to get about 10MPG less in the RS3, 5MPG more in the 2.0TFSI quattro, 10MPG more in the 1.5TFSI, etc.

That’s the only good thing the NEDC figures are good for, showing relative differences between engines and models if you drive exactly the same way in the same conditions.

I'd expect to achieve around 10MPG less in the RS3 than the S3 yes. That was my experience when I had one for a week on loan.

The numbers aren't irrelevant though. They are the whole foundation of your hypothesis.
 

DrEskimo

Registered User
I'd expect to achieve around 10MPG less in the RS3 than the S3 yes. That was my experience when I had one for a week on loan.

The numbers aren't irrelevant though. They are the whole foundation of your hypothesis.

Sorry I wasn’t very clear.

It’s not that the numbers are irrelevant, It’s just I’m not actually interested in estimating the total cost of ownership accurately to the the £. Only the relative difference in cost between certain models.

So comparing the S3 vs. The 2.0TFSI, it’s the difference in MPG that’s important. Whether I assume the MPG of the S3 is 10, 20, 30 or even 50 doesn’t really make any difference, as the cost will change for the 2.0TFSI in equal measure.

Obviously it helps to try and make it realistic so you don’t have daft figures. Hence I went with 30MPG. In hindsight 25MPG might have been more suited, but changing it would have resulted in only a minor difference in the estimated costs, and zero difference when comparing it to the 2.0TFSI (or indeed any other model) as its fuel costs would have increased with the change in 5MPG as well.

Hope that’s clearer...!

Of course if like infernox you think the relative difference in MPG between the models is wrong, then that would have an impact.
 

4K

Registered User
Sorry I wasn’t very clear.

It’s not that the numbers are irrelevant, It’s just I’m not actually interested in estimating the total cost of ownership accurately to the the £. Only the relative difference in cost between certain models.

So comparing the S3 vs. The 2.0TFSI, it’s the difference in MPG that’s important. Whether I assume the MPG of the S3 is 10, 20, 30 or even 50 doesn’t really make any difference, as the cost will change for the 2.0TFSI in equal measure.

Obviously it helps to try and make it realistic so you don’t have daft figures. Hence I went with 30MPG. In hindsight 25MPG might have been more suited, but changing it would have resulted in only a minor difference in the estimated costs, and zero difference when comparing it to the 2.0TFSI (or indeed any other model) as its fuel costs would have increased with the change in 5MPG as well.

Hope that’s clearer...!

Of course if like infernox you think the relative difference in MPG between the models is wrong, then that would have an impact.

Makes sense. 25 is around what I get on average.

Is it just me or did Audi stop making the 2.0TFSI A3 for a few years?
 

rnm37

Registered User
Don’t know why anyone would want the 1.6tdi in the first place. It’s rough as old boots and vibrates didn’t know that it was still possible to make a Diesel engine sound like that in 2017 and the courtesy car I had was averaging 45mpg - it also had a black box fitted so I wouldn’t of thought it had been ragged around. 38mpg is entirely possible in the A3 2.0tsi 8P we have

Interested that this is your experience, I've seen a few posts saying the 1.6 sounds better than the 2.0. This is also my opinion, my Mum had a B8.5 2.0TDI A4 and it sounded much rougher than mine.

Obviously if you rag a 1.6TDI it sounds terrible, but it's not supposed to be ragged... cause it's a 1.6TDI.
 

Rideen

Registered User
Don’t know why anyone would want the 1.6tdi in the first place. It’s rough as old boots and vibrates didn’t know that it was still possible to make a Diesel engine sound like that in 2017 and the courtesy car I had was averaging 45mpg - it also had a black box fitted so I wouldn’t of thought it had been ragged around. 38mpg is entirely possible in the A3 2.0tsi 8P we have

Interested that this is your experience, I've seen a few posts saying the 1.6 sounds better than the 2.0. This is also my opinion, my Mum had a B8.5 2.0TDI A4 and it sounded much rougher than mine.

Obviously if you rag a 1.6TDI it sounds terrible, but it's not supposed to be ragged... cause it's a 1.6TDI.

I second this. 1.6 TDI is more refined compared to 2.0 TDI when you have them side by side. Performance is undoubtedly better in 2.0 TDI but you can remap 1.6 TDI to 150hp and still enjoy crazy MPG (yes, 80mpg is possible in 1.6 TDI on a very long cruise accross Europe).

As rnm37 said, it is not to be ragged as it's a tiny 1.6 TDI after all and buying it makes perfect sense in countries outside the UK where diesel fuel is cheaper than petrol and taxes are low.
 

Jimbbobw1977

Registered User
Interested that this is your experience, I've seen a few posts saying the 1.6 sounds better than the 2.0. This is also my opinion, my Mum had a B8.5 2.0TDI A4 and it sounded much rougher than mine.

Obviously if you rag a 1.6TDI it sounds terrible, but it's not supposed to be ragged... cause it's a 1.6TDI.

Certainly my experience of the one I had recently as a courtesy car, also one I did not rag around. Idling at the lights audible and vibrations felt, setting off at the lights it sounded like a commercial vehicle more clattery sounding than the old 1.9pd’s I’ve driven before. In fact it was noisier than the previous generation Peugeot partner 2.0hdi, but not quite as noisy as the Corsa 1.3tdi.

The 1.6 settles down at speed, but at town driving it sounds rough. My mother had a 1.6Tdi A1 and that was rough, my other half’s parents run a Superb 1.6 it’s not to bad in that car slightly more isolated
 

Rideen

Registered User
Very odd experience you've had. My 1.6 TDI is almost completely silent when stopped at traffic lights, I can hear all other cars though as the engine goes down in RPM aggressively when stopped (about 600rpm if I recall correctly).

Though maybe the new 1.6 (116) isn't as same as older one? I've driven older 2.0 (140) PD and God was that loud and vibrating like mad compared to new 1.6. A colleague of mine has 2014 Golf MK7 1.6 TDI (90) and it's much rougher than my 2017 1.6 (116).
 

Jimbbobw1977

Registered User
Very odd experience you've had. My 1.6 TDI is almost completely silent when stopped at traffic lights, I can hear all other cars though as the engine goes down in RPM aggressively when stopped (about 600rpm if I recall correctly).

Though maybe the new 1.6 (116) isn't as same as older one? I've driven older 2.0 (140) PD and God was that loud and vibrating like mad compared to new 1.6. A colleague of mine has 2014 Golf MK7 1.6 TDI (90) and it's much rougher than my 2017 1.6 (116).

The loan car I had was a 17 Plate sport with 2k on the clock.
 
Top