Audi A3 Goes Diesel: 50 State Legal

In a press release, Audi revealed details on Audi's expansion of clean diesel technology into its A3 line-up:

2010 Audi A3 2.0 TDI clean diesel: Quick Reference: USA Data
VERSION DATE: January 11, 2009
INFO IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Key Summary Points
• The freshened Audi A3 launched in September 2008 (2009 MY).
• The 2009 model year freshening expanded the A3 lineup with quattro all-wheel drive on the efficient 2.0 TFSI engine (200 hp / 207 lb-ft torque).
• Audi A3 moves into a market space presently unoccupied in the luxury segment, that of a highly efficient diesel small luxury car.
• Audi’s TDI clean diesel technology expands the A3 lineup in the direction of efficiency, providing over 40 mpg highway.
• A3 holds a unique position in the Audi family, targeting buyers who need a small but versatile package without sacrificing luxury and sportiness.
• A3 2.0 TDI is Audi’s second U.S. TDI clean diesel announcement. Audi Q7 TDI is expected to be on sale at U.S. dealers around April 2009.
• A3 is already rated a “Top Safety Pick” by the IIHS for top frontal/side/rear crashes (source iihs.org).

Market
• Key competitors are BMW 1-series, Mini Cooper S, Volvo C30 and S40, and now Toyota Prius and Honda Insight.

Design
• Audi signature LED daytime running lights with optional xenon lights.
• Unique tail lights with LED light guides
• Enhanced exterior and interior design, new wheel program.
• Versatile interior design, providing unmatched utility for urban environments.

Dynamics
• Sporty McPherson front suspension and multilink independent rear suspension for high lateral rigidity.
• Speed-sensitive electromechanical power steering
• High rigidity due to the use of tailored blanks for adapting steel grade and thickness to the material stresses.

Powertrain
• 2.0 TDI clean diesel engine with S tronic (dual clutch) and front-wheel drive
o Specifications: 140 hp, 236 lb-ft torque, in-line 4 cylinder turbocharged clean diesel with common rail direct injection and piezoelectric injectors
o 50-state legal, with no after-treatment system required
o Exclusively with S tronic (dual clutch) transmission with front-wheel drive

Standard Equipment Features
• Hill-hold assist (already standard on S tronic models)
• Sirius satellite radio - standard on all
• Leather seating surfaces - standard on all
• Leather steering wheel - standard
• Aux audio input – standard
• Dual-zone climate control
• 17” alloy wheels

Launch Timing and Pricing
• USA Audi A3 2.0 TDI clean diesel goes on sale by the first quarter of 2010 as a 2010 model year vehicle. Pricing is expected to be released close to the time of the U.S. launch.

downtoearth - 1/11/2009 7:02:44 PM

-2 Boost

The real life fuel economy of this car (200 drivers contributing their results) is 6,35 l/100 km which is 37,04 US MPG (on diesel) or 34,3 MPG when comparing with a gasoline engine considering standard EPA diesel-gas energy density ratio coefficient. The latter is what Jetta TDI got (35 MPG) when tested by Edmunds Insideline editors.

And BTW I genuinely don't see any point of buying this car. The recently introduced VW Jetta TDI is a much better choice since it's technically identical (same engine, drivertrain, chassis, platform) and one does not need to pay more or less +30% of the price for swapping the badge.

Source: Spritmonitor, accessed at the time of posting: http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/3-Audi/20-A3.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2004&constyear_e=2009&power_s=103&power_e=106

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 1:55:19 PM

0 Boost

TheSailor, I'll start with debunking your "common rail is much more efficient that pump-nozzle" nonsense, OK?. Let's find out how the 2009 VW Jetta TDI (common rail) 140HP did in the tests. Edmunds Insideline observed fuel economy: 35,3 MPG (Source#1). CarAndDriver road test fuel economy: 33 MPG (Source#2). MotorTrend road test average fuel economy: 34,9 MPG (Source#3). It's horribly close to 35 MPG I quoted from 200 drivers, isn't it, TheSailor? Why is that? Well, because common rail injection is used not to boost fuel economy but to lower emissions and decrease clatter noise (caused by lag between fuel injection and combustion). It's achieved by multiple injections (decrease mentioned lag, afterburn pollutants), something that pump-nozzles never offered. But the key efficiency driver, the injection pressure (fuel fragmentation) is very similar when using CR and pump-nozzles.
Source#1: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=132146/pageId=148684 ||| Source#2: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/2009_volkswagen_jetta_tdi_short_take_road_test ||| Source#3: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0902_2009_volkswagen_jetta_tdi_arrival/index.html

veyron1001 - 1/11/2009 9:02:35 PM

+1 Boost

This is sad. Only Europe and Japan is trying to get Americans to trust diesel again?

chewy - 1/12/2009 12:34:19 AM

+6 Boost

there is no fuel waisted to create the torque. a diesel has more torque than a gasoline engine because it makes power at lower RPM.

The 2.0 TDI makes 236 lb-ft of torque @ 1750 RPM, which means that it also makes 79 horsepower @ 1750 RPM. A 2 liter gasoline engine makes less horsepower @ 1750 RPM which means that it has to run higher RPM to go the same speed, and therefore it ends up using more fuel.

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 1:08:34 AM

+1 Boost

chewy, there are many other factors contributing to better fuel economy of diesel engines with the most significant being better energy efficiency of their combustion process (derived from the diesel cycle), higher compression ratio and less throttling losses (actually on valves only). Lower RPM and more or less isobaric combustion rather helps industrial diesels to last so long (modern powerful automotive ones are too overstressed to be as durable as ancient ones), improving fuel efficiency only minimally. What you talk about the torque is right. Nice to see someone hear actually understands this simple phenomenon. Most still don't get that only torque at wheels matters, not at the crank output shaft.

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 11:01:26 AM

-1 Boost

TheSailor, by saying about isobaric combustion I meant the actual moment of burning fuel, obviously not the power stroke when the pressure must drop, otherwise the losses would be tremendous. In an ideal diesel cycle, the process of burning fuel takes place at constant pressure (in contradiction to the ideal otto cycle where pressure rises dramatically) which yields less thermal load on the engine, one of the reasons of better fuel economy. Yes, taxis clock high mileages but these cars are treated specially, they are never run cold on short distances and since cars make money from driving, it pays longer to maintain/repair them before wrecking as in case of cars used by average Joes. A3 fuel economy ratings? TheSailor, if you are so proficient in engines operations, why do you provide theoretical mileage that is not to be achieved? Your company prefers fictional or real-life consumption data for their industrial diesels? I provided the average from 200 drivers? Are you going to persuade them their readings are all wrong? What's more, as an engine operations professional, you know very well diesels don't stand a chance with hybrids (energy recovery + engine donwsizing thans to electric boost for bursts of acceleration) and we have to wait for diesel hybrids to beat them (but these require seriously high fuel prices to makes sense). Camry not beating the 5er diesel? Why are you writing such nonsense making you completely non-credible? Edmunds Insideline compared the Camry hybrid with its competitors, the car returned 32 MPG (gas). To match its performance, you need 530d. Let's check then the Spritmonitor: 35 drivers, 8,5 l/100km = 27,67 MPG. Which is WORSE than Camry hybrid. Now compensate for higher diesel energy density and you get 25,6 MPG. Which is MUCH WORSE. TheSailor, you know so much so why are you writing rubbish? Please, just don't expand the fanboy pack here. (Spritmonitor source: http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/38-5er.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2005&constyear_e=2008&power_s=160&power_e=180 accessed at the time of writing).

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 3:02:58 PM

0 Boost

I already explained in the post above why common rail provides no gain in fuel economy (but in emissions and noise it does) when compared to the pump-nozzle and results from 200 drivers depict the expected MPG perfectly. I provided references perfectly acknowledging that what I wrote was true. Did you deboost my post because I wrote the truth you can accept? Regarding the BMW 520d, manual car does 0-62,1 in 8,8 sec, not 8,3 as you stated (Source#1) while the automatic Camry does 0-60 in 8,3 sec (Source #2) not 8,6 as you stated. The BMW returned 8,6 l / 100 km = 27,3505329 miles per gallon (#1), Camry returned 32,7 miles per gallon (#2). And now something you're inherently fail to admit, the fact that diesel has higher volumetric density. Correct it and if Camry were to use diesel-equivalent, it would return 32,7 * 1,08 = 35,316 MPG. Faster, automatic and much more economical. Questions anybody? Engine in HSD has worse thermal efficiency? So what? You recover energy anytime when braking (what you do rather often, right?) and, thanks to electric boost, have the downsized engine 24/7. So you benefit all the time. And yes, it's kept at optimum revs thanks to a superposition gearbox. That's why diesels just loose in terms of MPG (contrary to your claim of achieving same MPG which is a lie). HSD gadgetry? Hmm, you need a lot of gadgetry to make a modern diesel too. A variable vane turbo, an intercooler, super-high pressure injection, double-mass flywheel, particulate filter, DeNOX catalyst, heavier engine block, stronger drivetrain components. Hence the price premium. Source #1 http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vergleichstest/bmw-520d-touring-vs-volvo-v70-raum-paar-752470.html
Source #2 http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=127826/pageId=141839

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 8:04:18 PM

+1 Boost

I provided the reference-tests proving that Camry Hybrid is a bit faster than BMW 520d 177HP. You still don't accept this fact simply because it is impossible for you to admit I was right. Fuel consumption? I provided the reference for Camry being 32 MPG. The 520d 177 consumes on average (27 drivers) 7,5 litres / 100 km = 31,4 miles per gallon (Source#1). Normalize it by energy density and you get 29 MPG. 32 MPG > 29 MPG. And Camry minimizes pollution in cities where most people per square meter lives while the diesel bimmer spews maximum amount of cancerous NOx right there. Good luck breathing it in. You touched the EUR or USD per mile measure. Over recent years diesel caught up with petrol in price all over EU and in some countries it's already more expensive. In the U.S and Canada it's more expensive since a long time. Good luck in evaluating EUR/USD per mile, a very temporary and volatile indicator. And if you run industrial diesels, the last thing you want is massive price pressure for this industrial fuel because every motorist has gone diesel too. Common rail more efficient? Well, if you know German, you may check following quotes from German wikipedia: "Pumpe-Düse-Motoren arbeiten bei Nennleistung mit einem Druck von bis zu 2050 bar, der lange Zeit der höchstmögliche Druck im PKW-Dieselmotoren-Bau war. [...] Die beherrschbaren Einspritzdrücke von Common-Rail-Systemen liegen 2007 bereits bei 2000 bis 2200 bar, sodass kein wesentlicher Verbrauchsvorteil mehr für Pumpe-Düse-Motoren besteht." (Source#2). These just mean VW ditched PD due to noise, emissions and costs advantage, not fuel economy and your point of better fuel atomization does not hold water (injection pressure is the same). BTW you cheat horribly when quoting sources. You found a test of BMW 520d and two fuel consumption readings were provided, the maximum and minimum one. So you brought the minimum here as a "proof". Then you accused me of spoofing the numbers... ehh... Source#1: http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/38-5er.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2005&power_s=118&power_e=122
Source#2: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDI-Motor#TDI_der_zweiten_Generation_mit_Pumpe-D.C3.BCse-Technik

investor27 - 1/11/2009 11:01:33 PM

+1 Boost

How do these Jetta TDI cars performed in cold whether? Anyone here from Chicago, Green Bay, or Detroit who own these new diesel technology cars?

My wife and I were in Green Bay and Detroit this past week on business when we noticed that there weren't any BMWs or Jetta TDIs around. After our rental car slipping all over the place, even though it had a new set of snow tires, we were wondering how a BMW 335ix (four-wheel-drive) car would performed up here in zero temperature. But to our surprise, there weren't any BMWs on the streets around Green Bay and we were there for a week. The Green Bay airport did have a BMW 528i there, but not the twin-turbos version which begged me to ask the question: Are turbo engines bad in extreme, cold temperature?

chewy - 1/12/2009 12:23:50 AM

+2 Boost

turbos should not have any problems with cold, if anything turbo engines warm up quicker. Latest diesels shouldn't have any problems in the cold either.

richardposluszny - 1/12/2009 2:31:32 AM

+3 Boost

I don't believe it is a problem with new diesel or turbo technology, more so, an issue regarding a lack of demand.

For the most part, when I was out in the Midwest I realized - for the most part - that European vehicles were only common in major metro areas.

richardposluszny - 1/12/2009 4:30:15 AM

+2 Boost

@TheSailor

Very good point, mate. I think the Audi Mileage Marathon proved that new diesel technology is a world's difference from the old-school hardware.

tango - 1/12/2009 8:30:47 AM

+2 Boost

As far as internal combustion is concerned, diesel, or should I say, spark ignition is the future. The truth is that manufacturers will only ever be able to go so far on the cost-efficiency curve with current after treatment technology. What has to happen in the not-too-distant future is a revamp of where our fuel comes from. Bio-deisel has its problems (higher gel temperature than petro-diesel, etc), but the sooner we all move towards it and its benefits realised (lower overall chemical emissions than petro-diesel) then the sooner people in the United States (in particular) will start to accept diesel cars. Another issue with diesel cars in the US is with the companies currently offering them. VW? People tend to not trust VWs because they are inherently less reliable and far costlier to maintain and repair than other brands. I'd never buy one, gasoline or diesel. Mercedes? BMW? And now Audi? Similar situation with all. When Honda comes out with their diesel later this year (???) I think it will go a far way to improve the diesel image.

downtoearth - 1/12/2009 3:14:15 PM

+1 Boost

Tango, when listing bio-diesel problems, you skipped the most crucial ones. Please consult this peer-reviewed publication (Source#1) "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels" by Jason Hill et all, published in 2006. I quote: "Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more." Well, it sounds good but it only means that the ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) in case of biodiesel is... slightly less than 2. Bear in mind that at the beginning of XX century the same EROEI for crude oil was... 100. So you invested one unit of energy to get a 100 units out of the ground, not less than two. AFAIK up-to-date EROEI indicators for crude oil are about 5. This gives a picture of how pitiful energy source biofuels are. Then let me quote further: "Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand." 6 percent is extremely little and it makes food prices skyrocket. So the only hope is in the last quote: "Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels." Source#1: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.abstract

tango - 1/12/2009 11:46:42 AM

+2 Boost

OOOPS! Sorry about that Sailor. I was typing kinda fast. I meant to say "compression ignition".

thetruth01 - 1/12/2009 2:35:39 PM

+1 Boost

I love Audis, and I really dig the little A3. Let me make that clear first.

But this press release indicates that the Prius is a competitor. The mid-sized Prius compared to this little thing? I hope they were joking because the new larger Prius is about 10mpg better, and did I mention a lot bigger?

It's this kind of thing that makes me understand why so few of the A3s sell in the US.

commander104 - 1/12/2009 10:15:50 PM

+2 Boost

just what i've been waiting for, time to move up the corporate ladder so I can buy this

tango - 1/14/2009 7:23:44 PM

+1 Boost

@ downtoearth: The problem with US application of biofuels is that poor choices for production are often utilised. Making ethanol from corn is the most ridiculous way to do it. It would be better to use corn to make biodiesel. When choosing a source for biodiesel the top crops are (in order) palm seed, coconut, and castor. I am especially fond of the idea of using palm seed because the crop leaves very little waste as the skin, the flesh, and the seed itself can yield oil. The quality of the oil produced is also top shelf. In a little while we won't have a choice but to start pushing biofuels. My point is to start now, so that by the time it becomes compulsory the infrastructure will be already in place.

Eyecarehawaii - 1/16/2009 2:27:05 PM

+1 Boost

There is an unfortunate bias in America against diesels. There's a good reason diesels are so popular in other countries; if one takes the time to research this, or better yet actually drive diesel powered cars where they are numerous, they may develop a new-found respect for this technology.

There was another comment about diesels in cold weather and 4WDs. I find it interesting that many Americans who live in areas of the country where it snows will buy all-season tires for their vehicles. In Germany all-season tires are much less commonly used. If you're driving in the summer you use summer tires; in the winter you use winter tires. Many servie stations will even store your extra set of tires at their facility for you. THis may be one of the reason why certain models of cars in Germany are rated at 155 mph (with summer tires) while the equivalent US version otops out at 135 mph (with all seasons). All season tires are a jack of all trades but doesn't maximize performance in either extreme. If you're looking for better traction in snow get yourself real winter tires. Even a Porche Ceyenne Turbo S isn't going to give you any more traction than the four patches of tire about the size of your palm that's in contact with the ground.