# Moar first drive of the new A3



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-audi-a3-euro-spec-first-drive-review

From what they say, there will be no 2.0T for the US?


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

1.8 w/ 180 horse? so fitting they bring the next gen here with less power


----------



## Rudy_S4 (Nov 10, 2011)

I think it's a 1.8T because it appears the 2.0T as we know it will be phased out. Likely because it truly lacking in power. I'm surprised the 1.8T is only getting 100hp / L though  

The next GTI will have a 2.0T with 260hp (I believe the article read) powering the front wheels...likely a S3 as well...don't be surprised if both the Jetta and Passat get the same in future models along with the CUV/SUV's in the stable. 

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/05/next-vw-gti-to-get-260-hp-from-2-0-liter-four/


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Rudy_S4 said:


> The next GTI will have a 2.0T with 260hp (I believe the article read) powering the front wheels...likely a S3 as well...don't be surprised if both the Jetta and Passat get the same in future models along with the CUV/SUV's in the stable.


 The current _rumor_ is that the MK7 GTI will have a 260hp 2.0T. 

Since we're speculating, I think that's a ridiculous claim. A future Golf R - certainly. Should the new GTI see a boost I would expect it to be in the neighborhood of 220hp. Remember, the A3 sedan for the US will be completely specific to our market, so I wouldn't be surprised for us to see a 210-220hp A3 Sedan and a 260-280hp S3, both tuned out of the 2.0T.


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

Travis Grundke said:


> The current _rumor_ is that the MK7 GTI will have a 260hp 2.0T.
> 
> Since we're speculating, I think that's a ridiculous claim. A future Golf R - certainly. Should the new GTI see a boost I would expect it to be in the neighborhood of 220hp. Remember, the A3 sedan for the US will be completely specific to our market, so I wouldn't be surprised for us to see a 210-220hp A3 Sedan and a 260-280hp S3, both tuned out of the 2.0T.


 I don't think it's a rediculous claim to see a GTI sporting the same power level as a 4 cylinder Kia or Hyundai. I can get a Genesis coupe with TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE horsepower for about hte same as a current 200 HP GTI. And that's not even counting the big six avaialble in it. The mustang STARTS as 300 HP and gets 31 mpg. The WRX chimes in at 265 HP. Friggin Altimas come with 270 HP these days. And the new A3? you know the BMW 1 series is going to have the 240 HP 2.0 motor in it. 

The VW/Audi 2.0T motors are comically, rediculously, ludicrously underpowered in today's market.


----------



## chiphead (May 12, 2011)

This is just a haunch, but the Germans are known to underrate their ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if the RS does 350 to 400HP and the S to be in the 300 range. For better or worse, 300HP seems the baseline for performance models nowadays. I'm thinking the RS will be benchmarked against the E90 M3. It will also cost about the same.


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

chiphead said:


> This is just a haunch, but the Germans are known to underrate their ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if the RS does 350 to 400HP and the S to be in the 300 range. For better or worse, 300HP seems the baseline for performance models nowadays. I'm thinking the RS will be benchmarked against the E90 M3. It will also cost about the same.


 The Mustang Boss 302 was benchmarked against the M3. It costs about half. 
German OEM's have got to get it through thier thick heads that the days of european spec car power dominance are over. Back in the malaise era, if you wanted anything that had real power and handled decently, you had few other places to go than the M-B, BMW, or Audi dealer.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

FractureCritical said:


> The Mustang Boss 302 was benchmarked against the M3. It costs about half.
> German OEM's have got to get it through thier thick heads that the days of european spec car power dominance are over. Back in the malaise era, if you wanted anything that had real power and handled decently, you had few other places to go than the M-B, BMW, or Audi dealer.


 Fortunately, most of the world outside hot rod country knows that a car is more than 0-60. And they know German brands is more than performance. Nobody wants the steering wheel to pop off in the middle of a corner or the wheel rotors to fall off in the midst of braking. If that was the case, I could piece 20 trailers together and say it is a bigger home than those mansions in beverly hill. 

As for the 2.0T engine. They are behind the times on that. It is a VW engine that got redesigned by Audi to have variable valve timing, DI, turbo, etc. But it is still an old heavy iron block. Audi wouldn't even move the valvelift onto that engine. All the other goodies from Audi cannot be transferred to the MQB platform, so no 300hp 3.0T, 400hp 4.0T, 500+hp 4.2TT. 

Audi's Renn Sport, with its engineering design, still had to make their RS3's 2.5T out of cast iron since they are getting the 2.5 block from VW and they can't just pour aluminum instead of iron into the mold. 

At least now, they are taking the 'weight reduction' seriously, with the 1.4T and 1.8T being of lightweight alum design (only crankcase though, not whole block). 

With the proliferation of 8 & 9 speed slushbox, every car can have good acceleration numbers now. All they have to do is throw in a ultra low ratio 1st and 2nd gear to get some good torque out of any tiny engine. Not sure if one wants a stick shift with 8-9 speeds though.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

FractureCritical said:


> I don't think it's a rediculous claim to see a GTI sporting the same power level as a 4 cylinder Kia or Hyundai. I can get a Genesis coupe with TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE horsepower for about hte same as a current 200 HP GTI. And that's not even counting the big six avaialble in it. The mustang STARTS as 300 HP and gets 31 mpg. The WRX chimes in at 265 HP. Friggin Altimas come with 270 HP these days. And the new A3? you know the BMW 1 series is going to have the 240 HP 2.0 motor in it.
> 
> The VW/Audi 2.0T motors are comically, rediculously, ludicrously underpowered in today's market.


 Volkswagen and Audi have stated explicitly that for their mass products they're going to be downsizing and focusing on weight reduction versus increases in displacement and horsepower. The majority of buyers are not interested in the horsepower figures any longer, they're more interested in the overall fuel economy offered. 

VW/Audi will offer a Golf R or S3/RS3 with 260+ horsepower, but for the GTI it's highly unlikely to see anything beyond 220. Volkswagen isn't chasing Mustang or Genesis sales and WRX buyers aren't A3 buyers.


----------



## Rudy_S4 (Nov 10, 2011)

It is speculation, but again I can't think of a single car on the market that has a 2.0L turbo any more and only 200 hp. Besides VW, I think Ford is next with 240hp in North America anyway. 

I think the key will obviously be keeping it low boost as they normally do...but with twin scroll technology and direct injection (both adding to the cost of the car of course), it's hard not to speculate how much more VW / Audi can accomplish while not killing efficiencies. 

Frig, all I care about is the A3 / S3 or whatever is coming out, I think I am hungry for confirmed specs it's hard to get stuck in the speculation


----------



## chiphead (May 12, 2011)

In the Us where roads are wide and gas is cheap, there's little incentive for gas efficiency other than moral blustering. It's more about selling the image of being "green". Also the stigma is small sedans/hatchback = economy class. It will be hard sell for Audi to expect S3/RS3 to make serious inroads into mainstream driveways.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

chiphead said:


> It will be hard sell for Audi to expect S3/RS3 to make serious inroads into mainstream driveways.


 As a premium brand, Audi has no intention of seeing its cars, especially S and RS models, in "mainstream driveways". 

It does, however, wish to see a good number of A3s in driveways. Fuel economy sells.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Travis Grundke said:


> Volkswagen and Audi have stated explicitly that for their mass products they're going to be downsizing and focusing on weight reduction versus increases in displacement and horsepower. The majority of buyers are not interested in the horsepower figures any longer, they're more interested in the overall fuel economy offered.


 It doesn't mean they are scaling power and performance back. VW was just at the right place at the right time. They likely went with turbo engine because the stock VW engines are horrific performers. Who would put a 115hp 2.0 engine in their car? The Audi designed 2.0T was their savior. Audi's proprietary cars (longitudal engined platforms) had to do some radical engine redesign since their N/A engines were already capable performers, thus being used widely. 

As for weight reduction, Audi was always emphasizing aluminum frame, and already had aluminum engines. The transverse engine platforms....not so much...heavy iron engines, no thought to weight reduction...since it was a platform more emphasized by VW. The only weight reduction might have been the cheap thin interior of the latest VWs.


----------



## Rudy_S4 (Nov 10, 2011)

Just to be a bit of a $%^& disturber... 

My current car had a 2.0T, and 200 hp...the more power I add, the better my MPG gets. I think I am sitting around what a Stage II VW / Audi 2.0T would (intake, intercooler, injectors and tbe, and tune of course). 

All highway on the weekend I got 36 mpg...stock it was on the EPA stats of 30 mpg. Especially on the turbo engines, I found over the years more power, often means better gas mileage. 

WOT of course is a different story, but you don't calculate EPA based off that. 

A good benchmark Audi should be looking at is the new 328i...


----------



## PunchWabbit (Mar 23, 2011)

LWNY said:


> Fortunately, most of the world outside hot rod country knows that a car is more than 0-60. And they know German brands is more than performance. Nobody wants the steering wheel to pop off in the middle of a corner or the wheel rotors to fall off in the midst of braking. If that was the case, I could piece 20 trailers together and say it is a bigger home than those mansions in beverly hill.


Oh, goodness ... Grammar lessons and a reality check here. A Boss 302 will wipe the floor with 90-percent of the car market, including the deluded Euro-Snob pap you're peddling. And it will keep its steering wheel & rotors in the bargain.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

PunchWabbit said:


> Oh, goodness ... Grammar lessons and a reality check here. A Boss 302 will wipe the floor with 90-percent of the car market, including the deluded Euro-Snob pap you're peddling. And it will keep its steering wheel & rotors in the bargain.


I stand corrected, the ones who drives their car where the steering wheel and rotors fall off don't mind it because they have been conditioned to think those things happens. Why do you think they have kept on buying these cars, even thought their dreaded reliability period of 70's, 80,s 90's 00's..


----------



## PunchWabbit (Mar 23, 2011)

Reliability no issue from the 90s forward. If we're going to reach back into the 80s and garnish with hyperbole we might as well bring up those high-quality ring cars and their terrifying "sudden acceleration."


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> Audi's Renn Sport, with its engineering design, still had to make their RS3's 2.5T out of cast iron since they are getting the 2.5 block from VW and they can't just pour aluminum instead of iron into the mold.


I know this is an old post, and I've mentioned this many times in the past, but this is not correct. First of all, the 2.5T engine was developed by quattro GmbH. There is no "Renn Sport" division of Audi. Second of all, the block of the 2.5T is not related at all to the block of the 2.5 NA engine, other than that it has the same bore spacing and the engines end up displacing the same. The block of the NA 2.5 is cast iron, while the block of the 2.5T is made from CGI, or Compacted Graphite Iron, which has much higher tensile strength than traditional cast iron. There are only a few forges in the world that can make the stuff, and thus the blocks for the 2.5T are constructed on completely different lines, using different tooling and different materials from the NA 2.5 blocks.

I bring this up because there is a _lot_ of confusion around the relationship between the NA 2.5 and the 2.5T, since they are both 5 cylinder engines that share a displacement and bore spacing. That's about all they share, though, as over 80% of the parts (including the block, as I mentioned above) are unique to the 2.5T.

-Tim


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

PunchWabbit said:


> Reliability no issue from the 90s forward. If we're going to reach back into the 80s and garnish with hyperbole we might as well bring up those high-quality ring cars and their terrifying "sudden acceleration."


VW/Audi's sales were exactly spectacular back in the 80's & 90's, and you don't have to thank 60 minutes for it. The big 3 sold millions of heaps of trash. They build the rustbucket with ohv and solid axle and the buyers will come.



[email protected] said:


> I know this is an old post, and I've mentioned this many times in the past, but this is not correct. First of all, the 2.5T engine was developed by quattro GmbH. There is no "Renn Sport" division of Audi. Second of all, the block of the 2.5T is not related at all to the block of the 2.5 NA engine, other than that it has the same bore spacing and the engines end up displacing the same. The block of the NA 2.5 is cast iron, while the block of the 2.5T is made from CGI, or Compacted Graphite Iron, which has much higher tensile strength than traditional cast iron. There are only a few forges in the world that can make the stuff, and thus the blocks for the 2.5T are constructed on completely different lines, using different tooling and different materials from the NA 2.5 blocks.
> 
> I bring this up because there is a _lot_ of confusion around the relationship between the NA 2.5 and the 2.5T, since they are both 5 cylinder engines that share a displacement and bore spacing. That's about all they share, though, as over 80% of the parts (including the block, as I mentioned above) are unique to the 2.5T.
> 
> -Tim


If that's the case, then why woudn't they just make the block out of aluminum, like pretty much every other Audi longitudal engines? I think the TTRS's 2.5 had to have dimension from the orig 2.5, so it can share some things with it, either component, tooling, know-how, or something.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> If that's the case, then why woudn't they just make the block out of aluminum, like pretty much every other Audi longitudal engines?


Honestly, I don't know. It could have to do with strength requirements, tolerance requirements, or a hundred other engineering requirements with which I am not intimately familiar. I do know that it's true though. The block for this engine is CGI, and is made at a different facility than the NA 2.5 Iron blocks are.

One thing that it is good to remember when thinking about the 2.5T is that it was originally slated to be much more powerful than the 360HP version we got, but they had to dial things back so that the TT-RS would not outgun the R8 4.2. As it is, it steps on toes a bit, and you can imagine what a 420+ HP TT-RS would have been like... 



> I think the TTRS's 2.5 had to have dimension from the orig 2.5, so it can share some things with it, either component, tooling, know-how, or something.


You're close there. The entire VW/Audi group uses a "shared architecture" approach to engine design, in order to save costs wherever they can. This is the reason that the 2.5T and NA 2.5 share bore spacing, displacement, and a (very) few parts. Likewise with the 4.2 V8 that was in the old S4 and S5 and the "hi-rev" 4.2V8 that's in the R8 - the engines are _extremely_ different from each other in detail, but they share bore spacing, displacement, some elements of block design, and a bunch of other things - why pay to develop something twice when you've got a workable place to start? This extends to things like head and valvetrain design and other aspects as well, and it can get confusing, especially with engines that sound as similar at first glance as the 2.5T and the NA 2.5.

-Tim


----------

