# 2015 Product Info Book



## BEM10001 (May 14, 2007)

Got my hands on a PDF of the dealer info package, additional info not in the brochure I have seen before. Anyone know if I can post a PDF here so you guys can check it out?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

PM sent. I can host/post.


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Color me intrigued.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

+ 1


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

jrwamp said:


> Color me intrigued.


Color yourself informed. :laugh:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B27Vsf7ycXkpa1FqRkJuZC0zY1k/

Let me know if there are any issues viewing; it's set to public with link.

-Brian


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Color yourself informed. :laugh:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B27Vsf7ycXkpa1FqRkJuZC0zY1k/
> 
> ...


Even without pricing and output numbers for the S3, this is a little treasure trove. Sepang blue it is, but a beluga brown S3 would be different and uncommon. And hopefully you can get the super sport seats in all black, not just with grey or red inserts. I may be reading it wrong though.


----------



## BEM10001 (May 14, 2007)

jrwamp said:


> Even without pricing and output numbers for the S3, this is a little treasure trove. Sepang blue it is, but a beluga brown S3 would be different and uncommon. And hopefully you can get the super sport seats in all black, not just with grey or red inserts. I may be reading it wrong though.


If you haven't seen Sepang in person I would HIGHLY recommend doing so. I saw Estoril in person yesterday and it was much brighter than it looks in photos. Was told by my new best buddy Audi rep that Sepang looks kind of turquoise and weird in sunlight.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

BEM10001 said:


> If you haven't seen Sepang in person I would HIGHLY recommend doing so. I saw Estoril in person yesterday and it was much brighter than it looks in photos. Was told by *my new best buddy Audi rep* that Sepang looks kind of turquoise and weird in sunlight.


Is this the same person who unknowingly leaked pricing info?


----------



## Lpforte (Aug 2, 2011)

This line caught my eye under the exterior features/options list:
*LED taillights (w/ incandescent brake lights)*

Am I missing something here? I thought the A3/S3 led lighting option meant full exterior led lighting, including brake lights, markers etc. Also, every video I've seen that showed the brakes lighting up (not just the regular tail light bars) made it look like they were led, at least based on the brightness/uniformity of the light and how quickly they light up/fade.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I wouldn't read too much into that. The last page shows some edits that, frankly, shouldn't have ever had to be edited out, IMO. Maybe that's left over from something else?

While not impossible, I'll be exceedingly surprised if we see any incandescent bulbs in the LED tail lamps.

Edit: Also note the convex right side mirror. I think this is an internal document that probably is still subject to substantial editing. Let's not read too much into any of it. :thumbup:


----------



## BEM10001 (May 14, 2007)

Dan Halen said:


> Is this the same person who unknowingly leaked pricing info?


No comment. I spoke with a number of people there, got different intel from all of them. Not conflicting info, just found out one thing from one person, another nugget of wisdom from someone else, etc. 

No BS, they were all tall blonde women wearing the same thing, so good luck picking them out of a lineup.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Median income for an A3 buyer? $146k estimated. That seems high. We're talking about a car that they seemingly intend to sell in volume at the 1.8 TFSI FWD configuration.

<shrug>


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

If we believe this, the S3 will be the only model with the flat-bottom steering wheel (p.13).

The air vents we're seeing in all of the show circuit cars probably look substantially less impressive in base cars (p.14).


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Median income for an A3 buyer? $146k estimated. That seems high. We're talking about a car that they seemingly intend to sell in volume at the 1.8 TFSI FWD configuration.
> 
> <shrug>


It does seem a bit high for the median. 48 years old stood out to me more honestly.


----------



## T1no (Sep 22, 2012)

this is gem


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

jrwamp said:


> It does seem a bit high for the median. 48 years old stood out to me more honestly.


Yep. That too. Maybe this place won't devolve into stancebro asshattery any time soon after all.


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

Great stuff! Even shows the different wheel options. Thanks so much. I really dig the standard TDI wheels. Very curious about the cost of upgrading on the optional wheels.

B.


----------



## nickjs1984 (Jul 30, 2009)

Kudos, guys - this was a great treat for this afternoon's office hours with students. It was also a great deal of fun watching the anonymous Google "animals" pop in and out of the "who's viewing" info as everyone took at look at it with me.


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Yep. That too. Maybe this place won't devolve into stancebro asshattery any time soon after all.


Very good point, I won't complain :laugh:


----------



## 03jettaturbo (Jan 6, 2004)

Thanks for posting!

A couple of items:

Torsion Beam rear suspension for the TDi???
Fog lights w/ the S-Line package.


----------



## v6er (Dec 18, 2000)

Hmm, limited exterior paint options for the S3, and interior options are black, black, and black.


----------



## anti suv (Sep 26, 2013)

3461 lbs for the S3 is a bit more than i expected. I could have swore i read that the weight was going to be more around 3250 lbs.


----------



## RayAinsw (May 2, 2002)

*thanks*

Thanks for posting this!
- Ray
May be VERY interested in the S3 ....


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

anti suv said:


> 3461 lbs for the S3 is a bit more than i expected. I could have swore i read that the weight was going to be more around 3250 lbs.


The S3 weights about 100kg more than a A3 2.0T quattro according to the guide, seems odd to me.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

anti suv said:


> 3461 lbs for the S3 is a bit more than i expected. I could have swore i read that the weight was going to be more around 3250 lbs.


Yep. It's a relative porker when you consider what I think most of us had assumed with other figures.

3,500lb and 4.7s to 60? Audi's sandbagging the power rating of "estimated 290hp." I don't think many of us would be surprised by that, but I suspect it's a bigger sandbag than we may have expected.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

GTI2Slow said:


> The S3 weights about 100kg more than a A3 2.0T quattro according to the guide, seems odd to me.


I guess those aluminum door sills and such are heavier than we realize. :bs:


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Treasure Trove!

Minor things that annoy me:
Paddle shifters not standard, boo! (p.13)
iPod integration not standard, lame! (p.16)


----------



## jubasa (Oct 15, 2010)

BEM10001 said:


> Got my hands on a PDF of the dealer info package, additional info not in the brochure I have seen before. Anyone know if I can post a PDF here so you guys can check it out?





Dan Halen said:


> Color yourself informed. :laugh:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B27Vsf7ycXkpa1FqRkJuZC0zY1k/
> 
> ...


That's some great info. Thanks for hosting it!


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

anyone see the option for black seats with blue stitching like what was on display at the naiad?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

No. That was an Audi Exclusive car that Tim and George were told was representative of what we would be able to do through Exclusive, but the sales guys who post here are adamant that Exclusive will cover paint color only for the A3 and S3, just like other cars south of the 8s.

Frankly, I'm inclined to believe the sales guys.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## jubasa (Oct 15, 2010)

*Minor things...*

On page 20:

1.8T: Cargo 12.3 cubic ft, Fuel capacity 13.2 gallons
2.0T: Cargo 10.0 cubic ft, Fuel capacity 14.5 gallons

Not sure I'd want to trade cargo space for a bit more range. Isn't this gen going to be more fuel efficient anyway?!


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I suspect reduced cargo capacity is due more to the quattro drive line in the 2.0T than the fuel tank size. It is odd to me, though, that they have room for a larger tank on the 2.0T. Maybe they shrunk the 1.8T tank in the interest of weight savings since they can hit a given range with the smaller tank? Still strange...

14.5gal has been standard for the smaller cars (A3, Jetta, Golf) for a while now, so it does look more like an intentional downsize in that regard. 

Good catch.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

thanks dan.

disappointing to hear the blue stitching won't be available as the supersport seats will only come in black i assume, so the white stitching won't provide enough "flare" for my eyes.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I guess there's still a small gimmer of hope, but I'd certainly expect that you'd have to pay the $3,900 entrance fee to get it via Exclusive... so probably as good as unavailable.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## RayAinsw (May 2, 2002)

*Heated front seats - std. in the S3?*

I see this in the 'Revision Summary'

"01/13/2014 Version 1.8 (updated S3 has heated front seats as standard)"

But it seems to still show "Three-step heated front seats" as optional - 
anyone shed any light here?
Thanks,
- Ray
Would hate to make the step up to Prestige when that's the only 
thing I think I'd miss in Premium+ ...


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Another thing I write off as an oversight due to this thing still being in a draft state...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

Yes these product books go through many updates, along with order guides. so take this as 98% correct with the other 2% changing as more info becomes available.
these are also put together for the whole world and then edited for each country/region to be specific for that area.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

So the US A3 Sline doesn't get flat-bottom steering wheel. Lucky the Canadian A3 Sline gets that.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> So the US A3 Sline doesn't get flat-bottom steering wheel. Lucky the Canadian A3 Sline gets that.


also the US doesn't get S Sport suspension which I would think they would at a S Line...the 19" rims for the A3 won't be the same as the S3's. 

No black optics package unfortunately neither. 


Hopefully can hear something soon from Audi Canada, need to find time to check with the dealership to see if they have anything for us here. I really am interested because it looks like standard 7" for the S3 which is awesome!! Standard Start / Stop. So I would be looking at the base S3 /w LED, S Sport Seats and B&O. Where do I sign? As for color, not going off of the brochure but the grey or blue. I like the auto folding mirrors was surprised to see that.

3,461 lbs for the S3 though...that's about 200 lbs more then I was expecting. I would hope that is full optioned out?
With the B9 dropping about 200 lbs, that will make the A4 /w Quattro come in with what the S3 is, and the S4 about 200 lbs more then the S3...but with a twin turbo 3.0L, and maybe less weight in the nose? Ohhhh booyyy, best be leasing the S3 just in case....hopefully they are wrong about the B9 as they were about the weight for the 8V


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Rudy_H said:


> but the grey or blue. I like the auto folding mirrors was surprised to see that.
> 
> 3,461 lbs for the S3 though...that's about 200 lbs more then I was expecting. I would hope that is full optioned out?


Before seeing the specs, I knew very well that the S3 was NOT going to be <3300 lb when the A3 Sline weighs roughly 3300ish lbs.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

RayAinsw said:


> I see this in the 'Revision Summary'
> 
> "01/13/2014 Version 1.8 (updated S3 has heated front seats as standard)"
> 
> ...



Hrmm. I don't know, my MK6 GTI has a 3 level setting for the heated seats, and it's probably the worst heated seat I've had. Takes forever to warm up.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

One of the pieces of information I've been eagerly anticipating is the rear seat legroom, as I"m 6'5" and have six-year-old twins that I need to accommodate. My current Golf R has a stated 35.5", and the girls can fit behind, but with not much room to spare. A3 is listed as 35.1", so I'll definitely have to take them with me to the dealer when these cars show up and make sure they fit now, with a little room for growth. Head room comparison, the A3 is about two inches shorter.


----------



## RayAinsw (May 2, 2002)

*GTI*

Interesting.
I have a 2013 GTI, and the seat heaters [ 3 stage ] work very quickly...



The DarkSide said:


> Hrmm. I don't know, my MK6 GTI has a 3 level setting for the heated seats, and it's probably the worst heated seat I've had. Takes forever to warm up.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

BEM10001 said:


> Was told by my new best buddy Audi rep that Sepang looks kind of turquoise and weird in sunlight.


I've driven several different Sepang cars (my favorite was an R8 V10...) and I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination say that Sepang _ever_ looks "turquoise." At all.

It would definitely be my first choice color for an S3.

-Tim


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> Before seeing the specs, I knew very well that the S3 was NOT going to be <3300 lb when the A3 Sline weighs roughly 3300ish lbs.


Most articles were stating the A3 was going to be under 3,000 lbs, with the Quattro @ 3,100 and S3 around 3,200 lbs...maybe that was for the hatch that they were estimating off of which would make sense.

That said, according to the brochure the estimated 0-60 hasn't changed so that is a good indicator that like the B8 S4, don't be surprised if the awhp is going to be pretty close to flywheel hp


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

EZ said:


> One of the pieces of information I've been eagerly anticipating is the rear seat legroom, as I"m 6'5" and have six-year-old twins that I need to accommodate. My current Golf R has a stated 35.5", and the girls can fit behind, but with not much room to spare. A3 is listed as 35.1", so I'll definitely have to take them with me to the dealer when these cars show up and make sure they fit now, with a little room for growth. Head room comparison, the A3 is about two inches shorter.


My complaint with the A3 is mostly about rear headroom, I am 6ft, my not big hair was touching the ceiling which is irritating, forget about wearing a hat, if I was 5-10 would have been perfect. Legroom was less of a concern IMO. Will a 6 year old fit back there of course, my 10 year old can fit back there and he is pretty big kid already, but if one of the kids who is in 6th grade in his basketball league who is already close to my height, he would not be happy a year later. Of course everyone's kids are different sizes and they can grow at crazy rates. Seeing as you are 6-5 your kids will likely be giants like you. So I guess it depends on how long you keep this car. I own a TSX and the rear seat is fairly tight but this A3 beats it. Bottomline you as the driver might want to see if you feel comfortable in the front seat and see how it works out in the back behind you as it will get tighter. The Golf itself has really great interior room packaging and visibility IMO, and you will notice the visibility is not great when looking through the rear glass of the A3. Still saying all that it was a sweet car inside and out.


----------



## Zorro83 (Sep 10, 2011)

Forgive me for this question, if it seems trivial...

In the paint section, it's layed out as if sepang blue, panther black & misano red as a no charge option. Actually for all variants it seems as though you either get it for free or you don't get at all.

is that right?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Paint cost can probably be reasonably assumed by using other AoA cars as a baseline. In short, I expect this for the S3, based on the S4:


Brilliant Black - no charge,
Glacier White, Monsoon Gray, Florett Silver, Mythos Black, Beluga Brown, Misano Red, Sepang Blue - $500 upcharge,
Panther Black - $1,075 upcharge.

_​Edit: Corrected Sepang Blue upcharge._


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Rudy_H said:


> Most articles were stating the A3 was going to be under 3,000 lbs, with the Quattro @ 3,100 and S3 around 3,200 lbs...maybe that was for the hatch that they were estimating off of which would make sense.
> 
> That said, according to the brochure the estimated 0-60 hasn't changed so that is a good indicator that like the B8 S4, don't be surprised if the awhp is going to be pretty close to flywheel hp


I noticed that the UK A3 weighs quite a bit less than the CAD version (which should be similar to the US). The articles probably based the weights on the UK version, which gave false hope.


----------



## Zorro83 (Sep 10, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Paint cost can probably be reasonably assumed by using other AoA cars as a baseline. In short, I expect this for the S3, based on the S4:
> 
> 
> Brilliant Black - no charge,
> ...


Ah ok thank you Dan, they should state it as an option though since it is an upcharge.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> I've driven several different Sepang cars (my favorite was an R8 V10...) and I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination say that Sepang _ever_ looks "turquoise." At all.
> 
> It would definitely be my first choice color for an S3.
> 
> -Tim


Agreed. Sepang is an absolutely stunning color, especially in person.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Travis Grundke said:


> Agreed. Sepang is an absolutely stunning color, especially in person.


Lickable, even.


----------



## lilmira (Feb 4, 2014)

Is the Sepang Blue more expensive? I'm looking at the UK config. and all the pearl effect and metallic colours are the same price and the crystal effect is the next step up.


----------



## durt (Feb 4, 2014)

jubasa said:


> On page 20:
> 
> 1.8T: Cargo 12.3 cubic ft, Fuel capacity 13.2 gallons
> 2.0T: Cargo 10.0 cubic ft, Fuel capacity 14.5 gallons
> ...


I find it really weird that the trunk is only 10 cu. ft on the quattro A3's

These articles mentioned the 2015 A3 having a 15 cu. ft/425L trunk:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-buying/audi/a3-sedan/#
http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a3/2015/road-test.html
http://autos.jdpower.com/content/bl...es-new-entry-point-to-four-ring-ownership.htm
http://www.guideautoweb.com/en/specifications/audi/a3/

And this one says 390L which is about 13.7 cu. ft:
http://driving.ca/reviews/road-test/first-drive-2015-audi-s3/

Even the Audi UK website says the "saloon" has 425L:
https://www.audi.co.uk/explore-models/explore-by-range/a3.html

The Jetta has a 15.5 cu. ft trunk, the A3 is a bit shorter and has AWD so I could see it being a bit smaller but most similar sized compact sedans (even with AWD, ie. Impreza/WRX) usually have at least 12 cu. ft (except for the EVO which has the battery and other stuff taking up space back there)


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

lilmira said:


> Is the Sepang Blue more expensive? I'm looking at the UK config. and all the pearl effect and metallic colours are the same price and the crystal effect is the next step up.


You'd be correct. Sepang Blue is a pearl, not a crystal. As such, it would be under the $500 upcharge category. I confirmed this on the US RS5, at least.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> Median income for an A3 buyer? $146k estimated. That seems high. We're talking about a car that they seemingly intend to sell in volume at the 1.8 TFSI FWD configuration.
> 
> <shrug>


Household income, I am sure. 

68% married, with a lot of professional spouses, no doubt.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

ChrisFu said:


> Household income, I am sure.
> 
> 68% married, with a lot of professional spouses, no doubt.


Oh, no doubt it's household income. Still... seems high. I'm south of that, but I'm also in one of the cheapest areas of the country, so maybe I'm just looking at it from an unfair angle.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

Dan Halen said:


> Oh, no doubt it's household income. Still... seems high. I'm south of that, but I'm also in one of the cheapest areas of the country, so maybe I'm just looking at it from an unfair angle.


Guess it depends on the model. For the $30k base, it's probably right. For the $50k loaded S3, it seems incredibly low, but I don't like to spend big money on cars. My wife and I make well north of that HH figure, but I would struggle with rationalizing buying anything more than the "base" S3. Especially when I can get a similarly-performing MKVII Golf R for probably mid $30s.

But then again, gadgets in cars don't do anything for me. If I could get a non-HID equipped car and save $2k, I would. Light pollution is so bad down here, half the time you could drive with no lights on and not even notice. Give me Homelink, one-touch up/down windows that work via the remote, leather so my kids don't ruin the interior and a great performer I can do HPDEs in, and I'm all set.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

It's about the only place I'll open my wallet. I'm incredibly tight-fisted otherwise.

I do like your “thousand dollars for each year of age" rule, though- especially if I had kids.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

Dan Halen said:


> I do like your “thousand dollars for each year of age" rule, though- especially if I had kids.


And it hasn't prevented me from having some nice/fun cars. Bought a 337 in my mid 20s. Had a used C5 in my early 30s, followed by a G35s and now my R. So it's possible to be sensible and enjoy cars at the same time. If I don't get an S3 or the MKVII R, I'll probably slowly transform my current R into a more capable track car and pickup an E46 M3 or 996/7 911 in another 2-3 years as a weekend toy. But at that point my R will probably be worth about $18k and I'd be buying a ~$25k used car that can sit for a month if it's really broken, so still following my self-imposed rule. I really want to retire at 59 1/2.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

durt said:


> I find it really weird that the trunk is only 10 cu. ft on the quattro A3's
> 
> These articles mentioned the 2015 A3 having a 15 cu. ft/425L trunk:
> http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-buying/audi/a3-sedan/#
> ...



Based on Audi UK specs, FWD A3 gets 425L of trunk space, AWD A3 gets 390L.

Why US AWD gets much much less space than the FWD version, that's beyond my comprehension.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

great find, thanks for sharing..... still disapointed there are no fuel consumption figures so close to launch....


----------



## dustinvandeman (Dec 23, 2013)

phospher5 said:


> great find, thanks for sharing..... still disapointed there are no fuel consumption figures so close to launch....


There are fuel figures on the A3 guide on audiusa.com


----------



## CadiGTi (Mar 1, 2007)

*Solid Axle for Tdi*

Interesting that the "suspension" section specs the rear suspension on the TDi as "torsion beam" i.e. solid rear axle, when the rest of the A3 line has multi-link?


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

CadiGTi said:


> Interesting that the "suspension" section specs the rear suspension on the TDi as "torsion beam" i.e. solid rear axle, when the rest of the A3 line has multi-link?


I would suspect that in order to keep the pricing competitive, something had to give. TDI buyers, on the aggregate, are more concerned with fuel economy and won't miss the handling benefits of an IRS.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Travis Grundke said:


> I would suspect that in order to keep the pricing competitive, something had to give. TDI buyers, on the aggregate, are more concerned with fuel economy and won't miss the handling benefits of an IRS.


This. But what about those of us that _want_ both? I'll trade handling, however, for fuel economy every day of the week.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Travis Grundke said:


> I would suspect that in order to keep the pricing competitive, something had to give. TDI buyers, on the aggregate, are more concerned with fuel economy and won't miss the handling benefits of an IRS.


Maybe, but I still think it's a poor choice of omission. They're advertising this thing as a no-compromise car. That's a compromise, and a fairly large one at that, IMO. I just can't make myself believe that the deletion of quattro wasn't enough to make up the difference. Is a diesel motor, with all of it's required ancillary devices, really that much more expensive than the 2.0 TFSI mill?

But you're right- it's a compromise they can probably get over on the average US buyer.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> But you're right- it's a compromise they can probably get over on the average US buyer.


Very likely true. A friend of mine has a MkVI diesel Jetta that he bought about 6 months ago. I guarantee he cares more about the fuel economy than the other dirty bits under the car.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> I noticed that the UK A3 weighs quite a bit less than the CAD version (which should be similar to the US). The articles probably based the weights on the UK version, which gave false hope.


I think this all comes back to the question 'why don't we get manual?!?!' or 'why don't we get the sportback!?!?'
Different standards between Europe and North America -> I bet there is more weight in the nose for front end collisions vs in Europe. Already know for a fact there is emission differences, likely safety gizmos, as simple as tire pressure monitor requirements is one off the top of my head. Doesn't weigh a whole lot but an example.


----------



## John Y (Apr 27, 1999)

A couple of things about the weight - I will take a look back at my German brochure later to see if we can figfure out how much the cars gain in the transition to the US market, but I can tell you that the hatchbacks probably start below 2900 lbs and I think the sportbacks do, too, at least the FWD, smaller-engined cars. I am pretty sure even the 1.8T FWD versions are in the 2900s. but a Quattro 1.8T Sportback is 32-something lbs, I think. I dunno, I guess a 200lb gain considering it's the sedan, it's an S3, and it's a US vehicle maybe isn't that surprising. I'd guess 100 to 150lbs of that is due to the US spec. 

The other thing is something that I'm sure all of us "know", but sometimes knowing and experiencing something first hand are 2 different things. And that is, IF we are talking about Quattro cars, that AWD is one hell of an effective equalizer for perceived deficiencies in power to weight ratio, when it allows you to get all the power you have to the ground, every time. The last couple of days, with the Golf R and then an A3 Quattro have been a bit of a refresher course in that for me. It's really nice to be able to just stomp the gas at virtually any time, hook up and _go._ As someone who's had predominantly FWD cars, many tuned, that is refreshing. If I I tried what I did in those two AWD cars in my GTI, I certainly wouldn't have had anything like as much fun, and I might still be back in one of those turns picking up axle bits...


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

John Y said:


> The other thing is something that I'm sure all of us "know", but sometimes knowing and experiencing something first hand are 2 different things. And that is, IF we are talking about Quattro cars, that AWD is one hell of an effective equalizer for perceived deficiencies in power to weight ratio, when it allows you to get all the power you have to the ground, every time. The last couple of days, with the Golf R and then an A3 Quattro have been a bit of a refresher course in that for me. It's really nice to be able to just stomp the gas at virtually any time, hook up and _go._ As someone who's had predominantly FWD cars, many tuned, that is refreshing. If I I tried what I did in those two AWD cars in my GTI, I certainly wouldn't have had anything like as much fun, and I might still be back in one of those turns picking up axle bits...


This is what I'm banking on. I've never owned an AWD car, and it's not really one of the things I keep thinking about when I think about how great this car is going to be, but I know it's going to be a major part of the experience.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

John Y said:


> The other thing is something that I'm sure all of us "know", but sometimes knowing and experiencing something first hand are 2 different things. And that is, IF we are talking about Quattro cars, that AWD is one hell of an effective equalizer for perceived deficiencies in power to weight ratio, when it allows you to get all the power you have to the ground, every time. The last couple of days, with the Golf R and then an A3 Quattro have been a bit of a refresher course in that for me. It's really nice to be able to just stomp the gas at virtually any time, hook up and _go._ As someone who's had predominantly FWD cars, many tuned, that is refreshing. If I I tried what I did in those two AWD cars in my GTI, I certainly wouldn't have had anything like as much fun, and I might still be back in one of those turns picking up axle bits...


Excellent point, and a good reminder of why Audi and quattro technology helped distinguish the brand back in the 80s. I think it still does today, xDrive, 4Matic, and all the others aside.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

John Y said:


> And that is, IF we are talking about Quattro cars, that AWD is one hell of an effective equalizer for perceived deficiencies in power to weight ratio, when it allows you to get all the power you have to the ground, every time.


Sprinting to 60 quickly due to AWD doesn't make the car "fast." It's an equalizer sure. But there's a difference in acceleration if the car could sprint through the 1/4 mile at 12.9 if it trapped at 100mph, than if it did a 13.2 @ 105mph.. I DO get what your saying, but I wasn't planning on modding a S3 if I got into one. AWD only really comes into consideration when your below 30-40mph (depending on power). I'm using the current power/weight of the S3 in comparison to similar vehicles I've owned. I had expected it to be hands down the fastest car I've owned.. If you plan on modding then yeah, I get really wanting AWD.

I honestly don't drive that fast, or dig into the throttle very much that often these days. I rarely ever accelerate my car past 80mph... But the extra weight will have an effect on handling, fuel efficiency, etc. Maybe I just set the expectations too high.  After all the hubbub about the MQB being lighter, and I could have sworn I saw a 3,2xx number for an awd variant of the A3 at some point.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

It's much more apparent in the twisties. John's observation about being first in line at a left turn with an AWD car is the best real-world example. You can simply plant your right foot and the car pulls all the way through the turn. Accelerating out of turns during track events is so much more effective. But yes, if you don't drive all that spirited, don't track your car, and don't live in a cold-weather climate, you'll never truly get to enjoy the AWD.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

EZ said:


> It's much more apparent in the twisties. John's observation about being first in line at a left turn with an AWD car is the best real-world example. You can simply plant your right foot and the car pulls all the way through the turn. Accelerating out of turns during track events is so much more effective. But yes, if you don't drive all that spirited, don't track your car, and don't live in a cold-weather climate, you'll never truly get to enjoy the AWD.


Yep. I can tell you that, even with Pilot Super Sport tires on my APR Stage I GLI, it's just not an ideal scenario for that amount of power. My friend had a Golf R with the lackluster Dunlop A/S tires and APR Stage I, and it was still better than my car at putting down the power. At that point, the tires were the weak spot, whereas the amount of power to the wheels remains the weak spot in my car. 

I know which I prefer for the way I drive. I get 21mpg out of a GLI, if that gives you an idea. For my city/ highway split, I should be seeing closer to 25mpg were I to leave it in "D" and drive like grandma used to drive.


----------



## anti suv (Sep 26, 2013)

The DarkSide said:


> But the extra weight will have an effect on handling...
> 
> I just set the expectations too high.  After all the hubbub about the MQB being lighter, and I could have sworn I saw a 3,2xx number for an awd variant of the A3 at some point.


Agreed. Hopefully it wont feel/handle like a 34xx lb car. I think the nissan gtr is around 3900 lbs, but i have read that it drive like a much lighter car.


----------



## John Y (Apr 27, 1999)

Well, you're all right - Quattro (and appropriate gearing) only address one aspect of the weight issue - the ability to get up and move out. But given how much of everyone's driving, especially in the US (or more correctly everyone's _acceleration_) is probably done at 60mp or less anyway, I think it's a pretty important one. Hell, even over here, where having the _real _power or the lower weight to be able to really move out at higher speeds is an issue because I can do it regularly, the ability to get maximum acceleration from a stop or from low speeds, and in poor weather conditions (which we have a lot of) is probably woirth more to me than my time from 80mph to 120mph or the car's top speed, etc.


----------



## .:Ru4dubn¿ (Mar 14, 2012)

The DarkSide said:


> Maybe I just set the expectations too high.  After all the hubbub about the MQB being lighter, and *I could have sworn I saw a 3,2xx* number for an awd variant of the A3 at some point.


You did. I've seen a [media quoted] range between 3,075-3,400, with the average being in the 3,200 range. For me, the weight makes the biggest difference at moderate+ speed trying to exit corners. AWD helps to a degree, but isn't some sort of panacea to prevent pushing (IMHO, of course).


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

.:Ru4dubn¿ said:


> AWD helps to a degree, but isn't some sort of panacea to prevent pushing (IMHO, of course).


But it does make a significant difference. In my last HPDE, the majority of people in my group had no idea of what a Golf R was. After virtually every session, I had guys in Camaros, Mustangs, etc. asking me about the car. Every one of them commented on how impressed they were with how I pulled away from them coming out of the corners. This is my first AWD car, and I don't even have the Haldex competition controller on it. My two cars prior to the R were a C5 Vette and a G35s, and my R will do things that neither one of those cars could, especially when it comes to putting power down coming out of a slow turn with confidence, and definitely in the wet.


----------



## John Y (Apr 27, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Here are some weight figures for comparison, taken from the German A3 brochure, that may be illuminating.

These weights are measured with a 150lb driver, 15.5 lbs of luggage and a tank that's 90% full -which is 45 liters of fuel.

The lightest A3 is the base 2-dr hatch with 1.2l TFSI, weighing in at a pretty impressive 2700lbs on the nose. 

Moving up to the 1.8 FWDrivers with S-Tronic, the hatch is 2921lbs, the Sportback 2987 lbs. 

The 1.8TFSI Quattros are S-Tronic only: 3141 lbs (hatch) 3208 (Sportback), and 3241 (sedan). 

The S3s are 3241 (manual hatch), 3285 (S-Tronic hatch), 3306 (Sportback manual), 3351 (Sportback S-Tronic), 3318 (manual sedan), 3362 (S-Tronic Sedan).

So I guess it's not unreasonable to think the car might have gained 100 lbs or so coming to the US. 

If it's any consolation, I have not doubt the US car will still be mighty *fast* and I am definitely not talking about at speeds only up to 50-60mph or so. Here's why: I spent a day with the Golf R recently and you can read about it here if you want: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...he-Golf-R-impressions&p=84883697#post84883697

So, that car weighs in at a figure that is within 5kg of the EUR S3 - the car is pretty much a rocket ride and adding about 100lbs will not ruin it - not by a long shot. You also don't know if the gearing of the US S3 will be tweaked a bit in the first three ratios or final drive to dial back in a little more urgency to the experience, in exchange for the weight.

And more to the point that was raised above - the car absolutely has the power to haul ass at high speeds, weight notwithstanding; it's pretty much a rocket ride whether you're hammering it off the line or accelerating above 100mph; it pulled harder than any 4 cyl has a right to above 125mph and I think it would push 170.


----------



## cwyattrun (Jan 26, 2014)

The UK S3 brochure list the sedan's weight at 1450kg - 3200lbs. That's unladen/tare weight though - so doesn't include gasoline/fluids needed to actually operate the car. Between gas, oil, coolants, etc - that's probably just 130ishlbs-ish? 

Is it possible someone converted EU curb weight - which sometimes includes 75kg for an "average driver?"


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

Dan Halen said:


> Maybe, but I still think it's a poor choice of omission. They're advertising this thing as a no-compromise car. That's a compromise, and a fairly large one at that, IMO. I just can't make myself believe that the deletion of quattro wasn't enough to make up the difference. Is a diesel motor, with all of it's required ancillary devices, really that much more expensive than the 2.0 TFSI mill?
> 
> But you're right- it's a compromise they can probably get over on the average US buyer.


+1 disappointed with this budget decision. The VW TDI got this one right. The torque of the TDI makes it a useful in-town sporty ride. Get up to speed quickly, and use the good suspension to maintain momentum, à la Miata. Curious to see how the Mk7 TDI gets spec'd.

Maybe there are stats that say TDI drivers are highway cruisers vs. my idea of the perfect driving machine.

Still deserves a big *Boooooo!*


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

John Y said:


> Here are some weight figures for comparison, taken from the German A3 brochure, that may be illuminating.
> 
> These weights are measured with a 150lb driver, 15.5 lbs of luggage and a tank that's 90% full -which is 45 liters of fuel.
> 
> ...


Excellent- thanks!

Don't we have steel crash members behind the bumper covers that aren't present (or, if present, aren't as substantial) in European market units? Regardless, I have no problem believing that US bloat adds 100lb. The other kind of US bloat will add another 100lb, on average, as well. :laugh:


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

John Y said:


> Well, you're all right - Quattro (and appropriate gearing) only address one aspect of the weight issue - the ability to get up and move out. But given how much of everyone's driving, especially in the US (or more correctly everyone's _acceleration_) is probably done at 60mp or less anyway, I think it's a pretty important one. Hell, even over here, where having the _real _power or the lower weight to be able to really move out at higher speeds is an issue because I can do it regularly, the ability to get maximum acceleration from a stop or from low speeds, and in poor weather conditions (which we have a lot of) is probably woirth more to me than my time from 80mph to 120mph or the car's top speed, etc.


I read your GTI article - good read! When I first started reading about the S3 I was comparing it to an Audi TTS in regards to performance. In the US the TTS is ~3,2xx lbs. I was rather surprised back then reading about how quick it was and how it actually had a pretty strong trap speed through the 1/4 (103-105). I was ecstatic that the S3 would be roughly the same weight (or ball park) with more power. Very low 13's and possibly high 12's would have been possible. The trap speed is a fairly decent (but not absolute) indicator of a cars ability to accelerate not taking grip into account. My MK6 GTI is stage 1, and certainly has grip issues in 1st and sometimes second. I find I don't really get on it anymore in those gears (at least since I bought new tires) due to wheel spin. I've mostly had vw/audi cars my entire life. The few deviations from that brand was a 93 MR2 turbo and a 2007 350Z roadster. Both were far and away more exciting to drive due to RWD (also, dedicated sport car). I miss both greatly, I'm hoping the S3 is far quicker the the Nissan though.

It's possible the extra power will off set the extra weight, and it will still be in the same league as the TTS in regards to acceleration - which to be perfectly honest, is probably quick enough to make me happy. I guess this is happens when you fall for a car that doesn't have factual published specs. The mind can start to run away with the possibilities. 

I've thought about doing a K04 kit in our 2011 A4 Avant, but seeing how that is my wife's car, and she already drives fast enough with it stock, I don't think I'll be going that route. :laugh:

My desire for the S3 HAS cooled a bit though. I'm no longer pining to be the first in line.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

The DarkSide said:


> I'm hoping the S3 is far quicker the the Nissan.


I can give you a real world comparison, if you count two different cars and two different drivers as a comparison. :sly:

I have a stage I Golf R, which should be roughly in-line performance-wise with a stock S3 if we believe the published hp/tq figures, and my brother has a 2002 350 Z coupe. We recently attended the same HPDE at Homestead's 2.2 mile road course, and my lap times were about 10 seconds faster. I'm probably a little bit of a better driver, so there might have been more like 5 seconds between the two with everything else being equal.

How much better is the S3 vs my R and a 2007 370 Z vs the 2002 350, I have no idea. But if it's close, and I'd think it is, the additional advantage the S3 would have is the easy tunability of the turbo, and the ability to transfer that power to the ground with the AWD.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

John Y said:


> Here are some weight figures for comparison, taken from the German A3 brochure, that may be illuminating.
> 
> These weights are measured with a 150lb driver, 15.5 lbs of luggage and a tank that's 90% full -which is 45 liters of fuel.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. All this big weight savings talk from VW/Audi about the MQB architecture is just some BS huh? At most you are maybe saving 50 lbs compared to a similarly equipped prior gen car. 

Also why does sedan weight more than the sportback?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> Thanks for the info. All this big weight savings talk from VW/Audi about the MQB architecture is just some BS huh? At most you are maybe saving 50 lbs compared to a similarly equipped prior gen car.
> 
> Also why does sedan weight more than the sportback?


More metal. I have a Jetta and a Golf of the same vintage. Trust me- there's a lot more real estate on the sedan. You'd think the roof of the hatch would make up for the extra metal on the ass end of the sedan, but that's not really the case.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

EZ said:


> I can give you a real world comparison, if you count two different cars and two different drivers as a comparison. :sly:
> 
> I have a stage I Golf R, which should be roughly in-line performance-wise with a stock S3 if we believe the published hp/tq figures, and my brother has a 2002 350 Z coupe. We recently attended the same HPDE at Homestead's 2.2 mile road course, and my lap times were about 10 seconds faster. I'm probably a little bit of a better driver, so there might have been more like 5 seconds between the two with everything else being equal.
> 
> How much better is the S3 vs my R and a 2007 370 Z vs the 2002 350, I have no idea. But if it's close, and I'd think it is, the additional advantage the S3 would have is the easy tunability of the turbo, and the ability to transfer that power to the ground with the AWD.


That's an interesting comparison! A better comparison would have been if you guys switched cars and compared lap times.  I believe the 2007 had a decent HP bump over the 2002 model. But again, mine was a roadster and thus a bit heavier. Bringing turns into the equation is a whole different ball game in regards to comparison with way too many variables (tires) especially with AWD. I took turns faster in our 2011 A4 avant than I did in the Z out of stability/comfort for the limit). My Z would run at high 13's low 14's at ~99-101 mph (averages). For the S3 to be a significant upgrade from that, it'd need to trap at 104-105 for me to think "gd this thing is amaze balls" in comparison to the Z. (side note: the other night I was poking around and the newer 350Z traps at 106-108, and can be found around mid to high 30's lightly used, it's on my short list now)

I've never been on a road course with a car and probably never will. I took my D675 on a road course and then I gave up riding my bike on the street, because once I opened that can of worms (full out 150mph down the main straights)it was ridiculously addictive. Prior to that I was prob one of the extremely rare sport bike riders that behaved on the street. I gave up riding because I was either going to A) become poor going to the track all the time or B) probably end up a stain somewhere on the street, and C) my wife and had just gotten pregnant. 

My next IDEAL car is comfortable, meets my expectations of fast (low 13's, knocking on 12's, @ 105mph +/- a mph or so), gets decent fuel economy, and looks great. I'm hoping the S3 still fits those expectations!


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> Why US AWD gets much much less space than the FWD version, that's beyond my comprehension.


Larger or even full-size spare tire?


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

The A3/S3 will have a Haldex system rather than a traditional torsen based quattro. The product book does not mention a sport differential option, any news on the SR having a LSD or use the XDS electronic system?


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

Waterfan said:


> Larger or even full-size spare tire?


It has to clear the rear differential and possibly the gas tank? 

I'm pretty sure that FWD and AWD both get the doughnut spare.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

The DarkSide said:


> That's an interesting comparison! A better comparison would have been if you guys switched cars and compared lap times.


I'm not giving him my keys!


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> More metal. I have a Jetta and a Golf of the same vintage. Trust me- there's a lot more real estate on the sedan. You'd think the roof of the hatch would make up for the extra metal on the ass end of the sedan, but that's not really the case.


One more reason to hate the sedan I guess.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

dustinvandeman said:


> There are fuel figures on the A3 guide on audiusa.com


after much searching and downloading the guide, not all figures are present. none for the tdi, some for the as ( cabrio only ) and yes, the 2.0t sedan are listed but..... that's all I could find. either way thanks for the direction.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

GTI2Slow said:


> The A3/S3 will have a Haldex system rather than a traditional torsen based quattro. The product book does not mention a sport differential option, any news on the SR having a LSD or use the XDS electronic system?


No sport diff; unsure on XDS, though. I believe Waterfan has said in the past that he saw reference of its inclusion in the S3, just not necessarily under the same name.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> One more reason to hate the sedan I guess.


Pssh. Not for me. I'd still take the sedan, even if the sportback were offered. My wife's car covers that need.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

mike3141 said:


> It has to clear the rear differential and possibly the gas tank?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that FWD and AWD both get the doughnut spare.


True on needing to clear the rear differential. As for the spare, I thought I saw some where it's a flat fix kit...could be a bad recollection, so don't hold me to it.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> The other kind of US bloat will add another 100lb, on average, as well. :laugh:


No extra baggage here. 140 and 5'9", but yeah, on average...this. Depressing how unhealthy we are as a nation. Ok, back on topic.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

EZ said:


> I'm not giving him my keys!


:laugh::laugh:


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

Dan Halen said:


> No sport diff; unsure on XDS, though. I believe Waterfan has said in the past that he saw reference of its inclusion in the S3, just not necessarily under the same name.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


I was hoping for a mechanical LSD. The XDS system was deemed fairly useless in the mk6 GTI, the mk7 has a mechanical LSD as a result. For the money the S3 seems less performance oriented than I previously thought.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

GTI2Slow said:


> I was hoping for a mechanical LSD. The XDS system was deemed fairly useless in the mk6 GTI, the mk7 has a mechanical LSD as a result. For the money the S3 seems less performance oriented than I previously thought.


As far as I can tell the xds does a decent job at mitigating torque steer but other than that it does not feel like a quaife pulling me through a corner. 

I'm still hoping the S3 will be a performer I'm just starting to severely lower my expectations at this point. I'm surprised there haven't been any magazines with instrumented testing in Europe yet, even the hatch back yet.


----------



## durt (Feb 4, 2014)

davewg said:


> True on needing to clear the rear differential. As for the spare, I thought I saw some where it's a flat fix kit...could be a bad recollection, so don't hold me to it.


In the Product Info Book it says "Temporary Inflatable spare" so perhaps they did put a larger spare in the US market cars and that's why trunk space is reduced vs. the European models that most of the journalists have driven to date (ie. Monaco), been on display at shows etc. The UK website, where they list the trunk at 15 cu. ft. says "Space saving spare". Also, the fact that the Canadian website lists most dimensions but has TBD for trunk size also goes along with the fact that they've made some changes back there for the North Amercian models. That probably accounts for 20+lbs of all the extra 100.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

GTI2Slow said:


> I was hoping for a mechanical LSD. The XDS system was deemed fairly useless in the mk6 GTI, the mk7 has a mechanical LSD as a result. For the money the S3 seems less performance oriented than I previously thought.


I'm not concerned. It's going to be a hell of a lot more car than I reasonably need on a daily basis. I would be surprised if it's really an issue when all of the “first drive" reviews have failed to say anything to that effect.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

davewg said:


> True on needing to clear the rear differential. As for the spare, I thought I saw some where it's a flat fix kit...could be a bad recollection, so don't hold me to it.


No, you're right. The European-spec S3 I saw in LA had a can of goop. I think I posted a photo of it, even.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> I'm not concerned. It's going to be a hell of a lot more car than I reasonably need on a daily basis.


This.

I get that for anyone that wants to track the car, or lives where they can drive the snot out of it everyday the differential technology might make a difference. For me, the car will be utterly fantastic compared to my last several daily drivers. My last actual car was a '96 Passat GLX, and I got rid of that for the first family minivan in 2000, or 2001.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> I'm not concerned. It's going to be a hell of a lot more car than I reasonably need on a daily basis. I would be surprised if it's really an issue when all of the “first drive" reviews have failed to say anything to that effect.


I concur. I have pretty much only driven VW cars (Jetta and Golf) and I love them already. The A3 2.0TQ is going to be a lot more than what I really need.


----------



## Sk8erdrumchic (Feb 14, 2013)

*S3 front heated seats as standard*



RayAinsw said:


> I see this in the 'Revision Summary'
> 
> "01/13/2014 Version 1.8 (updated S3 has heated front seats as standard)"
> 
> ...



The S3 has front heated seats as standard, the A3 has front heated seats as optional.


----------



## Sk8erdrumchic (Feb 14, 2013)

*Many changes*

Many many changes, specs from across the pond are usually delayed, or changed 3 days later, or unchanged, very back and forth with information. So this is a direct correlation to the revision process.


----------



## Sk8erdrumchic (Feb 14, 2013)

*Sepang*



Travis Grundke said:


> Agreed. Sepang is an absolutely stunning color, especially in person.


Double agree and confirmed. Sepang Blue is a head turner for sure. No residue of any turquoise/teal/green matter. Pure blue beaut


----------



## 03jettaturbo (Jan 6, 2004)

*Torsion-beam rear suspension for the TDI??*

The USA 2015 A3 brochure shows Torsion-beam rear suspension for the TDI instead of multilink. A bit dissapointing. Can anyone shed some light as to why?

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/1fbdc32d#/1fbdc32d/6

Go to page 64 and click on the page to magnify.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

03jettaturbo said:


> The USA 2015 A3 brochure shows Torsion-beam rear suspension for the TDI instead of multilink. A bit dissapointing. Can anyone shed some light as to why?
> 
> http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/1fbdc32d#/1fbdc32d/6
> 
> Go to page 64 and click on the page to magnify.


Interestingly enough, it's also post #64 and the couple subsequent posts where this was mentioned very briefly. We don't have much to go on, but it's probably a cost-benefit equation. It's suspected that Audi sees a higher benefit in the cost savings rather than return on handling.

I still say it's an unfortunate decision.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> Interestingly enough, it's also post #64 and the couple subsequent posts where this was mentioned very briefly. We don't have much to go on, but it's probably a cost-benefit equation. It's suspected that Audi sees a higher benefit in the cost savings rather than return on handling.
> 
> I still say it's an unfortunate decision.


I think the reason (or excuse?) is that they can't fit the independent rear suspension because of the TDI setup. That's the same case for the Mk7 Golf.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

VWNCC said:


> I think the reason (or excuse?) is that they can't fit the independent rear suspension because of the TDI setup. That's the same case for the Mk7 Golf.


I'd love to hear more. Is it due to the adblue tank?


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> I'd love to hear more. Is it due to the adblue tank?


I am not an expert with this, but I just heard that from some other thread. That's okay, 2.0T is the way to go anyways.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

I'd heard too that it had to do with adblue tank requirements on the TDI.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

davewg said:


> I'd heard too that it had to do with adblue tank requirements on the TDI.


I've heard that too. I would also suspect there's another big reason: torsion beam is less expensive. TDI drivers on the whole are more interested in fuel economy than anything else, so they're not going to miss the IRS like most drivers will. It's a great way to balance on the additional costs of TDI+Adblue to keep the price point down.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

From today's newspaper: "According to Volkswagen, the need for urea storage prevented the use of an independent suspension system in the rear, VW incorporating a traditional torsion beam instead."


----------

