# 1.8T A3 gets worse MPG than 2.0T??



## Pommerening (Jan 17, 2014)

23 city / 33 highway ... 2.0T Quattro gets 24/33. Might be a typo by the EPA. No other explanation really. Link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34771


----------



## Leke (Jul 29, 2013)

I don't think it's a typo. Motortrend passed the same comment in an article today: http://wot.motortrend.com/1403_2015_audi_a3_rated_at_2333_mpg_quattro_boasts_better_city_rating.html


----------



## dustinvandeman (Dec 23, 2013)

I just don't see how that can be right. The quattro will use more gas and it has more hp and added weight due to the quattro system. Doesn't make sense


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

2.0TQ gets MPI?

Sorry, I'll see myself out now... /firestarter

:laugh:


----------



## Boosted 01 R (Feb 10, 2013)

Smaller engines have to work harder.... Its funny how people think in every case smaller is better, not so in the real world everytime.... BTW the A3 is pretty dam heavy... imagine if the 1.8 was quattro, the parasitic drag would make it much worse..... not that surprising really..... LOL at Dan Halen


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

YMMV??


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

And they are both almost IDENTICAL to my car with real torsen AWD, the Gen2+ EA888, and an additional 500 lbs!

Not impressed with these numbers, honestly.

Interesting that Audi is claiming 24/36 on the 1.8L cab


----------



## audivirgin (Jan 25, 2014)

Agreed with not impressed. I'm a commuter and thought the 1.8t would be the smart choice. Apparently not!

A line from the motor trend article which I also found a bit shocking
"Even the racier 355-hp CLA45 AMG achieves the same as the base A3 in the city, and only one less mpg combined


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

I still don't believe this is possible.....

Given this.....why wouldn't one get the 2.0T Quattro.......tiny bit better mileage, much more power, and AWD.....


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

VWNCC said:


> I still don't believe this is possible.....
> 
> Given this.....why wouldn't one get the 2.0T Quattro.......tiny bit better mileage, much more power, and AWD.....


More scratch? It may not seem like a lot to some of us, but $3,000 is $3,000. On the low end, that's 10% of the total cost of the car.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

haha...

So how about I blow your guys minds...better fuel mileage? 2001 S2000 2.0L @ 2809 lbs (18/24) or 2001 Corvette 5.7L V8 @ 3214 lbs (16/24)? You would think the Vette that weighs an extra 400 lbs and has triple the displacement wouldn't be even close to the S2000. Numbers taken from the EPA's website...

This is about when (2001) I realized and always kept that example in the back of my head, that there is WAY more factors to fuel mileage then simply power and weight....gearing and how hard that engine needs to work is the most important thing.

The 1.8T is too small of an engine for the car, and needs to work harder.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> I still don't believe this is possible.....
> 
> Given this.....why wouldn't one get the 2.0T Quattro.......tiny bit better mileage, much more power, and AWD.....


Remember with this generation of Haldex, the AWD is disabled until it is actually needed. On a bunch of rollers, it will never need AWD

Real world driving is going to be a lot different


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Rudy_H said:


> Remember with this generation of Haldex, the AWD is disabled until it is actually needed. On a bunch of rollers, it will never need AWD
> 
> Real world driving is going to be a lot different


Is this a new thing for the 5th gen Haldex? I thought it would always feed at least 5% of power to the rear wheels.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> And they are both almost IDENTICAL to my car with real torsen AWD, the Gen2+ EA888, and an additional 500 lbs!
> 
> Not impressed with these numbers, honestly.
> 
> Interesting that Audi is claiming 24/36 on the 1.8L cab


They also have 24/36 for the sedan in their brochure.

And your A5 is rated at 20/29


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Hajduk said:


> They also have 24/36 for the sedan in their brochure.
> 
> And your A5 is rated at 20/29


There are no numbers for the 1.8L sedan in the brochure. It lists "NA"

And my car is 22/32


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

VWNCC said:


> Is this a new thing for the 5th gen Haldex? I thought it would always feed at least 5% of power to the rear wheels.


Yea, I thought a small amount of power always went to the rear wheels.


----------



## dustinvandeman (Dec 23, 2013)

DaLeadBull said:


> Yea, I thought a small amount of power always went to the rear wheels.


That is correct.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

It isn't enough to amount to anything in real-world terms, I imagine. Maybe it's how they've managed to get the car to react quicker when the balance is upset, and maybe it contributes to the reduction of understeer overall. Realistically, it's still a front-drive car, and that's not going to stop its detractors from singing from the mountaintops.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> It isn't enough to amount to anything in real-world terms, I imagine. Maybe it's how they've managed to get the car to react quicker when the balance is upset, and maybe it contributes to the reduction of understeer overall. Realistically, it's still a front-drive car, and that's not going to stop its detractors from singing from the mountaintops.


As long as it doesn't slip like a GTI or GLI from a red light, it is good enough. I hate it when the front wheels spin at the intersection.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

VWNCC said:


> As long as it doesn't slip like a GTI or GLI from a red light, it is good enough. I hate it when the front wheels spin at the intersection.


I can't imagine that would be an issue.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> I can't imagine that would be an issue.


Same here....hence I am here.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> As long as it doesn't slip like a GTI or GLI from a red light, it is good enough. I hate it when the front wheels spin at the intersection.


It won't, never ran into that issue with the R.


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

Anyone notice how the Jetta says it's regular unleaded, but the A3 is premium? Still scratching my head on this one. Same 170HP?


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

KnockKnock said:


> Anyone notice how the Jetta says it's regular unleaded, but the A3 is premium? Still scratching my head on this one. Same 170HP?


My gas cap on my 2015 audi A3 say use octane 91. Show me the jetta cap


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

VW website says (for the 1.8T Jetta) "Regular unleaded (approved up to E15)".


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

If it's the same engine why the different octane for the different models. I know for a fact when I had my 2008 c350 mercedes and I ran 89 my mpg dropped below mercedes advertised mpg but when I put 91 my mpg was as advertised and a little better


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

i've found that MPG ratings on window stickers arent always accurate. But we all drive different and our MPG's can vary.
i put 16304 miles on my 2013 allroad in total before i traded it in yesterday.

over 11,945 miles i averaged 28.38 mpg according to the app i use Gas Cubby. i spent $1502 on 420 gallons of 91oct gas over 392 days and 33 fillups. the window sticker states 18-28. but i averaged what the hwy mpg is listed at. my commute to work 5 days a week is 27 miles and i normally average highway speeds of 70-80mph. i dont do much city driving at all.

so based on this i am really interested to see how well the A3 will do for me on my commute. I am going to assume probably 3mpg better than the allroad because of size and aerodynamics.


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

ProjectA3 said:


> i've found that MPG ratings on window stickers arent always accurate. But we all drive different and our MPG's can vary.
> i put 16304 miles on my 2013 allroad in total before i traded it in yesterday.
> 
> over 11,945 miles i averaged 28.38 mpg according to the app i use Gas Cubby. i spent $1502 on 420 gallons of 91oct gas over 392 days and 33 fillups. the window sticker states 18-28. but i averaged what the hwy mpg is listed at. my commute to work 5 days a week is 27 miles and i normally average highway speeds of 70-80mph. i dont do much city driving at all.
> ...



My mercedes mpg a lot of city driving was 19 to 20 mpg and now with the same city driving I am getting 25-26 mpg in the A3 and very happy


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

VWNCC said:


> As long as it doesn't slip like a GTI or GLI from a red light, it is good enough. I hate it when the front wheels spin at the intersection.


Lots of reviews, some great, some good some not as good. Maybe not the final product they were reviewing. On the other hand, not sure why in March they wouldn't have had this figured out considering how long the A3 has been in production for the rest of the world.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-reviews/road-tests/web-drive-2015-audi-a3-20t-quattro



> The six-speed dual-clutch automatic is the only transmission available, and it takes a rather significant step back in shift quality and response from the previous Volkswagen Group unit. Our A3 was a very early-production unit, and we’ll keep our fingers crossed that Audi will have a software update to fix it before the car is in dealerships. Ditto the four-wheel-drive system, which allows a good deal of front wheelspin before sending power to the rear axle. That can be, and probably should have been, addressed with predictive logic.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

dmorrow said:


> Lots of reviews, some great, some good some not as good. Maybe not the final product they were reviewing. On the other hand, not sure why in March they wouldn't have had this figured out considering how long the A3 has been in production for the rest of the world.
> 
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-reviews/road-tests/web-drive-2015-audi-a3-20t-quattro


I am not worried about this at all.....during my test drive...I floored the car from stop several times on a day with heavy rain.....0 slip....

On my old beloved Jetta, it would have slipped every single time.....


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

VWNCC said:


> I am not worried about this at all.....during my test drive...I floored the car from stop several times on a day with heavy rain.....0 slip....
> 
> On my old beloved Jetta, it would have slipped every single time.....


I find that mine slips much less with proper summer tires and a urethane torque arm insert. I almost have to be trying to make the wheels hop on slick roads- and that's with the APR stage one flash.


----------



## GLI_M3 (Jun 10, 2003)

We test drove the A3 1.8 and 2.0. We chose the 1.8 with Sport option. We prefer the way it drove compared to the 2.0......feels lighter and more agile. This is our fourth A3 and so far very happy with the car overall. Fuel mileage better than in the last A3 and about comparable to the 2013 CC RLine we traded.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

KnockKnock said:


> Anyone notice how the Jetta says it's regular unleaded, but the A3 is premium? Still scratching my head on this one. Same 170HP?


Torque is different: Jetta's 1.8t = 184 lbs/ft and the A3 = 200 lbs/ft

I'm sure the premium fuel allows Audi to run greater ignition advance on their 1.8T as ignition advance contributes much more to torque than to HP. That would also explain why mileage with premium will be a bit better....stick regular in the 1.8T and the knock sensors will dial back the timing, hence less performance and mileage -this to the other poster above...

As to EPA ratings.....you guys believe those things?
:facepalm:


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

Ah - good catch. I suspect that this plus the more aggro gearing add up to the numbers.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

Well, I really do think the EPA numbers are screwed. Heck, the new Jetta with the same 1.8T (detuned a bit and running regular fuel) is rated at 36 on the highway with the regular 6-speed auto tranny in lieu of the more efficient DGS, so.....I cant see how the EPA numbers for the Audi 1.8T are correct. Motor Trend reported 40 MPG average on the highway for their A3 1.8T, so....EPA numbers for the Audi 1.8T = massive fail...


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Trumpet Rider said:


> Well, I really do think the EPA numbers are screwed. Heck, the new Jetta with the same 1.8T (detuned a bit and running regular fuel) is rated at 36 on the highway with the regular 6-speed auto tranny in lieu of the more efficient DGS, so.....I cant see how the EPA numbers for the Audi 1.8T are correct. Motor Trend reported 40 MPG average on the highway for their A3 1.8T, so....EPA numbers for the Audi 1.8T = massive fail...


The A3 1.8T is tuned to achieve greater torque, so it is not impossible that it has worse mileage than the Jetta 1.8T. On top of that, it is very likely that both mileages are understated. VW/Audi love to do that.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> The A3 1.8T is tuned to achieve greater torque, so it is not impossible that it has worse mileage than the Jetta 1.8T. On top of that, it is very likely that both mileages are understated. VW/Audi love to do that.


It is...200 lbs/ft versus the VWs 184 lbs/ft but....it could be achieving that mostly thru ignition timing instead of more fuel flow, hence the Audi's recommendation for premium fuel versus the Jetta's regular.

Mehh....we're all conjecturing. LOL!!!!!

:laugh:


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

Here in Canada we don't even have a fuel consumption rating yet......


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

phospher5 said:


> Here in Canada we don't even have a fuel consumption rating yet......


Yea....and they are already selling quite a few of them....so sad....


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> Yea....and they are already selling quite a few of them....so sad....


totally........ and also........ wierd wierd wierd........... not to mention that the S3 was taken down from Audi.ca months ago and is still missing


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

phospher5 said:


> totally........ and also........ wierd wierd wierd........... not to mention that the S3 was taken down from Audi.ca months ago and is still missing


Pretty sure it is delayed....I mean my A3 is also delayed by a month..........


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

VWNCC said:


> The A3 1.8T is tuned to achieve greater torque, so it is not impossible that it has worse mileage than the Jetta 1.8T. On top of that, it is very likely that both mileages are understated. VW/Audi love to do that.


Well the Golf 1.8T has the same torque rating as the A3. and it gets 26/36 mpg with the Tiptronic Auto. The Golf is a bit lighter than the A3 but still ...


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Hajduk said:


> Well the Golf 1.8T has the same torque rating as the A3. and it gets 26/36 mpg with the Tiptronic Auto. The Golf is a bit lighter than the A3 but still ...


A3 1.8T is 200 lbft of torque, Golf 1.8T is 185 lbft.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

VWNCC said:


> A3 1.8T is 200 lbft of torque, Golf 1.8T is 185 lbft.


Not according to the latest VWOA press release



> _The Golf’s turbocharged 1.8-liter EA888 engine produces 170 horsepower at 4,500 rpm, the same maximum output as the engine it replaces, but its increased torque peak of 200 pound-feet occurs much lower in the power band._
> http://media.vw.com/release/749/


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Hajduk said:


> Not according to the latest VWOA press release


The Golf R has MPI as well, so...


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Hajduk said:


> Not according to the latest VWOA press release


Interesting.....on the vw.ca website, it still says 185lbft.


----------



## audivirgin (Jan 25, 2014)

I am quite interested in the premium vs regular debate.

picked up my A3 yesterday [it's freaking awesome], and even one of the guys alluded that I could use regular gas. He did say it might lose some of the pop, but that was definitely towards the end of the conversation.

If regular is 87 octane, and premium is 91. Could I not use the 89 octane between the two for a great compromise?


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

audivirgin said:


> I am quite interested in the premium vs regular debate.
> 
> picked up my A3 yesterday [it's freaking awesome], and even one of the guys alluded that I could use regular gas. He did say it might lose some of the pop, but that was definitely towards the end of the conversation.
> 
> If regular is 87 octane, and premium is 91. Could I not use the 89 octane between the two for a great compromise?


I have known a few people over the years who have used lower rated gas in Ontario in their turbo vw/audi cars..... while it was cheaper per liter they got worse fuel economy and it nearly evened out when considering total cost of fuel.

I'm just not sure if it is worth it when the car is tuned for a certain octane rating.


----------



## audivirgin (Jan 25, 2014)

phospher5 said:


> I have known a few people over the years who have used lower rated gas in Ontario in their turbo vw/audi cars..... while it was cheaper per liter they got worse fuel economy and it nearly evened out when considering total cost of fuel.
> 
> I'm just not sure if it is worth it when the car is tuned for a certain octane rating.




I'd say this sounds like good advice. Thanks.


----------



## 15A3 (May 18, 2014)

Drove my 1.8t from Chattanooga to Atlanta for Mother's Day. Using 100% cruise control at 65 mph my highway was 38.3 mpg. This was using 91 octane.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RedwinGV (May 11, 2014)

phospher5 said:


> I have known a few people over the years who have used lower rated gas in Ontario in their turbo vw/audi cars..... while it was cheaper per liter they got worse fuel economy and it nearly evened out when considering total cost of fuel.
> 
> I'm just not sure if it is worth it when the car is tuned for a certain octane rating.


I don't know how an Audi would be affected, but I tried this with my MDX and EX. It wasn't worth it for the MDX, the mpg dropped too much when I used the lower octane (mid.) As for the EX, it also dropped, but not as much- relatively. But the price differential from mid to premium went from $.10 to $.15 per gallon and on pure economics, it was worth dropping down to mid- not to regular. And in the end, I didn't see that much drop in performance. But it may not be that much money so sticking with premium, might be worth it.

Try a few fill ups and see what happens. I might expect that this would vary by owner with a turbo since using the turbo more would drop the MPG.

I suspect some may post that if you buy this type of car, what's a few more bucks for gas. But still, a buck is a buck, and each has their own priorities.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

Redwin makes a good point about priorities.

I would also note this.

if the difference is .15 per gallon and fuel is About 4 dollars a gallon then the cost savings is between 3 and 4 percent if you got exactly the same mileage. that means that if you were spending 3000 dollars a year on fuel ( more than most of us) you might see a savings of about 100 dollars per year over the course of those 50 filups ( 750 gallons at 15 gallons/ fillup) which is about 2 bucks or less. 

in ontario the price difference is about 11% between the 87 and 91 octance fuels gas is about 1.30 a liter so if it were to work anywhere and be worth it, it would be here.

but again- personal choice


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

You bought a turbocharged luxury car, put the proper fuel in it.

Yes you _can _run it on low octane, but it will pull timing and affect performance and mileage. There is no way around that.

At least with modern knock sensors, you cant really destroy your engine like in the past.


----------



## itr_1211 (Apr 1, 2014)

I would'nt put anything other than Shell 91


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

ChrisFu said:


> You bought a turbocharged luxury car, put the proper fuel in it.


I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

My old Maxima had a tweaked ECU which supposedly 'required' premium fuel and I found that in the winter -when the air is colder, denser and here in the NW, fairly moisture-laden- I could run 89 with no impact to performance and fuel mileage. 

The denser, colder, moister mixture = no observable or recorded (with data logger) pull-backs in ignition timing for knock sensing, so...... 89 in winter, 91 in summer it was -and I intend to do the same with my wife's upcoming A3. 

To each his own....


----------

