# Why the old 2.0T?



## loopless (Oct 4, 2007)

Seems bizarre to me that the Q3 is coming with the 'old' gen 2.0T. That engine is not in any current VW/Audi product except possibly the US Tiguan. Why go to the trouble of adding another engine to the Audi range. 
I can't see it being competitive to the X1.


----------



## VR6Now (Dec 31, 2000)

loopless said:


> Seems bizarre to me that the Q3 is coming with the 'old' gen 2.0T. That engine is not in any current VW/Audi product except possibly the US Tiguan. Why go to the trouble of adding another engine to the Audi range.
> I can't see it being competitive to the X1.


Simply put, its because the engine and powertrain are already certified for use here in the US in the Tiguan. You can certify a vehicle of similar size, powertrain, and weight by similarity. It makes life simple. Also, this engine is still available in the EU Q3. Since the Q3 is an old vehicle, there's no cost advantage to taking one of the new engines and making provisions for fitment. 

The Q3 might see the new engines for the 2016 refresh. It seems silly for Audi to bring this car to the US market one model year before being refreshed on the existing PQ35 platform. They should've just waited a year. Better yet, they waited this long so they could've waited until the MQB Q3 hits the market in 2018 or so.


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

VR6Now said:


> Simply put, its because *the engine and powertrain are already certified for use here in the US *in the Tiguan. You can certify a vehicle of similar size, powertrain, and weight by similarity. It makes life simple. Also, this engine is still available in the EU Q3. Since the Q3 is an old vehicle, there's no cost advantage to taking one of the new engines and making provisions for fitment.
> 
> The Q3 might see the new engines for the 2016 refresh. It seems silly for Audi to bring this car to the US market one model year before being refreshed on the existing PQ35 platform. They should've just waited a year. Better yet, they waited this long so they could've waited until the MQB Q3 hits the market in 2018 or so.


:thumbup: This

Keep in mind not everybody is an enthusiast and will just see 2.0T and think its the same as the one found in the A3,4,5,6 All-Road, Q5 etc.


----------



## Sincity (May 17, 2005)

DasCC said:


> :thumbup: This
> 
> Keep in mind not everybody is an enthusiast and will just see 2.0T and think its the same as the one found in the A3,4,5,6 All-Road, Q5 etc.


That is so true.


----------



## struTTer (Mar 7, 2007)

Sincity said:


> That is so true.


And that is why VAG continues to shortchange the US consumer. It takes them well over a year to bring products to the US after they have been for sale in Europe. The dumb down their products for us. The Jetta is a perfect example of this. We're not getting the same Golf R as Europe, they showed the Golf Sportwagon TDI 4Motion at all the US car shows and IF they bring it here, we have probably a year to wait. There are plenty more examples on this list.

We have owned several VW's and on our 3rd Audi in a row. My wife really loved the Q3 (to replace the A3), but I had to talk her out of it. I'm not going to waste my money on a vehicle that is basically from 2005. If they drag their feet on the Golf Sportwagon 4Motion then I'm afraid I will have to BMW for a 328d wagon.

You snooze you lose VAG.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi Guys,

I'm just in that boat! LOL

My Wife just bought an Audi Q3 S-Line 2015 and I told her that she should keep my Audi Q5 2014 and in that case I'll get a S3. To make story short and since she loved the Q3 she bought it and at last, even if it's a old engine We have had a GLI MKV, a GTI MKVI and a Jetta CC (two of them with DSG) ... So we already know what do we have to take care of the new car.

Happy New Year!

Cheers Guys!


----------



## 006 (Jul 17, 2000)

*Don't Complain Around Here.....*

strutter....You will be labelled a troll for speaking the truth. :screwy:

Insofar as the awful product selection, outdated 'new' vehicles appearing on our shores, ridiculously poor model cycle planning compared to other manufacturers....it's been happening for years now. You would be wise to go to BMW...I did long ago and have been desperately trying to get back into the VW / Audi fold to no avail.

The only reason I even comment here is because I jump on the 'tex to look for news about the Golf Sportwagen (which should be out now, but is not of course) and end up in this forum for some reason. I guess I also end up here because the Q3 exemplifies everything wrong about what VW / Audi is doing in the marketplace. Each brand has 1 fresh model for people to buy (VW: Golf, Audi: A3). I also complain here because I know people at VW USA read these forums, and the only way to get the point across is to complain, as any true VW / Audi enthusiast naturally would. Well, anyone not enjoying their S3 right now.


----------



## matticus (Apr 12, 2013)

loopless said:


> Seems bizarre to me that the Q3 is coming with the 'old' gen 2.0T. That engine is not in any current VW/Audi product except possibly the US Tiguan. Why go to the trouble of adding another engine to the Audi range.


What are you talking about? It's still in the A4 and TTs on dealer lots, too. It's not an added engine--it's always been part of the Audi range. The 1.8 version of this exact engine is also used in a boatload of VW products just introduced in the past few years, too.

The new version you're talking about is _only_ in the Golf and A3 at the moment. The whole rest of the lineup is still using some variant of this engine, which has another year or two left before they stop selling it. It's right on schedule.


> I can't see it being competitive to the X1.


It may or may not be competitive, but engine age is a weird metric, especially since the X1 engine is just two years newer. You realize that the N52 was used for 8 years before the N20, right, and also overlapped with its replacement? And that manufacturers are on different cycles? Audi will replace its engines in the next few years, followed by BMW a couple years later, and again, and again, and again.



006 said:


> ridiculously poor model cycle planning compared to other manufacturers....it's been happening for years now. You would be wise to go to BMW...


This doesn't make any real sense. BMW's engine lifespan and model cycle aren't very different from Audi's. They're just not aligned--when Audi introduced the last-generation 2.0, BMW's engine lineup was 5 years old. So what? At any point, one will be newer than the other. They'll rarely both introduce new engines at the same time.

The only real difference is that BMW is quicker to bring its products to the US. Audi usually lags behind a year, which frustrates a lot of people on the VW/Audi side, but it has its upsides, since the US version benefits from advance ROW testing. It also gives you the opportunity to get a late-run version here after you find out what improvements are coming in the next generation. Both companies offer more options in Europe. Both upgrade their cars on a 3-4 year tick-tock cycle. Both run their engines for about 8 years. It's just a result of market forces.


> I did long ago and have been desperately trying to get back into the VW / Audi fold to no avail.


If you're "desperate" to get back, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for BMW...


----------



## DasCC (Feb 24, 2009)

matticus said:


> What are you talking about? It's still in the A4 and TTs on dealer lots, too. It's not an added engine--it's always been part of the Audi range. The 1.8 version of this exact engine is also used in a boatload of VW products just introduced in the past few years, too.
> 
> The new version you're talking about is _only_ in the Golf and A3 at the moment. The whole rest of the lineup is still using some variant of this engine, which has another year or two left before they stop selling it. It's right on schedule.
> 
> ...


No the Q3 uses the Gen1 TSI, and is the only Audi in the US to use it, the CC and Tiguan use it as well. The A4 and TT use the Gen2 wAVL which has more Hp and TQ.


----------



## matticus (Apr 12, 2013)

DasCC said:


> No the Q3 uses the Gen1 TSI, and is the only Audi in the US to use it, the CC and Tiguan use it as well. The A4 and TT use the Gen2 wAVL which has more Hp and TQ.


The Gen1/2 label is a distinction without a difference, since the valvelift version isn't any newer. It's just a minor variant. They're the same basic engine, with the same technology (save the valvelift and turbo), designed at about the same time. In fact, the specific EA888 variant powering the Q3 entered the market in the same 2009 model year as the 211hp valvelift version in the A4/TT.

The A4/TT "Gen2" engine is not based on any newer technology that makes the Q3 "old". If you're going to paint with that brush, all Audi four cylinders except the 2015 A3 will get wet.

The A3's "Gen3" engine, however, _is_ a significantly updated engine that will no doubt make its way across the whole lineup over the next few years.


----------



## VR6Now (Dec 31, 2000)

matticus said:


> ....The A4/TT "Gen2" engine is not based on any newer technology that makes the Q3 "old". If you're going to paint with that brush, all Audi four cylinders except the 2015 A3 will get wet...


The point is all Audi four cylinders except the A3s were not launched this model year in a 'new' model. Those models have been aound for quite some time so it is understandable that they still have the powertrains they were originally certified with. The point is why is Audi launching 'new' products on outgoing powertrains and platforms. VW/Audi product cadence at its best (worst)


----------



## matticus (Apr 12, 2013)

VR6Now said:


> The point is all Audi four cylinders except the A3s were not launched this model year in a 'new' model.


Neither was the Q3. It launched in 2012. Why would they complete reengineer it just for the US when it's 2-3 years from being replaced entirely? You want to whine that they're not bringing over all the current models, but when they do, you want to complain that it's not a brand-new special redesign. It's ridiculous.

Yes, VW screwed up by not realizing that the Q3 would be popular here. They corrected that this year. Now you want a magical all-new model created out of thin air when the existing model is only halfway through its product cycle?


> Those models have been aound for quite some time so it is understandable that they still have the powertrains they were originally certified with.


Just like the Q3...


> The point is why is Audi launching 'new' products on outgoing powertrains and platforms. VW/Audi product cadence at its best (worst)


You'd prefer they wait another three years to introduce anything, so you could complain even more about how they're ignoring the US market?

You can't have it both ways. They could have waited until the next generation to introduce it to the US, but they decided to offer the current model now. That means getting the current hardware. What global manufacturer's release cycle would you like them to adopt?


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

The 2.0TFSI found in the new GTI, A3 and Seat Leon will make its way into the Q3 once the Q3 moves to the MQB architecture in a few years. Q3 just received its facelift so its in the middle of its lifecycle. It will likely be a shortened lifecycle compared to past terms, but we have a few years to go. 

Q3 is a decent product which will sell well to its intended audience, but I agree: I cannot get past the fact that this is essentially a car riding on a platform that is pushing 13 years old.


----------



## matticus (Apr 12, 2013)

Travis Grundke said:


> Q3 is a decent product which will sell well to its intended audience, but I agree: I cannot get past the fact that this is essentially a car riding on a platform that is pushing 13 years old.


I'm genuinely curious why it's bothersome. Modern modular automotive platforms are designed for incremental technology upgrades and provide uniformity of sizing and interfaces. 10-15 years is what is expected of them. The BMW X1's platform is over 10 years old, too. The Acura RDX is a little newer, but not much, based on the 2006+ Civic. They're all due for replacement in the next 5 years or so, but they're all just fine today.

Lots of other examples:
The Hyundai Y5 in the Santa Fe was introduced in 2004.
The Nissan Rogue is based on their 2003 C platform.
The Chevy Equinox is built on the 2002 Theta platform.
The Mazda CX-9 rides on a Ford CD3 platform introduced in 2003.
Ford Taurus/Explorer/Flex are built on a platform that was designed in 1999 (and Ford is of course famous for building the Panther platform for 33 years).
The Jaguar XF until this year used a platform that was introduced in 2000.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Pre MLB/MQB vehicles from the Volkswagen Group generally followed a 10+ year cycle. However, the improvements with the MQB architecture are so significant that it's worth waiting for. I've owned an 8P A3 since '05 and compared to the new A3 and GTI the vehicles could not be more different, especially in terms of things like suspension, ride quality, sound deadening, overall handling, torsional rigidity, etc. The Q3 is essentially an 8P A3 hiked up and they share a lot of the same hard points. 

As MLB has demonstrated over at Audi - these new architectures give the makers substantially more flexibility because they're now completely modularized and standardized. It will allow for much faster devlopment and much quicker rollout of new technologies and systems at better price points. 

It's not that I have a problem with old architectures, its just that the new ones (MLB/MQB) are such revolutions that they really make the older platforms look and feel seriously dated.



matticus said:


> I'm genuinely curious why it's bothersome. Modern modular automotive platforms are designed for incremental technology upgrades and provide uniformity of sizing and interfaces. 10-15 years is what is expected of them. The BMW X1's platform is over 10 years old, too. The Acura RDX is a little newer, but not much, based on the 2006+ Civic. They're all due for replacement in the next 5 years or so, but they're all just fine today.
> 
> Lots of other examples:
> The Hyundai Y5 in the Santa Fe was introduced in 2004.
> ...


----------



## matticus (Apr 12, 2013)

Travis Grundke said:


> It's not that I have a problem with old architectures, its just that the new ones (MLB/MQB) are such revolutions that they really make the older platforms look and feel seriously dated.


Now I get where you're coming from, and that makes sense. Thanks! You're giving more credit to what amounts to a part-sharing framework than is really due, but that's usually the basic reason to replace a platform. It still doesn't really have much to do with age, though. Most of the upgrades you list have nothing to do with the new platform itself--several could easily have been integrated into the PQ35 as well. What VW wants with the MQB architecture is to set up its manufacturing efficiencies for the next generation. By cutting costs, they can throw in a few more upgrades without disrupting the final MSRP. You're absolutely right that it's a solid upgrade thanks to that.

There are brand-new, clean sheet automotive platforms on the market that aren't as good as VW's outgoing ones (and on the flip side, some very old platforms that are even better than VW's newest ones). Apart from specific technological or materials science advances that put a hard limit on availability, age is pretty much irrelevant, especially when most of the competition is in the same boat. When it becomes cheaper to engineer an all-new system than update the old one, you do it, and you try to work in some improvements while you're at it, because it's got to last for long enough to be economical.

This is actually an ideal example: almost all the upgrades you note about MQB have actually been rolling around on the roads for 8 years already in MLB cars, and the new Q7 features a mid-cycle refresh to that "aging" platform so it can finish out the decade. MLB is only a few years newer than PQ35. They're very different because of design choices and optimization strategies, not because of any engineering or technological revolution between 2003 and 2007.


----------

