The previous generation of the Audi TT also had the diesel version (only with awd). From the third generation there is also a diesel, at first only with front-wheel drive
often we find some decisions of marketing of the brands such as improbable, illogical and even irresponsible. One of the news of the week has brought tail, the appearance of the new Audi TT 2.0 TDI with all-wheel drive. “what A sporty diesel? ¡Habrase visto!”, things of these secure that sound, right?
The example of the Audi TT Diesel it seems to me particularly illustrative. From the second-generation TT, which appeared 10 years ago, entered the range diesel version for the first time, with 170 HP. It was the same engine that could be found in the SEAT Leon FR TDI (when it was only available with that power), the Volkswagen Golf GTD or the Audi A3. The associated yes or yes to quattro, I had a sizeable premium compared to the 1.8 TFSI front-wheel-drive. In the third generation of the 2.0 TDI makes 184 HP, which is not bad.
The current accelerates to 100 km/h in less than 7 seconds and reaches 230 km/h. Slow is not
At the present time the manufacturers tend to delete those versions that, for their low volume of sales, do not bring economic benefits, nor image, nor of any other type. Audi TT Diesel should be a model to be rather successful: is available with a manual gearbox and front-wheel drive, automatic, and front-wheel drive, and coming automatic and all-wheel drive. Not only that, it is available both in box coupe and a convertible.
it is going to be sold well with a similar distribution range.
The Mercedes-Benz SLC also offers diesel (250d) with 184 BHP of power and automatic change-over. The price difference with the SLC 200 is very small in relation to the price of the car
¿What kind of person buys a sporty two-seater diesel? The opinion of the purists already know, I’m going to ahorrármela, so let’s pull of data. There are people who need to travel more kilometers for his work, and we talk about volumes in which the gasoline becomes painful or unsustainable. There are those who need to do long distances, but want a car when the and less functional.
With the same criterion are sold so many SUVS today, not all of the great jogger have to be “sentenced” to sedans or compact conventional. The Audi TT is, by construction, a compact, although its shape is related to its function, and is a car less practical, but it is not therefore unsuitable for travel.
first of all, we will have to investigate what is the difference in the consumption of an Audi TT petrol and one diesel, for which there is research under 180 HP. The web Spritmonitor is great to know consumption real, we filter for the Audi TT enrolled between 2006 and 2013, below 180 HP (1.8 TFSI and 2.0 TDI). These are the data:
|Units registered||Motorisation||lowest Average||Average||highest Average|
|30||Diesel (2.0 TDI)||4,68 l/100 km||6,31 l/100 km||8,33 l/100 km|
|66||Petrol (1.8 TFSI)||6,10 l/100 km||7,88 l/100 km||9,53 l/100 km|
Entering a well-known portal for the sale of cars at a european level meeting announced 728 Audi TT with a diesel engine. Will be any less for being a model poorly listed, but am surprised at the amount of cars that exceed the 160,000 kilometres travelled. Some of them have jogged through a lot in a short time, say more than 25,000 kilometres a year. Over 200,000 miles there are no cars advertised.
The Audi TT 2.0 TDI of the second generation homologaba 5,3 l/100 km, or what is the same, 139 grams/km of CO2. That last piece of information served to their owners to cut corners a lot of money in taxes during a good season, something specially interesting in the case of company cars or european countries very concrete, such as France.
The find manual, automatic, with or without packages S Line, with hard-top or no hood… Audi has done no more than continue serving a clientele that wants that car, and is still willing with a diesel engine. You may think that none of those buyers “like cars” because it does not agree with the purism of some. That conclusion would be objectively wrong.
The Ford Focus ST is offered with petrol engine or diesel, although the oil has some benefits less competitive, spends clearly less
let’s go Back to the data that we’ve seen previously of consumption. Half are almost 1.6 l/100 km of difference in comparison to diesel. If we consider the customary delay between diesel and gasoline (10 cents per litre, to simplify the calculation), we have that in 100,000 miles there was a saving in fuel of € 1,600. With regard to the 2.0 TFSI, the savings are instant (equality of change and traction are worth almost the same, at least in Spain).
why compare it against the petrol 200 HP? Because benefits was that the closer she approached, the 1.8 TFSI, the more competitive in consumption, could not reach it. The 2.0 TDI of 170 HP was able to beat on acceleration or recoveries to several cars in its category, gasoline, and increased power, with and without turbo. Therefore, we speak of a good balance between performance, consumption, and may be repaid in a time… reasonable.
By the same rule of three, there are the Mercedes-Benz SLC 250d, Ford Focus ST TDCi, Volkswagen Golf GTD, and the like. Cover some needs, and for a volume of people enough. Not all of these customers are taking the car over the weekend and squander deposits making curves, but to start the car every day to go to work. there is this niche market, all those cars would have been discontinued, have the absolute security of it.