For the second time in a week (clock analogy again), Bob Lutz made an accurate prediction. GM's Car Czar told journalists he'd like to put a 200 horse turbocharged four in a big car, tuned for torque and fuel economy. Sounds like a good idea. So good, Audi's doing it… The current Audi A4 has a great engine– the 2.0T– that's most useful with either a manual transmission or DSG. But since some 80 percent or more of the A4 2.0T sold in America have a slushbox (six-speed or CVT), acceleration is less than idea (i.e. slow). So Audi's boffins bumped-up the horsepower (from 200 to 211) and added scads 'o torque (from 207 lb ft now to 258 ft.-lbs.). That's more torque than Audi's 3.2-liter V6 provides. If Audi really wanted to test the turbocharged waters for Maximum Bob's dream (nightmare?) of big ass cars with 200 horses, Ingolstadt should offer Yanks the revised 2.0T in the A6. You can just hear the bankers whining. "I'm not spending 55 grand on a car with four cylinder engine!"
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Your last sentence sums up the perception issue that companies selling into North America will face.
I’m as bad as anyone. I keep telling myself that I’d like to buy a nicely equipped, premium compact car with a 4 cylinder engine that delivers excellent economy. But when it comes to dropping $25k on a MINI (base price in Canada for a Cooper unless you go for the $22k “Cooper Classic” which is a de-contented version of the same) you realize that talk is indeed cheap.
Now, were the MINI selling for under $20k as it the US I might jump on it. Of course that same $20k buys more car there, too.
Sounds like a Saab motor to me.
I don’t think it’s a logical assumption that we’ll see this anywhere BUT the A4. Keeping it out of the A3 and VW products will give it necessary differentiation that the previous generation was lacking spec-wise.
I like the new A4, but still no DSG?
Is this motor related to their 1.4L 4 with a turbocharger for high revs and a super charger for low revs?
Trying to eliminate the chip tuning market for A4’s?
It’s only too bad that American buying tastes prevent Audi from offering this engine in the A6 (you can just hear the banker whining “I’m not spending 55 grand on a car with a V-4.”)
I am assuming the use of the term “V-4” is part of mocking the banker…
I with you on the 4 cyl. premium car Dean. I still miss the turbo 4cyl. SAAB 9000. It was a huge car that was good on gas and fast.
Is the Audi 4 cylinder a “V” design? The last sentence would sorta imply it. And my brother is one of those who think you have to have 6 or more cylinders for an engine to be smooth or powerful. That my turbo boxer 4 has more power than his V6 doesn’t seem to impress him.
The VW and Audi (for that matter, all except Subaru) engines are inline, not vee. The last V4 was a Ford Koln engine only seen in the states under the rounded hood of Saab 95’s and 96’s as well as the fiberglass bonnet of the Sonnett, last sold in the early 1970’s. Lancia did some V4’s in the 1960’s and very early 1970’s as well.
Subaru has a boxer four (2 cylinders on each bank, one bank on either side of the crankshaft). This is the layout that the classic air cooled VW engines were (albeit, they were air cooled and all Subaru boxers are water cooled).
Common mistake to say V4, ‘coz so many people are used to thinking V8, V6. Until just last year, the old AMC inline six was built by Chrysler, though, and until 1954, Pontiac, Packard and Buick built inline eights. They were SMOOOOOOTH.
Much smoother than V8’s, especially with 9 (count ’em) main bearings, as some of the senior Packards had. They did make for a very long hood, and the V8 makes for a more compact package. Of course, that advantage was totally wasted immediately by Detroit by growing the cars to gargantuan sizes by 1958.
Referring to the engine as a V4 was 100% a mocking joke. The idea is that many buyers of luxury cars are badly informed, and as a result they’d skip a 4-cylinder engine on principle (even if it gave great performance and torque). To demonstrate the arrogant misinformation on their part, I had the fictional car shopping banker erroneously refer to it as a V4.
It’s removed from the post to eliminate any confusion.
I like the new A4, but still no DSG?
Yea, why does Audi hold back so much on putting the DSG into more vehicles?
@ajla:
The DSG as VW has it now is configured for transversely mounted engines only. That’s why the only Audis that have it are the A3 and TT, which are both VW Golf based. The A4 has a longitudinal engine, so the DSG isn’t engineered for that.
I’m sure they are working on a longitudinal engine DSG setup, but not yet…
258lb/ft of torque, but is lower, meaning power will taper of a bit by 5200rpm. I wonder how the engine will be to wind up. Sounds like a bit challenging to surrender the fun of low rpm power dynamics as the revs climb. A test of patience for me, although perhaps better overall.
Turbos have always mede sense to me. The frictional losses of a smaller motor with the power potential to compensate. Properly executed, they offer a better efficiency and power compromise.
I still have my 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse in the garage. In its day, only exotically priced cars (and the 305 mustang V8) could keep up with, or out run it. Its MPG ranges from high 20’s to mid 30’s per gallon, overall average has been 30. This, and a car that still has plenty of zip, 1/4 mile times of in low 15’s at 90mph were the usual road test results.
@Joshvar
“I like the new A4, but still no DSG?”
There will be a 7-speed DSG in Audis with longitudinal engines and Quattro soon.
See this post:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/20/audi-goes-7-new-s-tronic-gearchange-unveiled/
Audi could have pushed it further – they have limited edition cars with the same engine making 250 hp, not to mention chip tuners are making 250 hp/300 ft-lbs of torque with just ECU modifications.
@cretinx
“they have limited edition cars with the same engine making 250 hp”
They have the S3, which is not a limited edition, making 265 hp.
@menno
There are a actually a couple of V4 engines in production now – but in motorcycles. The Honda VFR has been a V4 for a while now, as has the ST1300 (and before that, the ST1100). Aprilia’s also got a V4 in development, although who knows if we’ll actually see it in the real world.
To deviate a little, I had a VFR750 and in addition to being a V4, it had gear-driven cams which when wound up sounded like a seriously pissed off supercharger. I’m actually a fan of the V4 layout, but with two cylinder heads and associated bits, there’s a significant cost delta over an I4.
-S5
As someone who lived with this engine for 19 months I can add that it is a powerful engine with great gas mileage. On a trip to New York from Florida I averaged 32 mpg with speeds mostly in the 75 to 80 range. Car was a six speed manual. With help from APR my HP and Torque were both over 250. Only reason I gave up on the car was the massive torque steer due to the front wheel drive. I would definitely go for this engine in a quattro or rear drive config.
Reminds me of story my buddy told me. He was in the 7th grade or so and they had a “now-it-all” kid in his class. One day my friend was talking about cars to someone with the “know-it-all” started bragging about how his Dad had a 4 cylinder V-6 engine in their car…
Made my buddy’s day…
The number of cylinders is not the only variable. Look at the Mitsubishi Motors Astron motor that they put into their Aussie sedans. It was a wopping 2.6L 4 cyl motors. Talk about huge cylinders. Volvo used to have similar large volume 4 bangers.
The author is right… in the US at least 4 cylinder motors have a bad rap. Just like the US auto makers, the 4-Cyl continues to pay for the sins of its past.