Topic: Test Drive: 2015 Audi Q3 Quattro Technik

[Autos_Editor]

Better late than never.
Read More...

[quadzilla]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

I still can't believe Audi is using this engine. Why does it not get the same power as the A3 with 220hp/258tq or even the TDI?

[MJMontreal]

The Q3 has been available since at least 2013 in Mexico (the other frequently forgotten country in North America)...

[tpl]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

I still can't believe Audi is using this engine. Why does it not get the same power as the A3 with 220hp/258tq or even the TDI?

The 2.0T Q5 gets the 220BHP engine and I'd guess that Audi marketing wants the different engine and the different transmission.

Imho the whole thing is screwed up by the USA new CAFE regulations and the continual ( unnecessary ) tightening of emissions regs.

[bluelines]

Seems like pretty terrible fuel economy. My X1, which has an extra 40hp and 50 lb/ft, has averaged 9.7 l/100km over the last several thousand km, with a mix of a lot of city driving (average speed of 41.1 km/h, according to the trip computer).

[EV-Light]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

I still can't believe Audi is using this engine. Why does it not get the same power as the A3 with 220hp/258tq or even the TDI?

the updated engine is coming next year...with a refresh as well.

[greengs]

Interesting the 2.0T (all versions) has been around for a while and they just keep updating it.  It can make anywhere from 200 to 400+hp (upcoming Golf 420)

[redman]

"The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds"....

Cars must have gotten a hell of a lot heavier or the HP ratings have changed. I owned a 1987 Scrirocco 16V back in the day that had a listed at 139Hp and according to C & D did 0-60 in 7.6 seconds.

http://germancarsforsaleblog.com/1987-volkswagen-scirocco-16v-3/



The Audi Q3 is a nice little runabout with Quattro to boot. Price steep for a CUV.

[bluelines]

Love the Sirocco 16V. Also loved the Corrado VR6.

"The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds"....

Cars must have gotten a hell of a lot heavier or the HP ratings have changed. I owned a 1987 Scrirocco 16V back in the day that had a listed at 139Hp and according to C & D did 0-60 in 7.6 seconds.

http://germancarsforsaleblog.com/1987-volkswagen-scirocco-16v-3/



The Audi Q3 is a nice little runabout nonetheless with Quattro to boot.

[quadzilla]

I still can't believe Audi is using this engine. Why does it not get the same power as the A3 with 220hp/258tq or even the TDI?

the updated engine is coming next year...with a refresh as well.

Not according to the article...

So you could wait for the 2016, but really there’s no need – the 2015 is available now, and no it won’t look embarrassingly outmoded next year, nor will it feature any of the upgraded engines global markets receive.

[OliverD]

"The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds"....

Cars must have gotten a hell of a lot heavier or the HP ratings have changed. I owned a 1987 Scrirocco 16V back in the day that had a listed at 139Hp and according to C & D did 0-60 in 7.6 seconds.

FWIW, C&D did 0-60 in 7.8 in the Q3.

[nlm]

Cars must have gotten a hell of a lot heavier or the HP ratings have changed.

Both. I owned a 89 Caprice, 5.7L that produced 195 hp that weighed 3942 lbs. Todays 350s have twice the output. A 'smaller' 2015 Impala weighs 3730 lbs with a 305hp V6.

[Noto]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

[dragonfly]

I didn't think it was possible to pay 49 thou for a VW Golf with a noisy interior..but..there you have it..YOU, not me   Thanks   Jack

[micha]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

How? My mother drives a 2012 Tiguan and averages 9l/100km and she doesn't drive slow.

I didn't think it was possible to pay 49 thou for a VW Golf with a noisy interior..but..there you have it..YOU, not me   Thanks   Jack

Ask Snowy how a much a "Golf" can be worth. Also, I wouldn't hesitate to pay $49k for an actual Golf, the R400 that is.

[Noto]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

How? My mother drives a 2012 Tiguan and averages 9l/100km and she doesn't drive slow.

I can confirm that on my testdrive of the Tiguan around suburban Guelph, I averaged over 14L/100km.  The only thing worse than that was the Forester XT at 15.3L/100km - but that was constant flooring it in Toronto city traffic, and shenanigans.

It's all subjective.  Your mother may only drive where there is no traffic.  It's irrelevant.  200hp, small-ish car, and premium fuel does not equate to 'worth it' for me.  Nor did I feel that the Tiguan was in any way 'quick'.

[OliverD]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

How? My mother drives a 2012 Tiguan and averages 9l/100km and she doesn't drive slow.

I can confirm that on my testdrive of the Tiguan around suburban Guelph, I averaged over 14L/100km.  The only thing worse than that was the Forester XT at 15.3L/100km - but that was constant flooring it in Toronto city traffic, and shenanigans.

It's all subjective.  Your mother may only drive where there is no traffic.  It's irrelevant.  200hp, small-ish car, and premium fuel does not equate to 'worth it' for me.  Nor did I feel that the Tiguan was in any way 'quick'.

I'm guessing that a test drive is going to be a lot different from day to day use though.

[Noto]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

How? My mother drives a 2012 Tiguan and averages 9l/100km and she doesn't drive slow.

I can confirm that on my testdrive of the Tiguan around suburban Guelph, I averaged over 14L/100km.  The only thing worse than that was the Forester XT at 15.3L/100km - but that was constant flooring it in Toronto city traffic, and shenanigans.

It's all subjective.  Your mother may only drive where there is no traffic.  It's irrelevant.  200hp, small-ish car, and premium fuel does not equate to 'worth it' for me.  Nor did I feel that the Tiguan was in any way 'quick'.

I'm guessing that a test drive is going to be a lot different from day to day use though.

Absolutely.  But so is the way micha's mother drives.  That was my point.

[chignectohead]

VW certainly plays fast and loose with its 2 litre DI Turbo. There have been so many different ones, the early ones with belt drive cams, the one they put in 2006 or so cars that carboned up like a champ, the one with the rear cam drive that allowed the current A4 to have its front wheels pulled forward, and the MkV and Mk VI GTI engines that was probably the same one, called the EA888. But to the customer VW pretends they're the same engine when they're not.

They skipped, so far as I can find out, the EA888 Mk2, and went directly to the EA888 III. The 1.8 litre version of that is what you get in the Golf and Jetta, and everyone finds it quite powerful. However, they stick the old 2.0 t engine in the Jetta GLI, Tiguan, Eos and Q3, because it is stuck at 200 hp and 207 lb feet of torque. The new EA888 III 2.0 t in the new GTI and A3 has 210 or 220 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque. It is not apparent whether they make this engine in Mexico yet, just the 1.8 t.

Anyway, the Tiguan and Q3 seem very slow compared to the cars with the new EA888 III. Does anyone know for sure what VW actually installs in these CUV's? Enough difference in performance to put me right off considering them, because the naturally aspirated engines in the CR-V and CX-5 can keep up. The new 1.8 t would probably be as quick for goodness sake.

Strange outfit, VW.

[Northernridge]

Nestled in the engine compartment is Audi’s familiar, silky-smooth direct-injected 2.0L TFSI turbocharged four-cylinder engine, mated to a traditional six-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic paddle shifting. The engine churns out 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of twist. It’ll haul the Q3 from 0-100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds, but around town it feels quicker than that thanks to its deep, flat torque curve (maximum torque comes on from 1,700 rpm and doesn’t start to taper off until 5,000). The only drivetrain option is the choice between front-wheel drive or Quattro all-wheel drive (as in my test car), with city/highway fuel consumption rated at 12.0/7.7 L/100 km for the FWD version and 11.9/8.4 L/100 km for the AWD version.

Same issue that we had with the Tiguan back in 2011 - we didn't find the thing particularly fast at all, and given its fuel economy, we felt that it was absolutely not worth it.

It's not even about the power - it's the relative speed and fuel economy.  7.8s AND 13L/100km?  Meh.  C&D tested the CX-5 2.5L with 184hp at 7.7s.  It'll also use 3-4L/100km (of regular, non-premium) less gas than this.  Where's the advantage, Audi?

I did like how the power tailgate has a lock button as well as a close button so you can lock the car and close the tailgate in one button press.

...THAT is amazing.  How has it taken manufacturers so long to figure this one out?!

Not a new feature...just new to you.