1.7 TDI Engine in Audi A2: Specs & Info

Hey everyone,
"From insider information," I've known for about a year that Volkswagen has a reinforced 1.7 SDI engine block on a test stand with a turbocharger attached. This engine is supposed to have around 105 horsepower and might be released onto the market in 2003.
I just read in the announcements from ARCD (one of the 12,000 automobile clubs in Germany) that a 90 hp TDI engine is being offered for the A2. This could be the 1.7-liter engine in a smaller "performance level."
A 1.9-liter engine is unlikely, as the engine's weight and fuel consumption wouldn't fit the A2 concept. And I don't think it's a 1.4-liter engine (like the AMF), because that engine, with its powerful and vibration-rich performance, is (in my opinion, unfairly) not very popular with Audi customers.
Does anyone know any more details?

Regards,

Olaf.

...
Um, sorry, but the A2 and the Lupo are supposed to be discontinued in 2004 without a replacement (due to "lack of success" ). At least, that's what Pietschenrieder announced half a year ago.
So, someone's putting money into a project that was already declared dead - that's interesting.

The A2 remains a project beloved by engineers, executed with great attention to detail (even though I personally consider the car a misguided venture, but not because of the price). Now, with vibrant colors and more powerful engines, the aim is to attract a younger customer base in order to still generate some revenue from the car. Furthermore, a number of decision-makers genuinely miss the A2. It's a great car, despite its impractical roof shape and awkwardly positioned windows.
Furthermore, it's not necessarily true that a 1.7 TDI engine should only be reserved for the A2 model.
The fact is that many customers find the 1.4-liter engine, especially when paired with the 1.9-liter's hub, to be "too bulky." Therefore, it's logical to develop a smaller 4-cylinder engine, as some of the French competitors have already done. Companies like KLS have long demonstrated that such an engine can also offer significant fuel savings with adequate performance, as evidenced by their fuel-efficient Arosa SDI model with a low-pressure turbocharger.

Olaf wrote:

...even though I personally think the car is a mistake...

... you're not alone ...

The A2's design was simply too far ahead of its time. We'll see that in 10 or 20 years when it still looks modern (similar to the Ro 80). It's a progressive, cool, and unadorned engineering style that, unfortunately, doesn't appeal as much to women. It's simply not 'cute' and lacks personality, unlike the Mercedes A from the early 90s with its typical oval and egg-shaped design (similar to the Mazda 121).
It's incredibly sad to see this brilliant concept disappear; it's a classic of the future!

I also find the A2 an interesting concept. The way the Kammback design was implemented is noteworthy for an aerodynamicist. Unfortunately, I can't assess what disadvantages might result from it, as I only know this type of vehicle from a distance.

Without this being the topic right now:
The following "drawbacks" result from what is admittedly a well-designed system:
The side windows are so small that you feel like you're sitting in a tank. On the other hand, the windshield is so large that, in winter and with high humidity, even with the air conditioning on, it can still take over half an hour to achieve a clear view, even if you're alone in the car (and you still have to use the noisy windshield defroster).
The massive A-pillars obstruct the view when turning so much that you're practically always driving blind. Many minivans handle this issue better.
The rear window is significantly smaller, and the spoiler severely restricts the field of vision. A "positive" aspect is that the headlights of following cars are almost always obscured by the spoiler. Dirt of all kinds accumulates on the window above the spoiler. In winter, snow remains on the window for hours, even with the rear defroster on, and simply freezes. Also, after driving for over an hour, water runs directly down the windshield at every red light, without being redirected, due to the rounded roof.
Otherwise, it's a great car. However, the impractical design that makes it difficult to access the engine (e.g., for an oil change) is annoying. It seems like they intentionally try to make maintenance difficult, so you'll get frustrated and end up going to the workshop.

Regards,

Olaf.

Hi Olaf,

Has an A2 ever rolled over your foot?

You can really sense the deep connection you have with this car...



P.S. (regarding the actual topic)
I can't find anything online about the 1.7 TDI engine.
Is it actually worthwhile to develop this?
That would just be a 1.9 TDI engine with a shortened crankshaft.
Will it really offer such a significant weight advantage over the 1.9-liter engine, especially considering the cost of converting a 1.7 SDI to a 1.7 TDI?

Markus H. wrote:

Has an A2 ever rolled over your foot? Is it actually worthwhile to develop this? That would just be a 1.9 TDI engine with a shortened crankshaft. Will it actually provide such a significant weight advantage over the 1.9, especially considering that you would have to convert a 1.7 SDI to a 1.7 TDI, which costs a lot of money?

I was allowed to drive the A2 more often as a replacement car while my car was under warranty (I bought my VW from an Audi dealership because I wasn't satisfied with the local VW dealer).
It was quite annoying, especially in the winter, compared to a "normal" car... even though the car is actually really fun to drive.
I think the 1.7 version might also have a smaller bore (but I don't have the data handy at the moment).
I don't have specific weight information for the KG models, but the 1.7 version is definitely noticeably lighter.
For many small cars, the 1.9-liter engine is definitely too heavy... it makes the cars too front-heavy.

Regards,

Olaf.

Hi Olaf,

I don't have the book here right now, but I looked into it a while ago when we were discussing the Polo with the timing belt issue (Ingo's, I think).

The 1.7-liter engine has the SAME bore as the 1.9-liter engine, but a slightly shorter stroke. Therefore, it should make little to no difference in terms of block size and weight, at best it might be slightly flatter.

Regarding the issue of front-axle weight, I believe it's no longer a problem in modern cars, because even small cars, due to the "safety features" they include, often weigh well over a ton.

I would still consider the Ibiza a subcompact car based on its size (3.87 meters), but not really based on its weight (1200...1240 kg). And the ASV version doesn't offer much in terms of performance.

Best regards,

Jan.

@Jan
Thank you for the information about the drilling.
The tendency for the front of the car to be too heavy is already an issue with the AMF, at least in the Lupo.
People who have converted their Lupos to a 1.9 TDI engine report that understeer can become even worse, even with a completely new suspension. The necessary tire pressure compared to the rear axle gives a clear indication of how much weight is on the front. Furthermore, the Lupo TDIs, which weigh significantly over a ton (or just under a ton for the 3L), can be easily lifted from the rear, while you can't even compress the front suspension.
In the Lupo 3L, starting with the model year 2000, the battery was moved to the rear, and a heavier tailgate was installed to make the weight distribution slightly more balanced.

Regards,

Olaf.

Hi,

Let me delve a little deeper into philosophical thought:

Basically, I personally believe that a 1.7 TDI engine doesn't offer any significant benefits (see above).
On the other hand, there's already a 1.7 SDI engine, which, in my opinion, is also pointless – because two engines with such a small difference in displacement, like the 1.9 and the 1.7, surely can't be truly necessary from a technical standpoint, right?

One could perhaps explain a new 1.7 TDI with just two arguments:
- as Olaf already mentioned - an Audi should have at least 4 cylinders.
That's what the target audience wants.
(I won't go into detail here about how even the most uncivilized...)
Five-cylinder TDI engines can experience issues during cold starts ).
2. There might be a 'model-distance philosophy' at play here.
'While it's technically possible to install a 1.9-liter engine in a small car (some people even do it themselves),...'
'Whether you're a hobbyist or a professional, but especially with the VAG group, incredible things are being done to...'
to differentiate individual models and brands...

The 90 hp TDI engine in the Audi A2 is a 1.9L TDI. It's the same engine as the 100 hp version, but with different engine control unit (ECU) maps.

Audi hopes that this will attract customers who have previously avoided buying an A2 due to its weak engine performance.

Regards,

Manuel.

Manuel Thomas wrote:

The 90hp TDI engine in the Audi A2 is a 1.9L TDI. It's built the same as the 100hp version, but with different engine control unit (ECU) maps.

Could it also be the 90 hp PD TDI engine from the Sharan?

Why don't they just include 100 horsepower from the start? It couldn't hurt... and it probably wouldn't really increase the cost.

Politics?

There are no technical reasons, for example, that limit the new Polo to 100 horsepower for the TDI engine, while the Ibiza, on the same platform, is allowed to have 130.

I think there should be a significant distance between the A2 and the A3.

Best regards,

Jan.