(first posted 8/26/2015) “Vorsprung Durch Technik” – Audi’s famous slogan (roughly translates into “advancement through technology”) varies quite a bit in applicability depending on the Audi to which it ascribed. In my opinion, it has rarely fit better than for the brilliant little A2 1.2 TDI (2001 – 2005).
The A2 was originally a concept car by the name “Al2” and that name hints at just one of the brilliant aspects of the A2; it is built entirely from aluminum. This means it is lighter than you would think. But this is just the beginning.
What makes this car so interesting to me is that it is a small, frugal car that is built to feel like a solid, upscale larger car. I have driven a fair amount of the small city cars that are growing ever more popular in Denmark and other nations with green-tuned car tax systems, and they all leave you with a feeling of driving a small tin box – a death trap to use a less flattering name. The Volkswagen Up! is fairly good and the Toyota Aygo/Peugeot 108/Citroën C1 triplets are getting better as well, but you still cannot shake the sense that you are driving something the manufacturers would really rather not build. There is a charm to such cars; basic motoring and all that, but at the end of the day a Polo or a Corolla is just so much nicer to drive, and you cannot help but think “why did they not just build the small one like the bigger one – only smaller?”
Well, they did and it is called the A2. While I am not generally too crazy about Audis, I have developed quite a crush on this car. The styling takes some getting used to, but I like the fact that it was designed in and by a wind tunnel. It has a drag coefficient of just 0.25. This is achieved through a slimmer body without the flared arches of the rest of the A2’s, special underside cladding to improve airflow under the car and of course a shape similar to a raindrop.
The A2 has narrow magnesium wheels with narrow energy-efficient tires to reduce both drag and rolling resistance. Weight has been reduced through several clever measures such as lighter seats and removal of the hood mechanism – it is only detachable, not openable. Instead it comes with a little hatch where you would typically find the grill. Behind that is the washer fluid filler gap, the dip stick and such. The result is a curb weight of just 895 kilos (1973 lbs) which is close to the contemporary VW Lupo 3L. The two are different in that the former is a four door car with respectable interior and luggage room, while the latter is a tiny two door car with all comfort features removed in an effort to reduce weight.
The Lupo 3L was a commercial flop in most countries with Denmark and its harsh car tax system serving as a notable exception. Lots of them here.
But in addition to their weight, they are similar in another crucial aspect: They share the 3L drivetrain. 3L means three liters per 100 kilometers (78.4 mpg). The Lupo can supposedly achieve that but in reality it was difficult for early testers to achieve. The A2 1.2 TDI, on the other hand, saw more than 80 mpg in independent tests. It is listed with the same fuel economy as the Lupo, but with optional climate control, electric windows, Audi-like interior and heated seats as well as more room for both passengers and luggage. For some reason only the Lupo bears the 3L designation in its official name.
The 3L drivetrain consists of a three-cylinder 1.2 liter diesel engine with 61 bhp (at 4000 rpm)/103 lb/ft (between 1800 and 2400 rpm) and a five speed automatically-operated manual transmission. It is operated like an automatic transmission and is programmed to shift really early. The system has a so-called eco mode which reduces power to 41 bhp and engages a stop-start system, which was a completely new technology at the time of this car’s introduction. This means that not only does the engine stop when the brake pedal is depressed, but it also shuts off when letting go of the gas going downhill.
Contemporary tests were positive. It achieved the claimed mileage and more, and was stable and comfortable at cruising speeds of around 100 mph. Comfort was Audi-like and the only downside mentioned was significant sensitivity to side wind due to the car’s tall and narrow profile. You can hear these cars coming, the clutter from the three-cylinder diesel is distinctive.
Very few 1.2L TDIs were sold – only 6,450. This has a lot to do with the car’s high purchase price due to the expensive aluminum construction. A car that expensive would typically be expected to be much more powerful and being green was just not as hip in the early 2000’s. The people who bought these would typically be people who demand a certain level of comfort while having a lot of commuting to do. Therefore these cars typically have a lot of miles on them on the used car market today. There are several for sale in Denmark with more than 200,000 miles on them. Therefore it is comforting that the A2 fares very well in the ADAC Pannenstatistik which Paul wrote a post about recently (and yes, the Pannenstatistik is flawed, but anyway).
The downside to buying one of these cars today (which I am considering) is that they are very expensive considering their age and mileage. A good one often has 150,000 miles on it and will set you back around 10,000 USD in Denmark. That is a bit steep the aforementioned smaller Toyota Aygo is available from around 12,500 with zero miles on the clock. The reason the A2 retains such a great resale value is that gasoline and diesel are very expensive in Denmark, and so are cars and insurance. Another thing that really kills you is the so-called “green owner’s tax.” It is 40 dollars annually for the A2. My last car, a 2001 Volvo V40 1.8, set me back 662 dollars annually just for owning it. Despite a relatively high purchasing price for such a well-used car, I think this is one of the cheaper ways to drive in comfort in Denmark, and that is alluring.
(Postscript: I had this piece ready – except for the pictures – for a while. I was hoping to catch one of these in the wild. I finally gave up and found some images online. I submitted this piece for review and in true CC effect style, I spotted the featured car the next morning.)
I’ve never seen an Audi TDI here in the USA. I’ve seen plenty of Volkswagen Diesels. But never an Audi. Why more vehicles aren’t powered by diesel is beyond me. Diesel may not be for everyone, but if built properly, it can be one of the most reliable engines to run a car, truck, SUV, van, etc.
We don’t get diesels in the US because the EPA doesn’t want us to have them. Chrysler sold minivans and Avengers in Europe that were made in the US. I tried to order one, provided my local dealer with a good code (which he confirmed) but the screen came up that I was not allowed to buy oine. I saw them being loaded onto boats at Baltimore harbor all the time. The minivans got 42 mpg and the Avenger got 56 mpg which more than makes up for the higher cost of diesel fuel.
That’s unforgivable. The so called “Environmental Protection Agency” wants us to drive fuel efficient vehicles, but they’re unable, or worse, unwilling to allow diesel powered vehicles here in the USA. I want to breathe clean air as much as most people, but the laws regarding emissions are, at best, unrealistic. It’s as if they want to eliminate every last bit of polluting exhaust before it reaches the tailpipe. That’s fine, but someone needs to find a way to reduce emissions while also providing exceptional performance and reliability, and most important, service stations everywhere to keep the engines running reliably. I think that’s why many diesel cars of the 70s and 80s didn’t last very long. They didn’t have a reliable means to service the engine.
The EPA is not about fuel efficiency or cost of ownership, they are about pollution. They don’t care if clean technology costs more in operating costs and never have.
Yes they are starting to reach too far but expecting them to care more about efficiency than pollution is misguided.
I rather thought it was buyer preference, not the EPA, that marginalized Diesel car models in America. If VW can dance to their tune, and even Chevy, then surely others can as well.
I think it’s a little of both.
What makes that worse is the disgusting junk that’s allowed to spew from the tailpipes of pickups and commercial trucks. Or, going way over the top to the perverse “Rolling Coal” fad– some folks, it seems, just didn’t get through toilet training very well. Just one of these jerks causes more pollution than a dozen compliant diesel cars. How in the world does EPA turn a blind eye to this?
Because they’re inevitably influenced by politics, lobbyists and the whims of Congress and the Administration. Maybe we’d prefer that decisions be made by impartial scientists and engineers, but that’s not the world we live in. But that’s not a reason to be anti-EPA. Somebody needs to set some basic rules and regulations, for commercial reasons as well as environmental reasons. Many of the silver-haired conservatives decrying the EPA’s “interference” owe their own lives to the regulations that helped clear the terrible urban air quality of pre-EPA America.
If that isn’t f____ up, I don’t know what is. That cars, trucks, SUVs, and vans, have to have emissions controls to reduce pollution, or even eliminate pollution. But much larger diesel powered vehicles like semi tractor trailers don’t require anything resembling emissions control. That’s wrong! 🙁
Jason, please inform yourself before you keep repeating the same erroneous comments about big diesels in the US. They very much have to meet emission standards; why do you think they all have DEF (urea) tanks now? They’re not for the drivers to piss into. 🙂
Could you please explain how the EPA doesn’t want us to have diesels, since VW and other car companies are selling so many of them here?
I think the real reason that relatively few diesels are sold here is that Americans still associate them with the slow, smelly cars of the 1970s. Mileage isn’t as much of a priority for Americans as for Europeans because gas is ridiculously cheap in the U.S. Is there some specific EPA policy that makes diesels hard to sell here?
As a European I have to tell you it’s not uncommon to see 2009 or newer diesel powered car, for example Ford Mondeo, Citroen C5 or even premium cars like BMWs with higher mileage that smokes, smells and sounds like your rolling coal pickup trucks. It’s just a case of time for diesel to start smoking, improper maintance just makes the proces quicker.
Just a random video:
Thats usually the cat doing a burn to clean itself, the major smoke event in the other video is a blown turbo and the engine is running on sump oil drawn thru the turbo oil feed line and into the intake.
The basic reason is that Euro emissions standards have separate categories for gasoline and diesel; diesel has gotten additional leeway on certain areas (such as NOx) in view of its better specific fuel consumption and thus lower CO2 emissions. The gap between diesel and petrol has gotten narrower with each successive update, but it’s still there. U.S. passenger car standards are not tiered in that way, so diesels have to meet the same NOX and HC standards as gasoline engines, which is tough (though not impossible) to do.
It’s not that the EPA has said, “Thou shalt not drive diesel,” it’s that they have not made allowances for diesel’s poorer performance in some categories of exhaust emissions.
Chrysler and Dodge diesel models in the DaimlerChrysler era:
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.2 CRD (Mercedes)
Dodge Caliber 2.0 CRD and Avenger 2.0 CRD (Volkswagen)
Chrysler 300C 3.0 CRD (Mercedes)
Chrysler Voyager 2.5 CRD, later 2.8 CRD (VM Motori)
Dodge Nitro 2.8 CRD (VM Motori)
The Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee (Liberty) also had the 4-cylinder VM Motori common rail turbo diesels, 2.5 and 2.8, as mentioned above.
The Jeep Grand Cherokee had a 3.1 liter 5-cylinder VM Motori turbo diesel, and later on the 2.7 and 3.0 CRD had Mercedes engines.
All CRD-badged models had common rail turbo diesels.
It’s unforgivable that the EPA refuses to allow diesel powered cars here in the USA. I want to be able to breathe clean air as much as anyone. But the emissions requirements imposed by the EPA are, to be putting it mildly, unrealistic.
Huh? Eugene is (sometimes loudly) crawling with diesel powered everythings.
Only the trucks were available here in the US and the Liberty that I looked at didn’t have a turbo.
Im getting in real world driving 6.2L/100kms thats in a 1.4 tonne diesel hatchback car manual trans with 370,000kms on the odometer I simply change the oil and filters every 20,000 kms and the tyres and brake pads belts etc as required it doesnt go wrong to the point of not starting and all the clever computer operated systems work as intended, an anvil is less reliable.
I think we need the diesel engine back in the usa again. The mileage is great of a diesel. On the plus side you go more miles per gallon than a gasoline engine. I would buy a diesel car.
I totally agree. I believe that Diesel can be a viable powertrain alternative for those who want more horsepower, torque, better fuel economy, and better quality. The challenge is getting the EPA to get off its lazy ass and allow for more flexibility in alternative fuels and powertrain options.
The diesel is coming back in light trucks. Colorado, Ram, Titan, etc. I’m not very impressed with what they have shown so far, other than the fuel mileage. Modern diesels are expensive to buy and to maintain and are not nearly as reliable as the diesels of old due to the required emissions technology. They have a place, but only as a niche really.
I so agree. I’ve yet to see a Toyota Tacoma, a Sequoia, or a Sienna with a diesel engine. Nor have I seen a Nissan with a diesel engine. If that isn’t screwed up, I don’t know what is.
I saw a turbo diesel Ford ranger when i was in Wales.
I remember when the Ford Ranger was sold here in the USA. Despite the disappointing reviews by car magazines, I believe some car buyers would’ve appreciated something that gets better than 20 mpgs.
I think Ford expects the Transit Connect (now Spanish-built) to pick up some of the Ranger’s slack with fleet buyers, so long as a closed cargo box is tolerable. I stopped by a dealer recently & it was $26K. TCs seem to be a success.
Rumor has it that Ford’s larger international Ranger may be offered.
I’ve seen the Transit Connect, and while it’s not the most attractive vehicle I’ve seen, it’s useful as one can hope from a mini minivan. It’s a shame though, that it’s not available in North America with a turbodiesel engine, not even as an option.
@ Pete, most likely the Ford Ranger had the 150 hp 2.2 TDCi 4-cylinder. The same engine is in the Transit Custom and Transit.
The top model, the Ranger Wildtrak, has a 200 hp 3.2 liter TDCi inline-5.
No “truth in engineering” tagline? I`m not impressed.
I find this car rather ridiculous in the way it goes to great pains for insignificant gains.
Ridiculous? Why? Because it’s ridiculous in trying? Because the Americans have already given up? Choking up on cheap fast food and gas guzzling suv:s. That’s ridiculous…
No, the A2 should be hailed for at least trying to give us another kind of future. Small cars does not have to = penalty box. Small doesn’t have to be inherently bad. Small doesn’t have to mean cheap. Small doesn’t have to be the least common denominator. Small doesn’t have to mean there’s no thought in design.
This was a small but roomy and effecient car that actually had some style. The demographic is the same for the Mini, upper-middle class urbanities with a sense of style who wants a fashionable choice, however eco-friendly in this case over mere chic.
These people pay more for less out of choice, like buying fresh produce over fast food. It’s the same kind of people who would buy an iPhone from Apple because they liked the design. It’s the same demographic that would buy a Toyota/Scion IQ over the much cheaper Toyota Aygo. Or a Prius.
I would say the only problem with this car is that it was ten or almost fifteen years too early. Perhaps if they had done a hybrid version out of it? But that sort of nullifies the weight savings…
Oh I see, since I think it’s ridiculous that must mean I’m choking on fast food and SUVs. Try again.
Take the hood. What did removing the ability to open it save? 5 pounds? Is that inconvenience really going to save the earth? Give me a break. How about the dinky tires?
Yeah, it’s nice to have a well-built small car. But there’s a point of diminishing returns and this car crossed that and then some. This is not the result of common sense or frugality, it’s the result of regulations gone amuck.
How many people do anything – ANYHTING – under the hood of their cars? Not many. The grill opens up to allow access to the fluids. If you have to go beyond that, you can remove the hood entirely – it takes effort, but does that really matter? Sure, it does not save much, but add the narrow tires, the lighter seats, the this and the that and it all adds up.
Not that I’m trying to force you to like it, but I persoanlly really like that they have thought about every little detail and gone “is there a way we could make this more efficient?”
It’s not just the weight of the springs but the weight of the structure required of the hood to not collapse when the springs hold it open. Having built a couple of race cars where weight is important, it is amazing how much structure there is in those old hoods, even a 65 Mustang.
Early MGBs had aluminum hoods, which likely helped weight distribution given its length. No wonder it was easy to lift, & didn’t need helper springs like most American cars. The tech has always been available, only manufacturing costs have put off more frequent use. And now, Ford is jumping in with both feet with the new F-150.
In an academic sense, I can appreciate and applaud the fact that Audi went to the effort of building this.
In an economic sense, I couldn’t see myself buying one either. So I understand the low sales.
For many of us, myself included, losing some weight would make more of an improvement than losing the hood mechanism. I could stand to lose 20kg, easily. But of course the bureaucrats can’t enforce that! And woe betide the automotive engineer who suggested it.
“Take the hood. What did removing the ability to open it save? 5 pounds? Is that inconvenience really going to save the earth? Give me a break.”
You’re talking about “insignificant gains” like those gains didn’t matter. Imagine living in a country where gas is three times more expensive. Imagine if it cost you a hundred and fifty bucks to fill up your car. That’s the reality Europeans live in. And that’s why every penny adds up to pounds…
Yeah it makes most people I know laugh when Americans bleat about expensive gas they really do live in an alternate reality $4 buys me nearly 2 litres of petrol however it buys nearly 4 litres of diesel which will propel my diesel hatch about 90 kms, This all Aluminium car with a small diesel is a great idea unfortunately it wasnt sold here though european diesel cars and Japanese diesel pickups are here in massive numbers the Japanese are beginning to catch up on diesel engine technology,
Ive never seen a current Ford Ranger with a gas engine and the previous model had the V6 deleted from the range as it put out so much less power than the diesel 4 Most Toyota and Nissan pickups are diesel and they go ok Toyota has fixed the bugs in its D4D engines it seems and they now offer the same reliability as others.
That’s why my people left Europe never to go back. Why put up with that BS?
Why do you need to open the hood bonnet except for oil and filter changes I open the bonnet on my Citroen only for that or when the car tells me it needs screen washer fluid all level checks are done from inside.
I agree with Phil L. In the USA this car would be pretty pointless. It would be vastly overpriced for it’s intended market(subcompact/compact) and would never sell.
You mention small cars don’t have to equal a penalty box. You are correct in this but this Audi is not one of these small cars that are not a penalty box. I googled interior pics of this car and the interior looks cheap, the seats look like the cheap seats in a US market 2008-2011 Ford Focus.
The benchmark of small cars in the USA in that time period of 01-05 was the 01-05 Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla.These were comfortable, roomy and reliable cars. This is why the Civic and Corolla are always big sellers.
Because while us Americans are choking on Fast food and big gas guzzling SUV, we expect a car to run well and not have any electrical issues. However despite the fact that Europe produced many folks that have shaped the course of electricity over the last 200 years though innovation and invention(folks like Tesla, Hertz and Volta for example) It does not seem anybody in Europe can design a car that is capable of not suffering electrical problems before it hits 100,000 miles on the odometer.
Americans expect an Audi to be a luxurious car and not a car that looks like a Dodge Caliber
“You mention small cars don’t have to equal a penalty box. You are correct in this but this Audi is not one of these small cars that are not a penalty box. I googled interior pics of this car and the interior looks cheap, the seats look like the cheap seats in a US market 2008-2011 Ford Focus.
The benchmark of small cars in the USA in that time period of 01-05 was the 01-05 Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla.These were comfortable, roomy and reliable cars. This is why the Civic and Corolla are always big sellers. ”
I disagree. But it helps seeing one in real life. These were the “fat content” years of VW and Audi. It was produced in the Neckarsulm plant, alongside tha also all-aluminum A8. And several other high end Audi and Porsche models, like the R8. It was a Halo car of sorts, call it Audis Volt.
From Wikipedia:
“Unfortunately, the cost of working with aluminium, particularly with small production runs, meant that the A2 was more expensive than other cars in its sector, competing with the A-class and losing. Much of the high production cost was due to so many parts not being “off the shelf” and being specifically optimized for the A2. From Autobild in 2003: “The A2 is not one of the models with the highest return on investment”
And I think that was why it failed. In the end, people don’t give a shit about German superiority in engineering, they want what’s chic, like the Mini or the Fiat 500. That’s why the A2 was an engineering dead end, and the de facto successor A1 looks like a Fiat 500 designed north of the Alps…
The A2 was another one of Ferdinand Piechs’ vanity projects, like the juggernaut Bugatti-project. At least he tried to instill some vorsprung durch technic into his cars, and that’s probably why they made every A2 at a loss. In any which way you see it, it’s a fine piece of engineering, and probably worth a lot more than its resale value, even fifteen years after the fact.
“That’s why the A2 was an engineering dead end, and the de facto successor A1 looks like a Fiat 500 designed north of the Alps…”
I hear your pain, Ingvar. And I feel for you. If only…..
Yep. If it looks cheap to you, then a) see one in the metal, they look good and b) remember the design is 16 years old. It was WAY ahead of its time, an experimental car, much more so than the Lupo 3L.
“It does not seem anybody in Europe can design a car that is capable of not suffering electrical problems before it hits 100,000 miles on the odometer.”
I assume you have sources to back up that claim.
Like I wrote in the text these things run way beyond 200,000 miles and are concurrently class leaders in the ADAC Pannenstatistik. I don’t see how that makes you reacch the conclusion that this car is unreliable.
One way to buy a luxury car for cheap in Denmark is to buy a second hand taxi. That means there are lots of cars on the roads here with 300,000 and 400,000 miles on them. Most of these are European brands.
Remember when upscale car makers were trying to do different things with small cars? I miss the kind of thinking that produced the A2, and it’s often felt to me like the last interesting and innovative car that Audi produced.
Of course, that’s unfair and a gross over-simplification. However, once the aggressive grille and associated styling flourishes arrived, Audi’s brand positioning altered (at least in the UK) from an understated, exceptionally well designed and built car that was the professional’s choice (an alternative to Saab, say), to a car for the sort of person who wants to run everyone else off the road. This sort of thing… (spoof ad by Sniff Petrol)
Calm down guys. I’m also from Europe and I’m pretty sure you better stick with petrol engines in the land of freedom.
First, you should read again what the author said – 662 dollars a year in tax just for owning 1.8 petrol. That’s mad! Owning a 20 year old car with bigger engine, which in Europe means something like 2.0-2.5 capacity costs more than the value of a car in the tax alone. Don’t even try to imagine how much would it cost to drive something like V8 powered W140 S-Class or E38 BMW.
The only reason why we drive small economy cars with tiny diesel and petrol engines is because we cannot afford to drive something bigger. In US the cheapest Ford – the Fiesta comes standard with a 120hp 1.6. In Europe we get 60hp 1.25. That’s said – it’s a pretty good engine. Way better than the latest offerings from other manufacturers. Fiat for instance offers 500L Living – a 7-seat MPV with 105hp 875 cc 2-cylinder turbocharged petrol engine. Just imagine that… And now the diesel engines: sure, they are very economical, but the costs of the ownership are insane. Turbochargers, dual mass flywheels, injectors and diesel particulate filters – they’re all prone to fail, especially when driven on short distances in a high powered small capacity diesel like Renault’s 130hp 1.6 dCi. That’s why now many people are actually going back to a simple smaller capacity naturally aspirated petrol engines. That means driving something like 60-82 hp 999 cc 3-cylinder car. We’d rather have a 6.2 V8 Tahoe or a 3.5 V6 Explorer instead.
I recall an author saying this yrs. ago, that Europeans would drive Yank Tanks if they could afford to own them & didn’t drive in cities with medieval town plans; virtue has little to do with it. The forced CAFE extinction of Yank Tanks seemed to result in American buyers purchasing even larger trucks & SUVs, despite the ostensibly greater concern over environmentalism.
Punitive vehicle & fuel taxes long predate Carbonphobia; they just happened to play into it.
Re the Fiesta, it seems little has changed since ’79 in this respect, when the US model offered only the 1.6L Kent, while in Europe the .9, 1.1 & 1.3L were more typical & sufficed there. I remember this since I came close to buying one.
I agree wih Lukasz. I lived in Europe for several years and every time I wanted to buy a car it was the same: I had to be very careful to select a car large enough to fit my family within my budget for running costs (insurance, taxes, fuel, etc.). Purchase price wasn’t an issue for an used car. It’s not only the taxes and insurance, (regular) fuel costs are also completely different!
– Germany 1,35EUR/l = 5,85 USD/gal
– UK ~ 6,6USD/gal
– US 2,63 USD/gal (according to http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)
That’s a huge difference and if you add engine displacement taxes, power related insurance costs etc., it can become almost impossible to have a car with more than, say, 1.8l and 100kW.
The increasing complexity of these small cars also scares me, especially the diesel powered ones. If I lived there and I would have to buy a new car I’d probably take a japanese car with a naturally aspirated gas engine (perhaps Mazda, Suzuki or Honda), with a manual transmission and timing chain.
Actually now it went even further and there aren’t many petrol engines like 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9 on the market. I only recall VAG’s 1.8 TSI and Honda’s 1.8 i-VTEC, but those engines are on the market since long time. With new models manufacturers go with up to 1.6 “normal” engines and then you get something like 2.0 performance model, which sells in very limited numbers – you should remember that. Very few people buy performance models. Latest performance models are going 1.6 as well, see new Peugeot 308 GTi with up to 270hp from 1.6 Turbo. All engines are turbocharged of course to meet EU emission standards. Mazda is the only brand to stick with bigger capacity and n/a, with their new 155hp 2.0 SKYACTIV-G.
It’s also worth mentioning that a car you know as Ford Fusion, basic engine 2.5 I4 175hp is sold here as Ford Mondeo and I’m not joking – basic engine 1.0 I3 Ecoboost 125hp.
Łukasz, thank you for mentioning the base Mondeo engine. 125hp isn’t bad for a base model, especially from a one litre triple. But having spent years in an old Suzuki Swift with a one litre triple – I hope Ford spent up big on the NVH engineering!
I can honestly say I have no interest in a Tahoe or Explorer.
Cars which handle well are truly enjoyable where I live, thanks to the type of roads we have. It isn’t just a matter of Hummers being too wide to squeeze down medieval city streets, and it isn’t just a matter of taxes pricing people out of larger cars, although I agree that if fuel was cheaper there would be fewer tiny cars on the roads.
One point I would make is that there is often an assumption that car taxes are the same in all European countries, but they’re not. In the UK, fuel price is the killer, but still not as unaffordable as some people suggest. The only other tax is “road tax” which isn’t a big deal. Our family car is Fiesta-sized, because my American wife decreed that she didn’t want anything too big, and she is the main driver.
Europeans (or Brits anyway) with a taste for American cars also tend to be the type to get worked up about taxes.
I don’t care for big barges either, for I prize agility & economy, but the penalty here for believing in “Bigger is Better” has always been low except during crises, which Americans quickly forget.
Example: My father, who before 1975 had a big-block Country Squire, then panicked & got 2 Honda Civics, then went to Cadillac in the late ’70s. His last was a Town Car since Caddy dumped RWD.
Streamlining the underside is an important point, for the same air passes under the car as over, unless there’s some sort of trick boundary layer mitigation. This may explain different MPG figures between otherwise similar cars, for the underside can be an aerodynamic nightmare if not addressed.
I think big Citroëns had this, and the VW Beetle sort of by accident due to its “Austrian School” chassis.
80 mpg and lots of creature comforts. Without hybrid technology. Impressive. Of course, not allowed in the US. Interesting the weight is still higher than an all steel 1st gen VW Rabbit.
But what car would you rather crash in? The reason a first gen Rabbit weighs that little is that it is made out of tin foil…
Undoubtedly the Mk1 Golf is less safe than now, but not because it was flimsy, but because of improvements since then like airbags & more sophisticated structural design. Actually, I recall a VW salesman yrs. ago boasting of the Mk2 Golf using thicker-gauge steel than competitors. Even if he was fibbing, it seemed plausible.
I actually was in a 35 mph collision driving my ’77 Rabbit with a ’63 Dodge pickup that ran a stop sign The Rabbit folded up almost to the windshield as designed and the seatbelt kept me in the seat and away from the windshield. Both doors still opened normally. Both vehicles were totaled, we both walked away unharmed. Crush zones and strong cage construction were built into the 1st gen Golf/Rabbit. I was going 50 when I saw he was not slowing down, and watched the speedometer reading hoping to be below 30 before impact.
That’s why I’ve always liked first gen VW Golfs (Rabbit).
I would probably still be driving it today if not for the accident. The accident happened in ’91 and the ’86 Jetta I replaced it with that year is still being driven by me today. I do like the fact that this car has AC, which the Rabbit didn’t have. Rabbit was more fun to drive, though.
I’m puzzled by the statement that a car like this is “not allowed in the U.S.” How so?
Safety and emission regulations that are US specific.
I’m not against safety. Anyone who drives a vehicle should insist on safe driving practices and behaviours. But sometimes I wonder which country (or countries) in the world have the strictest safety standards for motor vehicles.
I don’t think safety was necessarily part of it. I’d think that EU safety standards are probably just as high as the US standards, if not higher. Emissions standards might or might not have had anything to do with it–even if it’s harder for diesels to meet some of the standards here, one would think a little 1.2 would probably be fairly clean just by virtue of its size.
The main reason we didn’t get this car in the USA is that it wouldn’t have sold, so why bother to go through the enormous expense of certification and marketing? If a premium car of this size didn’t even sell well in Europe, it would have totally flopped here. Witness the lack of Lexus CT250h on the roads, and that one is a class bigger, though similar in concept. (Essentially a Lexus Prius.) Same reason we don’t get the A-class Benz, or the 5-door BMW 1-series, or the current Audi A1. Americans, by and large, won’t pay premium money for a compact or subcompact car.
Cars like this furthered car development and are an hommage to engineering. Limitations, be they tax related or otherwise, forced Japanese and European car manufacturers to look further, to redesign and to be truly innovative, which rendered them eventually more competetive and technologically advanced than the US manufacturers who stuck to lazily producing roadgoing dinosaurs for the domestic (US) market. No wonder that no US cars are being sold overseas.
“no US cars are being sold overseas”
Crown Vics were popular in the Mideast (obviously no worries about size or fuel economy), & check out Ford & Chevy’s Korean webpages. The Corvette & Mustang have been & are offered in Europe, & some SUVs like Jeeps have been sold there. There are probably other examples.
I will concede, however, that Detroit is not export-driven; that’s why they have foreign subsidiaries.
Yeah, I think your last sentence pretty much sums it up. The US brands make stuff designed for the US market, whereas the European brands target Europeans. A few companies own all the brands, so it’s not like GM cannot build a car Europeans will buy, it’s just a different one from the one they sell in North America.
The Corvette and Mustang are curiosities in Europe. They sell to a tiny market of people who actually want an American-style GT car, and I’m thinking those people are decidedly not the typical European.
The Middle East doesn’t count. Gas is just about free there.
If the above post said “few US cars,” then that would be pertinent. But it said “no.” It’s safer to say “many,” “some,” or “few,” rather than “all” or “no.”
Probably the last time Audi built an intelligent car, a car more French in philosophy then Germanic, but built by Germans, absolutely rock-solid.
I know two wheeler dealers both driving an A2 Diesel and have been for years !
These guys drive the best worst and most exclusive cars.
Today I am amazed how little we learned, gone are the days when the common rail diesel was developed, the TDI Diesel was loved, now it is either downsizing and trying to squeeze blood from a tiny 1.2 twin-cylinder with 87 Turbo’s while in my world Diesel still has the advantage because a Diesel is more efficient.
I see many people driving these tiny twin-cylinder scrreming down the road, making 120000 revs to make the thing go.
Once, once we were clever, people like Renault fiited a 1.4 liter into the Renault 5 with a tiny carburettor, this car was called GTL, more cc’s, less fuel because the engine did not have a very heavy job pulling a Renault 5 around.
I am surprised Audi didn’t at least give this a try in the USA. Many rich people buy Prius to be eco, and so that people know they are being eco. This has a recognizable shape and with the tag line, 50% better than Prius economy. Make the inside look more like an American Audi but with synthetic vegan friendly pleather. It could have worked. Thanks Mads for the writeup on a car I have never seen.
Rich people buy Teslas; the Prius is mainstream now, even taxi companies use them. Its MSRP is in Accord/Camry territory. These days, with modest gas prices, you can probably get a good deal. BTW, leather can be had in one of the higher trim levels.
This car is from the early 2000s when the Prius was a hot ticket in high circles. At the time, the normal looking Civic Hybrid was no where near as successful.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to today because you were using Present Tense in places.
I got a Civic LX instead of a Hybrid, as the economy gain wasn’t enough to cancel the price penalty, plus it was less fun to drive. And you can’t carry a 10′ long item inside. Even the Prius at that time would take too long to amortize. I’m not a big fan of driving the Prius, though the economy sure is tempting, esp. if I had to live in CA.
My wife has a Prius C the smaller one. To someone used to luxury dealers, the Toyota dealership experience can be difficult to suffer through. I think an Audi alternative might have had a shot. Sometimes trying something off the wall can work out surprisingly well. Mads told us how low the volumes on this model were. Almost really a technological test. Wasn’t that how the Prius started and how the Volt is still trying evolve from.
Taking a chance on a hunch could have worked. Especially if the eco buyers don’t think about particulate emissions.
Note that the number cited is only that of the 3L A2s. Most came with a different engine (mostly the 1.4 TDI or the petrol engines), so the total nr of A2s is a bit higher. Still hardly a common car.
I think a limitation of this versus a Prius or other hybrid is that even if Audi had federalized the A2, I don’t think it would have been eligible for a lot of the incentives and bennies available to hybrid and electric vehicles. That’s a major criticism (and I think a valid one) of consumer and manufacturer incentives aimed at promoting alternative power: You may end up favoring hybrid luxury cars or crossovers that are still relatively thirsty over smaller, simpler, but more frugal conventionally powered vehicles.
That is why if I had to choose, I’d prefer simply raising fuel taxes over regulatory market manipulation like CAFE & e-vehicle subsidies. Let customers decide based on their needs; we’re constantly told, correctly, that people are “diverse,” so why think that one type fits all?
Why not raise taxes on gasoline and leave diesel prices as they currently are?
Try as I might, I’ve never been a fan of the Toyota Prius. I liked the first generation Prius, with its sedan body styling, but the second gen version, I just didn’t like. I got to ride in a couple of them, and they’re comfortable enough for four adults. But its appearance, particularly its front end, is hideous! 🙁
I’m thinking the aluminium-intensive construction would have made it impossible for Audi to sell at a profit, unless they priced it beyond what most folk would think a small Audi should sell for. Great as an engineering halo car, but a marketing headache when it’s the bottom of your range.
Nobody’s mentioned yet just how wrong those brougham-looking wheelcovers look on that car.
And they are – of course – designed like that to reduce drag.
Aerodynamics is a strange, sometimes counterintuitive science. The US-market W126 (S-class) had sealed-beams at first, & contrary to what one might think, it was found that they cost nothing in drag compared to the less dorky-looking (and more expensive to replace) European types.
Other aero weirdness: Boundary Layer (inlets for P-51, F4, F-16), Area Rule, & chines.
I’ve always found the North American style headlamps more attractive on the W123 and W126 Mercedes-Benz than the European headlamps.
Probably a minority opinion there, but that’s OK as I have a minority opinion on lots of things. I miss sealed-beams, not for beauty, but cost, & that they’re made of fade-proof glass, not polycarbonate. This is probably why they’re often used on fleet-model trucks.
I like the concept of the A2 in some respects, but I don’t care for the looks at all — it ends up looking like an MPV that shrank in the wash — and I’d be leery of the aluminum construction, particularly in what’s intended to be a city car, because of the repair costs involved. (I also recognize that there are serious questions one could ask about the logic of adopting aluminum, which is enormously energy-intensive to produce, for the purposes of saving energy, although going too far down the road into “shouting matches about total life cycle energy consumption” is not especially appetizing.)
The Lupo, by comparison, is at least adorable. I’ve always had a certain fondness for the Lupo GTI, although looking at how much they cost it wasn’t hard to see why they never sold very well. It looks like an excitable puppy.
Many of them are scrapped in case of damage exactly because of the cost involved in repairing the aluminium body – economically totalled.
I remember reading somewhere (probably the UK magazine Car), back in the days when the A2 hadn’t come onto the market yet, that there were plans to lock the hood down with a key/tool that would only be given to dealerships, so that the owner of the car could not work on the engine even if they wanted to. The only owner access would be to the panel that allows one to fill the fluids. Was this pre-production inaccuracy, I assume? Or perhaps misinformation based on the fact that the hood can only be removed rather than raised on hinges?
admittedly, automotive choices in the u.s. tend towards the piggish but there are reasons why cars like this audi are not available here. i believe our emission standards vary by state so unless a diesel engine is super clean, it will not be available in all states. also, diesel is not available at most gas stations. from a purely economic point of view, european buying habits don’t seem very sensible to me. $10k for a second hand audi city car? and the extra tax for buying a volvo over this audi is nothing compared to the utility between the cars. i wouldn’t want to drive my family with luggage for a week at highway speed in the audi especially if there were trucks on the same road. we can buy a well equipped new kia forte for about $18k here. it gets real world mileage above 30 mpg. i think it comes down to the fact that the government policies create very different choices in different places.
maybe i am comparing apples and oranges in my above post. i don’t know what the price differential in denmark is but i would think you are way better off with a used german, japanese or korean 4 door hatchback (e.g. golf) with a 1.8 liter engine. nice second hand models start at around $5k here. at our gas prices, it would only cost a few hundred dollars a year extra to drive vs. a hyper-efficient city car. even american made turbo fours (chevy cruz, ford fusion, chrysler 200) do about 30 mpg on the highway and 25 in town. i applaud your country’s green efforts but they come at a cost.
For 5k you get an 8-10 years old, decent Focus or Golf with 120,000-ish miles on it. And as mentioned in reply to your other post, the ownership tax is huge on older cars due to their poorer mileage.
I hope you find it interesting to read these comparisons. They are not meant to be an argument. The intention is more to give you a look at how we live over here.
You say our green policy comes at a cost. What do you mean by that?
As an aside, I’m working on some articles on Danish-built cars, you can probably guess what type of cars most of those are.
thank you for the detailed replies. i should have done some research before i posted the seat of my pants cost estimates. i just looked at prices for used vw’s and hondas on ebay. used car prices have gone up a lot in the last few years. also, i’m sorry for coming off as argumentative. i’m actually fascinated by the differences between our two countries.
the cost of european green policies to which i am referring to can be seen in the price difference between the ford focus in our countries. though not specifically caused by a “green tax,” it is the result of government policy. i am sure ford’s profit margin isn’t tens of thousands of dollars higher per car in denmark. the difference is because of exchange rate manipulation and various taxes and regulations. your government policies have made choosing a tiny over engineered car logical.
anybody with a steady job here can get a loan for decent car and put cheap gas in it. the price our government had decided to pay for that is perpetual war in the middle east, oil spills and polluted groundwater from fracking. so we are paying a cost, too.
Actually, cars are typically sold cheaper here than in our neighbor countries, Germany and Sweden. The car taxes here are so high that in order to sell cars at all, manufacturers have to sell the cars cheaper. It used to be that the car tax was 180 percent, and now it varies between (IIRC) 120 and 180 depending on how “green” the car is. Yes that means 18,000 USD of a 28,000 USD car are taxes. Eletric cars are tax exempt so I see Teslas every day.
I forgot to mention that while it makes sense to make cars available to everyone in the US due to the lack of public transport, long commuting distances and city planning, in Denmark it for the most part does not. In Copenhagen, where I live, you do not need a car at all. Public transport will take you anywhere anytime, so at least here there is good reason not to urge people to buy cars.
I get what you mean by “your government policies have made choosing a tiny over engineered car logical.” But there are also benefits to being so invested in green tech. We are among the world leaders in several areas of green tech and that creates jobs and attracts investments and highly educated labor, which is obviously what we need since the cost of living means we are not competitve in the production sector.
And I appreciate you take on this. So definitely no hard feelings – quite the contrary.
Btw, this is how a LOT of people in Copenhagen transport their families and do their grocery shopping.
This particular verion has an electric motor that eases the pedaling (battery visible under the luggage rack behind the seat). Most do not have these electric engines.
Nice picture Mads. Are those helmets legally required ? I see them here more and more, but the most common way is still like below. The youngest kid in the front seat, and the older in the rear seat. And mom or dad as the chauffeur. And powertrain.
i live in new york city which many americans describe as an island of crazy people just off the east coast. in many ways our lifestyle is more like europe than it is the rest of the country.
i sold my volvo about two years ago because the parking fees ($425/mo) were killing me. i now use an hourly car share / rental service (zipcar) about 4 times a month. the cars are available at parking garages on almost every block here. it’s not cheap but it is shockingly convenient. everything is done via web or smartphone and the system is very well run.
bikes are also gaining in popularity here but we are still way behind europe. helmets are required for anyone under 16 on bikes or skooters. dutch cargo bikes are popular in my neighborhood. our dog sitter uses one to pick up our pooch.
sorry, i can’t resist another cute shot…
A cute little dog in a basket, riding with the owner, a common sight here. A Rottweiler is a bit too much, I guess.
You can also haul your kid on a semi-trailer.
I see both of those setups here as well. Helmets are not required for anyone but I cannot recall seeing a kid without one. Typically parents wear them as well. Young people without kids wear them sometimes. I started wearing one when I had a kid. It was getting ever harder to justify not wearing one.
Interesting about the NYC system, safe as milk. Car sharing operations are getting ever more popular here as well. There are also a couple of sites that facilitate private car rental where car owners let other people rent their cars when available. I have used that around ten times. Fantastic system. Everybody wins.
Fun story about helmets: I did a semester in Alabama and while I love that place, their take on transportation is that you either drive a truck or you pretty much suck. One of my fellow graduate students rode his bike to school every morning and wore a helmet. His reasoning was not that he was afraid to get in an accident, rather he used it to protect himself from stuff kids in trucks would throw at him. Quite a different mentality than what I was used to.
I guess the equivalent of the Kia Forte would be the Kia Cee’d here. They start at 34,000 USD.
If we compare identical cars, the base Ford Focus in the US is 17,170 USD that is with a 2.0 liter 160 hp engine.
The largest engine we get is a 1.5. If we go for the 150 hp version of that (base is 100 hp) it will cost you 39.097 USD, that’s more than twice the price of a similar car in the US. Some of that difference has to do with different costs of living and corresponding salaries, but far from all of it.
So in Denmark there is a clear advantage in buying a small, economical car – especially if you buy one that’s just a couple of years old due to the ownership tax, which is calculated from the mileage (the so-called euro-mix which combines city, country roads and highway driving), which for the US Focus would be 524 USD annually (if we go by the generous highway mileage – calculated by city mileage it would cost 888 USD) just for having your car parked (insurance comes on top of that). The European version is 182 USD. The Audi is 40 USD annually.
Regarding safety, both my 2001 V40 and the A2 have 4-star EURO NCAP ratings, so I don’t think there’s too much difference there.
TL;DR
160 hp Focus in the US
Purchase price: 17,170 USD
Ownership tax if in Denmark: between 524 and 888 USD
150 hp Focus in Denmark
Purchase price: 39,097 USD
Ownership tax: 182 USD
Audi A2
Purchase price: circa 10,000 USD
Ownership tax: 40 USD
Oh, and:
US gasoline: 2.64 USD/gallon
DK gasoline: 5.85 USD/gallon
US diesel: 2.56 USD/gallon
DK diesel: 4.89 USD/gallon
So there are benefits to buying the most fuel efficient car you can find, and there are added benefits to buying a diesel which may cancel out the higher maintenance costs if you drive far enough.
Thanks for quantifying it like this. I now see the case for the used A2 much better.
That’s a huge price spread between Diesel & Benzin, little wonder Europeans buy the former. Any reason why? Diesel vs. gas can be anywhere from parity to about 60¢ where I live.
BTW, US prices may vary a lot depending on state and even locality. For example, prices in Flagstaff, AZ are higher than in Tucson despite having the same tax regime. I understand formulation varies, which probably affects refining costs. So maybe Flagstaff needs special stuff for their higher altitude.
Interesting car, the A2. I remember renting one back in 2002, a 1.4 TDI 75 bhp; pretty it wasn´t, but surprisingly peppy and very easy on fuel. It could reach (and mantain) easily 170 km/h in the motorway, and mileage was still very good.
Built quality was phenomenal and the bonnet was very light and easy to remove if you like to tinker a bit on your car. Ride was a bit on the hard side, but I suppose that´s a necessity in a tall, narrow car.
Mads Jensen, if you want to buy one on the cheap, come to Spain. You can find them for 3000-4000 euros, with climate control.
On the other hand, I think that the “EPA veto” to diesel cars in USA is a blessing for you. Modern diesels are hard to keep in good condition, thanks to turbos, EGRs, particles filters and so on. Nowadays if you want to buy a reliable car you buy a petrol one. I wish we could afford american V8s.
Thanks for the first-hand impression. Nice to hear you liked it. I have never driven one myself, so this is valuable to me.
Thanks for the suggestion about getting one from Spain. It might be worth it, but I imagine the Danish import taxes I would have to pay would cancel out most of the benefits from importing one.
I liked it, a lot. Perhaps it´s not a car to lust over, but it´s practical, reliable (a novelty for an Audi), has brisk real-world performance, its size is perfect for city (ab)use and that fuel indicator gauge seemed to be on “full” forever…
After a weekend of driving it like a rent-a-car deserves (you know…) I filled the tank before returning the A2 to Europcar and fuel economy was a bit under 6 litres/100 kms.
Ride was a bit hard, and it leaned in bends, but the A2 felt stable enough and after all it´s not a sports car. Not specially fun to drive, but it´s a great all rounder, and if interior space isn´t a priority (although two people can travel in the back), it could be all the car one can need. Oh well, just now I´m searching for A2s in the classifieds…
Thanks for this look at a car I’ve always been very fond of from across the pond. I read about it in depth on the pages of auto, motor und sport, and it would have been high on my wish list if I lived i Europe.
I realize it’s a car many Americans may have a hard time relating to, but having just come back from Europe and navigated the narrow streets and parking garages in the towns, especially the ones in Italy, which are absurdly tight, this car really makes more sense in that context than in the US.
True, but an irony is, Mexico gets baby VWs like Gol & Polo despite having more “New World” conditions. I sometimes see these in Tucson. Reasons may include looser safety standards, lower-income buyers, & local manufacturing. Pemex pump prices are close to American, so it can’t be that.
Ref: http://www.vw.com.mx/es/models.html
^^^Yep. I can certainly appreciate it in this context and from a technical point of view. But then again, Europe’s always been one of those places I’d love to visit but I’d never want to live there.
Having owned this very model since 2002 and put over 234,000 miles on it I can tell you it is incredibly well built and capable of averaging 66 mpg (imp) at 90 mph where allowed (on the autobahn).
I’ve taken it around Castle Combe race track with a Lotus race instructor and he was very impressed with the handling – despite 145 section tyres!
I drove the Honda Insight mk1 in the States – the A2 is much more practical – genuine 4 x 6 foot adults can sit in it and take a decent amount of luggage – not like modern SUVs and Crossover overweight machines.
The rear seats are removable like suitcases so it becomes a mini van for transporting washing machines / guitar amps, even 2 seater sofa.
The hood is Ally – it’s very easy to take off for servicing but not necessary for top ups of oil/water/washer fluid.
In the UK it’s Zero road tax due 81g/km CO2. NOx is also low (Euro 5 standard back in 2000 !).
The A2 was poorly marketed by Audi. Winterkorn came in and killed off the program in favour of Q7 SUVs and A7s. Now he lost his job over VW diesel gate.
More info on how A2 compares to BMW i3 here:
http://bmwi3.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/an-aerospace-engineer-from-uk-compares.html
Here’s some extreme aeromodding of an a2 in Finland:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.702332863113935.1073741827.163711023642791&type=3
I have been intrigued by the A2 since I first read about it. It is unfortunate that it did not have any real successors. The idea of having to use a wrench to remove the hood is very clever. When you open the hood on most cars these days you are greeted by a huge plastic cover. If you want to do more than check the oil or add washer fluid you would have to remove the shroud. Why not just take the A2 approach? It must be marketing.
Modern Diesels, especially in the U.S. lost their edge in both durability/longevity and fuel economy due to the extraordinary pollution gear required. Tier 4 Final engines are extremely complex and difficult to maintain, and the emissions gain over Tier 3 was negligible. Attesting to this phenomenon is the high price being paid by farm or private users for pre-emission class 7 and 8 trucks, versus buying a newer emission controlled vehicle for a comparable price, and the glaring fact that most commercial light truck users have made the wholesale switch back to gasoline power, leaving what appears to me to be the “macho” private owners selecting Diesels to pull their toy-haulers, fifth-wheel campers and horse trailers as the typical buyers these days. The commercial users who analyze cost-per-mile know what they’re doing when they choose gasoline powered vehicles that are less expensive to purchase and repair, burn less expensive fuel (whose cost is not artificially inflated), are less likely to have catastrophic failures, and don’t give away much in the power and drivability arenas. If you had told me prophetically fifteen years ago how the Diesel/gasoline situation would play out, I’d have said you were crazy! I had Diesel one ton farm trucks of 80’s and 90’s vintage, but when they became unroadworthy due to rust and were relegated to off-road use, gasoline power became my only reasonable choice. In many ways, an unfortunate outcome for those who value practicality.