[Closed] Are we at the petrol/diesel tipping point for car manufacturers?

I've just found 4,000 petrol estates on Autotrader, which is much fewer than the 24,000 diesels, but still quite a lot.

Here's a nice, sensible petrol Passat estate....

Loads of those are diesel (from that link)

oafishb

Loads of those are diesel (from that link)

Filter by fuel type = petrol and there's 4075 results.

oafishb - Member

I dont think they made Passat's with petrol engines in recent years. I had a 2.0tdi through work long term and thought it was excellent.

Yeah exactly! So here's the thing: WHEN are they going to start putting petrol engines in for the UK? Surely it's easy just to smash in a 2.0 TSI thingy into it? And the same for all the other manufacturers.

They made a petrol Passat, they just didn't offer them for sale in the uk, although there were other VAG alternatives with petrol engines. I've been saying it for ages but if the government just cut fuel duty on petrol we could have had access to all of the various petrol engines offered by manufacterers the world over.

The government legislated and taxed their way into a hole, and now manufacturers have to come up with work-arounds so they can legislate their way back out the hole.

Even this is skewed as manufacturers make fleet cars and non-fleet cars. So even though the engine may be the same a fleet car will be designed to last longer and hold resale.

Source for this?

We get cars from the Government fleet purchase which is pretty large. They're the same cars as the ones in the dealerships, just mostly silver.

Loads of those are diesel (from that link)

Sorry, link now updated, but as jimjam says, that was for ~29,000 cars, 24k diesels, 4k petrols and a few hybrids/lpg etc.

I'm holding out for a turbo petrol (VW TSI or Ford EcoBoost) but the lack of cars for sale is miniscule.

These offer more power than their traditional counterparts, especially torque, and similar MPGs for the output.

For instance a 1.6 ltr Focus will produce about 115 - 123bhp and a measly 117 ft/lb torque (don't quote me) and £130 tax.

You can get a 1 ltr ecoboost that will procude 125 bhp, more torque and better mpg and £30 tax.

Alternatively the 1.6 ltr ecoboost produces 148 bhp, similar torque to the diesels, same tax as the standard 1.6 focus and similar mpg, but a lot more fun.

oafishb - Member
I dont think they made Passat's with petrol engines in recent years. I had a 2.0tdi through work long term and thought it was excellent.
Yeah exactly! So here's the thing: WHEN are they going to start putting petrol engines in for the UK? Surely it's easy just to smash in a 2.0 TSI thingy into it? And the same for all the other manufacturers.

There has never not been a petrol Passat on sale, if you buy new. The latest ones have the 1.4TSI engine and a Hybrid version based on the Golf GTE.

The last model had everything from a 1.6 to a 3.6 petrol.

Passat is a company car mainstay and diesels are still a lot cheaper on company car tax than petrols.

It's not that they didn't exist, it's just very few people bought them new, or more accurately no fleet managers or company car drivers ordered them because they cost more personally and the stigma of diesel was long gone.

That's why they're not on the second hand market.

The tipping point for NEW cars has passed, but only in the last year or so, if you're buying 5 year old cars or whatever, you'll have to wait until they filter though - it sounds obvious, but you can only buy second-hand what someone else bought new and there were very very few brave souls who bought petrol cars in from 2000 to 2015.

P-Jay - Member

There has never not been a petrol Passat on sale, if you buy new.

That's not correct. When VW launched the B8 Passat range there were no petrol options available for sale in the UK. They introduced a 1.4 tsi petrol over a year later (maybe two).

jimjam - Member
P-Jay - Member
There has never not been a petrol Passat on sale, if you buy new.

That's not correct. When VW launched the B8 Passat range there were no petrol options available for sale in the UK. They introduced a 1.4 tsi petrol over a year later (maybe two).

I won't argue over it because I'm not sure - but I think it launched with the 1.6 and 2.0 FSI petrol engines (and possibly the 3.2 but maybe not) from the old one and replaced those with the 1.4TSI later on.

EDIT: there's a small pile of 1.6 and 2.0 55 plate Passats on Autotrader, the 05 plate ones are the older model.

I've just found 4,000 petrol estates on Autotrader, which is much fewer than the 24,000 diesels, but still quite a lot.

Here's a nice, sensible petrol Passat estate....

passatt is exactly the example i was thinking of.

My numbers are out (was from memory). but filter by petrol estates. lots of old ones <3k. lots of new ones >20k. a handful in the inbetween bracket. half of which are r36/w8 not exactly practical family cars.

Source for this?

We get cars from the Government fleet purchase which is pretty large. They're the same cars as the ones in the dealerships, just mostly silver.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently .. what I meant is that the manufacturers have specific models which are intended as low maintenance and high milage cars. It's not exclusive .. of course the government or any other fleet can buy a Fiesta or a Civic but [b]in general[/b] they buy Mondeo's and Accords. If I'm doing 50k a year and need a service every 10,000 vs 12,500 that makes a lot of difference to a company (not only the cost of service but loss of productivity)

Equally the road tax and other taxes all make a big difference to a fleet (unless I suppose it is government) ... its hardly secret or rocket science... if companies provide a car for high milage they prefer ones that cost the least overall (hence why most local councils do their own MOT's - its not simply the cost of the MOT but taking a vehicle off the road)

They made a petrol Passat, they just didn't offer them for sale in the uk, although there were other VAG alternatives with petrol engines. I've been saying it for ages but if the government just cut fuel duty on petrol we could have had access to all of the various petrol engines offered by manufacterers the world over.

The government legislated and taxed their way into a hole, and now manufacturers have to come up with work-arounds so they can legislate their way back out the hole.

I don't want a petrol engine personally... the amount of driving I do that isn't on motorways or dual carriage ways is minimal... locally I take a bike...

However I agree that the whole mess is the way the government taxed and legislated themselves into this... and now it seems they will tax and legislate themselves into the next mess...

The last tax and legislation mess was million scrapping perfectly good petrol cars to buy diesels to do 10 miles a day... result is NoX in towns and cities... now the knee-jerk reaction is to go completely in the other direction ... the result will be more pollution in terms of CO2 and CO .. (which causes different pollution)

The whole idea of actually making meaningful figures available to consumers seems the only thing they won't do????

Make emissions part of the MOT and subject to roadside checks and the problem is fixed.

That wont happen because the overall pollution levels are worked back theoretically to their source. Hence the present conclusion that only a small proportion of pollution comes from cars.

Change to actual testing and the truth that cars produce the vast majority of pollution becomes obvious and councils/governments have to act against the very people who pay them.

Better to fudge it until we are on electric.

The Diesel obession is somewhat of a European phenomenon. Not the same in the US, Japan or elsewhere in Asia or Middle East. We have been dreadfully mislead about Diesel pollution wise and people are hooked now on the fuel economy.

OP the new Micra looks nice, saw one today for the first time. Follows the trend of small cars getting bigger

The Diesel obession is somewhat of a European phenomenon. Not the same in the US, Japan or elsewhere in Asia or Middle East. We have been dreadfully mislead about Diesel pollution wise and people are hooked now on the fuel economy.

Not exactly. It's long been known that diesels produce much more NOx. And that is the reason they aren't popular in North America. Most Americans don't give a crap about pollution, but the EPA, in an attempt to reduce smog in hot places, placed strict restrictions on NOx. So the cars couldn't be sold after 1997 as the limits were too low.

We were encouraged to buy diesel not as some kind of huge scam, but because they really do use less fuel and emit less CO2. This is important. It's only in the last few years that people have started to measure NOx in cities (and that traffic levels have risen enough) that we've noticed it's a problem.

However the manufacturers have started to address this with SCR, meaning the use of Ad Blue etc to reduce NOx. This really does work, but no-one seems to be talking about that, instead just shouting 'petrol good, diesel bad' over and over again. Likewise, there is some suggestion that small turbo petrols actually produce lots of NOx too. So it's not as simple as you make out Jambalaya.

[url= http://equaindex.com/equa-air-quality-index/ ]Here[/url] is a list of cars independently tested for NOx emissions. Annoyingly it doesn't give actual numbers, but there are diesels in their top category A alongside petrols. So that would suggest that SCR/AdBlue does actually work.

Understood molgrips but it has been a scam imo. I got sucked in and bought a 2.7tdi back in 2007 but I wouod not again. I am trying to buy a used car and it's really hard to find something 5 years old as a Petrol and many of those have (imo) stupid small capacity turbos. It's time for the diesel road tax give away to end.

Understood molgrips but it has been a scam imo. I got sucked in and bought a 2.7tdi back in 2007 but I wouod not again.

I don't think you do quite understand. There HAS been a scam, yes, relating to certain cars. But not all. And not all polluting cars are diesel.

From what I can tell, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) does work and greatly reduces NOx whilst still giving good fuel economy.

I thought it Particulates rather than NOx that made diesel worse than petrol?

Fascinating reading, Molgrips. The latest Euro 6 Fiat 500X is in the worst category but some much older Euro 5 diesels get into the best categories. What is clear is that petrol engines are generally A or B.

We were encouraged to buy diesel not as some kind of huge scam, but because they really do use less fuel and emit less CO2.

Exactly.

Diesel are a 'local' problem, but globally they help reduce global warming. So crudely we have a choice: The Maldives and Bangladesh under water or a few extra asthmatics,children and baby robins having a shorter life expectancy 😕

I thought it Particulates rather than NOx that made diesel worse than petrol?

Hence we have particulate filters. I think I also saw somewhere that the NOX emissions of petrol cars are increasing due to the leaner burn of modern engines?

Particle filters don't stop the finest particles which are the ones that get deepest into the lungs and are the biggest health risk.

Here's a nice, sensible petrol Passat estate....

3.6L 100k on the clock, not a sensible car but I think you knew that 🙂 We need to get back to 2l petrol fuel injected family cars

Diesel has been a scam, it needs to be tested on the road and cars at 5, 10 & 15 years old. I don't believe they "age" well in terms of emissions. The DPFs where a scam too, have friends fleeced for £1000's who bought Diesels who only drive on a motorway once every few months, manufacturers sold vehicles not fit for purpose.

Just read something interesting on Handelsblatt about how much of a mess Audi are in. German manufacturers put nearly all their eggs in the Diesel basket.

The DPFs where a scam too,

I don't see this as a scam. The VMs were told to comply with a certain EU directed emissions standard - so they fitted DPFs to get the particulates down to the legislative limits. The fact that VAG cheated the tests is another issue.

And don't think for one minute that the likes of Bosch and Delphi have shut down all their diesel research. Find a solution that makes a small diesel pollute the same or less than the petrol equivalent and you're going to make a lot of money I guess.

Have they figured out how they are going to deal with the non recyclable elements of the battery yet ?

What is clear is that petrol engines are generally A or B.

Overall yes I was not surprised to see that. It's a shame you can't analyse it by type of engine i.e. SCR diesel vs small turbo petrol.

Diesel has been a scam, it needs to be tested on the road and cars at 5, 10 & 15 years old. I don't believe they "age" well in terms of emissions.

It's true that testing should be more rigorous, as it is for petrols. But generally I don't think you know a lot about cars so I'm going to take your opinion about 'aging' with a puff of smoke.

I thought it Particulates rather than NOx that made diesel worse than petrol?

Not so much. DPFs do work. The problem with those is different - vehicle buyers weren't told about how to look after them at point of sale. Ok so it tells you in the manual, but who reads manuals? They're written by experts after all 😉

We need to get back to 2l petrol fuel injected family cars

I can't agree. The 2.0 petrol NA Passat from my car's generation was good for 35mpg, I'm on 55mpg typical. We'd need to find a lot more petrol from somewhere and find something to do with a lot more CO2.

The real answer is stopping us driving so damn much.

Such as, Trailrat. According to the director of a new recycling plant for lithium batteries in France they recover better than 70% of the lithium. Unlike lead or NiCad, Lithium is not in the EU's most toxic categories so disposal of the untreatable material isn't an issue.

The lithium's not the the issue. It's the cobalt and other materials.

The whole situation is wrong at the moment, I'm just in the process of changing my company car & would love to have a hybrid but the cost of the cars far outweighs any tax benefit there is.

By the time I've paid the extra for the hybrid, which is also likely to cover a decent amount of motorway miles (so need the mpg) paid the additional petrol costs & the tax, the diesel works out at least even over 3 years & in most cases preferable. Also the tax for hybrid company cars rises by a fair amount in year 2 & 3 of ownership, with year 3 just about being to even levels of having the diesel.

if the government really wanted to do something about running cleaner cars, they would target heavy road users & company car drivers, but the incentive just isn't there.

I'd have no issue buying a diesel family car at the moment still either, the majority of company car drivers are still heading for diesels, so it's just not possible for the market to shut down over the next few years until hybrid or electric technology moves on to become more affordable.

We were encouraged to buy diesel not as some kind of huge scam, but because they really do use less fuel and emit less CO2. This is important. It's only in the last few years that people have started to measure NOx in cities (and that traffic levels have risen enough) that we've noticed it's a problem.

However the manufacturers have started to address this with SCR, meaning the use of Ad Blue etc to reduce NOx. This really does work, but no-one seems to be talking about that, instead just shouting 'petrol good, diesel bad' over and over again. Likewise, there is some suggestion that small turbo petrols actually produce lots of NOx too. So it's not as simple as you make out Jambalaya.

Not so much. DPFs do work. The problem with those is different - vehicle buyers weren't told about how to look after them at point of sale. Ok so it tells you in the manual, but who reads manuals? They're written by experts after all

The problem here is people were enticed into buying totally inappropriate cars for what they use the cars for...
This wasn't the manufacturers but the government offering tax breaks/scrapage schemes and lower tax...

NoX is the same problem.... or has become a bigger problem because of this.

I can't agree. The 2.0 petrol NA Passat from my car's generation was good for 35mpg, I'm on 55mpg typical. We'd need to find a lot more petrol from somewhere and find something to do with a lot more CO2.

This sounds crazy ... but is it more crazy than encouraging people to buy diesel for inner city school runs ?
The difference is NoX is local (or the worst part of it is) whereas CO2 is global... you'd need a heck of a lot of CO2 to actually cause any direct damage ... lithium batteries sound great unless you include the damage that's being done by lithium mining and the damage that is about to start on lithium battery disposal..

People in the UK get all upset if someone wants to frac 50 miles from where they live....
but presumably they'd be more than happy to have this at the end of the garden
[img] https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-03c8d9baaf602b58b9f030fc8056843a-c [/img]

Still it's harmless
[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrxt1aQ6j6MBJmtctk7B0zzOb8kPT-oBHtCyylmgNPXiWKvpzOLA [/img] It's claimed these fish are poisoned by lithium ... but history is full of mass extinctions .. I'm sure they are totally unconnected... the fish just spontaneously all decided to commit suicide together... You'd think that amount of lithium they'd be in a special ward to prevent this..

You forgot to include pics of major oil spill for balance, Steve, along with refinery explosions, oil shale wastelands and so on.

The cobalt is recycled to such a high level that the lithium recycling residue can be used in cement manufacture, Trail rat.

EDit: and as a ex-environment officer I've seen every fish in a river killed by milk and farm slurry in different incidents. Things can be done without making a mess but some people still make a mess.

Anyone changing a car every few years is kidding themselves their doing it for the environment or baby robins. The cleanest car Is the one you have now, the energy expended in its production being far greater than the fuel you will burn in its lifetime.
Diesel has sadly allowed us to buy ever bigger heavier cars that are too fuel inefficient with a petrol engine.
Direct injection patrols are far worse for NOx than their older port injection designs but the DI is a major facilitator of increased fuel efficiency. Further DI petrol is far worse for particulates so you need to fit particulate filters and all the pressure sensors to diagnose a block filter, and more egr to get keep NOx down and reduce the rate the filter fills up at.
Every week on here is someone asking for advice on their next car for a 3,5,7 mile commute FFS use your bike, a bus this is meant to be a cycling forum.
If cyclists wish to drive for such short journeys and see all the energy usage for their next new car as a good choice what hope for mankind when most don't even cycle.
Madness.

Steve - lithium may be being mined badly in some countries, but surely that's the fault of that country's environmental legislation rather than the fact they are mining?

If cyclists wish to drive for such short journeys

My wife isn't a cyclist, nor are my kids. They aren't on this forum.

Not justifying short car journeys, but it's not as simple as you suggest I'm afraid for everyone. Roads are too bad, some people have health problems, etc etc.

My wife isn't a cyclist, nor are my kids. They aren't on this forum.

Not justifying short car journeys, but it's not as simple as you suggest I'm afraid for everyone. [s]Roads are too bad, some[/s] [b]Most[/b] people [s]have health problems[/s] [b]are lazy, selfish[/b], etc etc.

Not a dig at you personally, but in many cases I think this is the issue.

We've made it too easy to travel large distances with minimal effort at minimal cost. People now expect to be able to jump in the car and travel 100 miles in an hour or two and not break a sweat. Our entire modern society is based on the ability to transport people and stuff long distances quickly and easily.

There's pretty much zero danger that's going to change without some catastrophic event occurring, so until then lets just bury our collective heads in the sand and keep driving everywhere. Hopefully legislation and innovation can create enough drive for cleaner energy before we completely and irreversible destroy our world. I'm not optimistic.

I find non cyclists are happy to use bikes as transport if theres decent infrastructure.

The UK's problem is roads are at best unpleasant and just too dangerous. Theres a reasonable chance you will killed then have insult added to injury by being blamed for the incident.

Theres an anti cycling narrative in both traditional and social media and our goverment does nothing about it because a good proportion of them are equally anti cycling.

UK plc makes 94bn a year from the car industry( and more from haulage) some of which finds its way back into the pocket of MP's.
So without wholesale change in political party funding it'll be cars for most people however long the journey.

Well, some interesting points of view in this thread.

Environmental damage and disasters are a symptom of humans quest for transportation, disasters will always happen let's hope they become less and less as humans realise ethically it's abhorrent.
However the realisation is, digging stuff out of the Earth will continue for a very very long time yet.

For the last number of years I've had diesels powering my workday car, in the main because of its efficiency and ease of driving ability. This time around I've chosen a petrol hybrid and pick it up today. Partly chosen for its bent towards environmental issues, partly because it drives similar to my other car, partly because I really like the look and way it drives.. I do wonder when I come to change again in a few years if I'll stay hybrid or not.. shall we have another thread in 24mths ?? Or 36mths ??

I own a family car (signum) with a vvt but non-turbo petrol engine (1.8, 140bhp).

It's a terrible combo. It is geared low in order to be in the power band, so 70 is more than 3000rpm. The economy is 36mpg over the last 30,000 miles, very little of which is in city. To get it to go quickly you need to use all 7500 rpm, which in a car with kids in the back makes you look like a moron.

Turbo petrols solve a lot of these problems, but don't wish for na. The engine would be nice in something small and light, in this application there's not a single advantage other than simplicity

You forgot to include pics of major oil spill for balance, Steve, along with refinery explosions, oil shale wastelands and so on.

It's easy to look at say an electric car .. you plug it in and it has no emissions but that is a long way off the whole story.... we need to look at how the power is generated AND how the car and batteries are manufactured and how long it lasts and the environmental impact when it needs to be disposed of.

The same logic needs applying to recycling ...

nd as a ex-environment officer I've seen every fish in a river killed by milk and farm slurry in different incidents. Things can be done without making a mess but some people still make a mess.

I have seen every fish and every plant in a stream killed by pollution however as an ex-environmental officer you wouldn't have look at this because the pollution came from a paper recycling plant and paper recycling plants were (and unless it's changed still are) absolutely free to dump as much pollution as they wish.

(Not only was the vegetation IN the stream killed but the vegetation within several feet of the stream was dead... and worse (and specifically a problem for the local water company) it also contained high PCB concentrations.

The problem is investigating pollution caused by recycling is a dead end ... be that academic or government it's a taboo subject because recycling is the panacea for producing more waste and more waste drives more consumption and our economy is driven by consumption. Recycling causes pollution but that pollution is deliberately ignored because when you tell consumers they are helping the environment by CREATING more waste and pollution they feel good about spending.

As a society we need to stop or reduce our waste and consumption be that building disposable cars, washing machines or whatever and look at the full life cycle.... At a rough estimate 90% of the paper comes through my door is unsolicited advertising and unneeded packaging.

Mention this and you are shouted down... my son's school had managed to give him the impression that the more waste we recycle the better for the environment to the point he thought more waste was better .. he's not stupid he just listened to his teachers who continually go on about collecting more recycling because it's good for the planet ... it could well be his teacher believes that as well.. what none thought to do was explain that not creating the waste is way better than creating waste and recycling it...

When we go back to cars exactly the same philosophy is applied... whatever percentage of the car is recyclable... indeed it is partly recycled so don't del bad about scrapping the perfectly good car with 30,000 miles on the clock because you're helping the environment... (and the economy)

Maybe we are closer than we [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41114738 ]thought[/url]?

That and the other schemes are about increas ing sales in a tanking UK market rather than improving the enviroment.

Essentially just discounts.

Steve - lithium may be being mined badly in some countries, but surely that's the fault of that country's environmental legislation rather than the fact they are mining?

I think it's stretching it to say many countries have environmental legislation at all but there are reasons behind that just as there are reasons why people die in sweat shops in Bangladesh making cheap and disposable clothing.

Apportioning blame is probably not productive but in any case complex.
Is it better for a country to have millions of deaths a year because they have no access to clean drinking water or 10,000 deaths because some clean drinking water gets polluted ?

What when the question is sell some resource at cheap world market prices and build some hospitals with the proceeds or drill some water wells etc. ? What if this year 1 million die from drought but next year 10,000 die from contaminated water but only 500,000 die from drought.

Of course in many cases most of the money doesn't find its way to building the hospital but into the pockets of corrupt officials.

Ultimately it is the consumers buying the products ... it doesn't take much digging about to find the conditions cheap to produce clothing is made under yet Primark et al don't seem to be empty... if you follow the money it is consumers that ultimately buy but consumers who are more than happy to remain as uneducated as possible about the consequences of their purchases but just as importantly people seem unconcerned where legislation actually prevents them gaining information on which to make sensible decisions.

If we completely disregard any concern for the environment and simply published figures on fuel consumption of COLD diesel engines ... then how many less diesels would be used today for the 2 mile school run ... if we didn't offer tax and other incentives to do this.... the economics would be enough for most.

The current changes to tax diesel usage on motorways is IMHO equally misguided but that is mainly just from a common sense POV that using less fuel and burning it more efficiently produces less pollution and that the specific pollution of NoX is much less a concern when its in the middle of nowhere...
Manufacturers are actively solving other issues but doing a 180 will just lose this.

Such as, Trailrat. According to the director of a new recycling plant for lithium batteries in France they recover better than 70% of the lithium. Unlike lead or NiCad,

An excellent example of deliberately misleading information ... You see 70% recycling and that makes it all sound great ... you forget about the other 30% for a start then forget about all the other components (other than lithium)

Lithium is not in the EU's most toxic categories so disposal of the untreatable material isn't an issue.

That's a non-sequiter unless you are only interested in how much money you can make from lithium.
The EU does not recognise lithium as a toxic material and ignores the accociated toxins ... so if you wish to make money it's fantastic... it's the same as paper recycling... make as much mess as you like and we will prevent legislation from interrupting it... and if you give a nice cut to the right people they will even fund research to discredit any facts that get uncovered until you have a nice wedge of cash...

(This isn't an EU issue this is common in any legislative system since Roman times and doubtless before)

Steve, you write a lot, but it's all whataboutery. You are pointing out all the problems of which most thinking people are already aware.

So how about some constructive posts? The way forward? How to make small gains, to improve matters?

I think you missed the bit about the residue after the 70% has been recycled being used to make concrete, Steve.

As with solar panel manufacturers such as Solarworld, electric car manufacturers such as Tesla and Renault are acutely aware that potential customers will have to be convinced by the eco-credentials of their manufacturing and recycling processes.

In the case of Renault the batteries are first used in cars, then in domestic power walls or as buffers in Renault's solar energy plant. They then get recycled in a plant featured in a TV programme.

Tesla do the same in Europe, here's their [url= https://www.tesla.com/fr_FR/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program?redirect=no ]link[/url]

the energy expended in its production being far greater than the fuel you will burn in its lifetime.

My boss ordered a petrol touran st the beginning of the year, the dealership apologises when they couldn't get one for hi. To test drive. The salesman said they'd he'd never sold a a petrol one before.

When he went to pick it up a few months later the dealership said that there had been a complete reversal and no-one was ordering oil burners anymore. I think DPFs and Ad-blu are putting people of especially for cards primary used for the school run and short commutes. Plus the worry of having a worthless car when it's time to switch if the legislation changes against desiel.

Not just the touran. The T6 van/kombi/lifestyle mobile is now available here with the 2L TSI engine in a couple of different outputs.