Audi Saves the Manuals (for Luxury Segment Bragging Rights)

by Steph Willems

Published: September 22nd, 2016

audi saves the manuals for luxury segment bragging rights

The dwindling supply of new vehicles offering a row-your-own driving experience spurs fewer tears than before, but the three-pedal setup isn’t dead yet.

In fact, offering a manual transmission is still worthy of boasting about through official channels. As it rolls out the 2017 A4, Audi wants you to know there’ll be an option to ditch the PRNDL pattern on all-wheel-drive models, allowing spirited motorists the increasingly rare opportunity to take full control of their gear changes.

Oh, and those other guys? Yeah, they don’t offer one. Audi made sure to remind us of that.

Finding a manual transmission in Audi’s lineup isn’t as easy as it once was. Currently, the only models offering a stick are the A5 Sport and S5 — hardtops only — and the A4’s hotter sister, the S4. By dropping a six-speed manual into the 2017 A4 Quattro, Audi can brand it as the only entry-level, AWD luxury sedan available with a stick shift.

The automaker doesn’t expect it to be a big draw, but that’s not really the point. The option bolsters the A4’s sporty credentials and boosts the brand’s reputation among the Big German Three. An available Sport package helps this.

“While we don’t typically disclose take rates, I can confirm that the manual has a significantly lower take rate than the S tronic (automatic),” said Amanda Koons, product communications specialist with Audi of America, in an email to TTAC.

When asked if a manual could make into other A4s, Koons said “we are not currently considering offering a manual transmission on any other drivetrains.”

So, it’s Quattro-only, stick fans. For the time being, anyway — consumer demand (or lack of it) could tip Audi’s hand to offer more stick models, or have the option disappear after a year or two. Sadly, history has shown that the latter scenario is more likely.

Audi hasn’t grabbed something old off of the parts pile, either. The new six-speed manual boats “extensive” use of magnesium and features a lighter clutch, open gear wheels and hollow shafts, shaving 35.3 pounds off the weight of the previous unit.

Connected to the transmission, be it manual or automatic, is Audi’s trusty turbocharged 2.0-liter TSFI four-cylinder, generating 252 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque. The Environmental Protection Agency has yet to issue fuel economy figures for the powertrain combination.

The automaker claims a 5.7 second 0-60 mph time for manual-equipped 2017 A4 Quattros, seven-tenths of a second quicker than the past generation. Base models will retail for $40,350, including destination.

Olive branch or not, we’ll take it.

[Image: Audi of America]

#2017AudiA4Quattra #AllWheelDrive #Audi #AudiA4 #Luxury #ManualTransmissions #NewCars #SaveTheManuals #Sporty #StickShift

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 52 comments

Jkross22 on Sep 23, 2016

Hmm, just went to Audi's site to build an A4 with a manual and quattro and can't seem to figure out how to do so.

Like Reply
Nookieman on Dec 30, 2017

I currently daily drive a 2011 Audi S5 V8 with a manual trans. Love it. I’d like to see more power offered in this A4, but at least the manual will let me use what is there. Audi may seem pricey, but my six year old coupe still looks, feels and drives like a new car. In contrast, parts were falling off my prior Mercedes from the second week from new and for what it cost to maintain that POS, I could buy this A4. It’s far easier to rationalize high initial cost when a car holds together over time. My Audi S5 has proven superior in this aspect by a wide margin.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.