Opinions - which model

[Waspy]

Looking to become the owner of a Scirocco in the next couple of months and was just looking for some advice from all you current owners.

First off, a bit of background. I'm 20 and currently drive a mk2 golf GTi which I love to bits. I'm looking to change because it isn't really practical from me any more. It was bought thinking I would do about 3k miles a year, but with a new job and city I'm actually doing around 10k. It's a riot to drive, but the ringing in your ears after 2 hours of motorway driving is less fun...

I'm a bit torn between which model to go for and that is where you guys come in...

From looking online, all models are give or take the same price at 50-60k (which is the milage I will probably be buying), oh and I don't fancy a Deisel unless anyone can convince me otherwise. And it will be a manual.

1.4 122 - this is the cheapest to insure at ~£1200. It has the looks, but I don't much fancy the drop in power. On paper it is slower than my golf.

1.4 160 - This was my initial choice, however I have read quite a bit about the reliability (or lack thereof) with this engine. It's £1300 to insure, which pretty much knocks the 122 out if the game. Is the reliability really an issue?

2.0 - A lot more expensive to insure at £1700, but if it's more reliable and obviously faster, is it worth it? Does anyone have any comments regarding fuel economy in the 1.4 vs 2.0? I currently get 36mpg, so it would be desirable not to drop below that...

I know it's a mammoth first post, but I don't really want to make the wrong choice. I've done loads of reading, but just end up chopping and changing my mind.

Thanks guys!

[abc121710]

Hi i have the 1.4 tsi 160 and i love it, its great fun, if your doing motorway driving in you can easily get high 30's mpg if not pushing 40. mine drops to mid/late 20's when i only do short driving, less than 10 miles a journey (which is most of my driving at the moment). i was in the same position as you, im 21 and the 2.0 was too much to insure but the 1.4 160 is a good engine, and it sounds great. had mine 9 months and it still puts the same smile on my face as it did when i collected it from dealers. i think with the reliability issues they were the models prior to about 2011 where there were issues

[Waspy]

Hi i have the 1.4 tsi 160 and i love it, its great fun, if your doing motorway driving in you can easily get high 30's mpg if not pushing 40. mine drops to mid/late 20's when i only do short driving, less than 10 miles a journey (which is most of my driving at the moment). i was in the same position as you, im 21 and the 2.0 was too much to insure but the 1.4 160 is a good engine, and it sounds great. had mine 9 months and it still puts the same smile on my face as it did when i collected it from dealers. i think with the reliability issues they were the models prior to about 2011 where there were issues

Thanks for the reply! Answered a few of my questions there.

I would say 75% of my driving is motorway, so that milage sounds fine.

As for the reliability, I have been looking at 59/60 plates, so from what you are saying, I may have issues. I think 2011 is out of my budget unfortunately. At that age it is also out of warranty, and the last thing I need is a lemon of an engine... The excuses are racking up for me to get a 2.0 ... Damn insurance

[matthewlancs]

I've got the 2.0 TSI and LOVE it! Very fast and if driving sensibly you can easily get 35 mpg out of it.

I'm 25 and my insurance was £750 - worth every penny!

[Dubvrs]

I have a 2.0 TDI 140 and good on fuel. Drives and handles well with enough power for everyday use. Also have a LHD golf mk2 with a golf R32 engine for when I want a bit of fun.

[Waspy]

Also have a LHD golf mk2 with a golf R32 engine for when I want a bit of fun.

Nice!

If I could keep mine I would, I just can't afford to run two cars right now. I have vowed I will get another when I can

[rm0rgan]

If you are 75% M/Way driving you would be mad not to get an Oil burner in my view. The 170 bhp is the one to have as a balance of fun and economy if your budget can stretch to it - admittedly, it sounds like any other diesel unless you get a GT spec and have the false engine noise to listen to -get it chipped and you can see 210+ bhp :-)

[matt_j_smith]

Hi,

I have just bought a GT TDI 170 Scirocco in Night blue. its a 61 plate with DSG

My commute is 40 miles of a12 in the morning.. ie.. lotsa of start stop traffic!


On a sensible run so far I have done 68mpg on the motorway.. ie, consciously making an effort to get good mpgs.

If I drive normally I am getting consistently 55mpg.

If I take the country roads home and enjoy the car I get around 44mpg.

If you can afford a 170 derv I'd go for it. I'm bias but i've been blown away with the performance. The torque is great. If you hit a few bendys and use the dsg right with sport mode the car feels bloody quick. HIGHLY recommended

[Gaz r]

I went from a mk3 VR6 which i'd had and cherished for over 10 years. My mechanic said to keep it as newer cars aren't built as well as some of the older stuff. It got to the case of one bill to many though. Still miss 3rd gear in it though 40-100mph like a train.
The torque on the 2ltr through the range is excellent. Insurance not an issue for me though, so understand where your coming from. Just watched a youtube video yesterday with a 2ltr 16v mk2 scirocco pitted against the 1.4tsi and there was nothing in it. If you buy from vw the warranty would cover the engine i believe if you come up with a problem. With any car its down to luck.
The VR6 i owned only had 89,000 miles when i bought it, but still ended up spending over £2000 in the first 6 weeks (gutted) and the missus hated it. Scared the crap out of her most of the time, but my daughter loved it!
Try and buy something with a good warranty and history (fingers crossed). The thing is, when a car has a potential problem, you hear about the ones that go wrong. But how many are out there running just fine.

[Waspy]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I have never owned, worked with, or really driven a Deisel for any significant length of time. So I'm not clued up on them at all. For the money to get a 170, which is the only one I would consider (remember, this has to be my daily AND my toy) I would be looking at 100k. But diesels handle the miles better, right? And I guess buying a Deisel all the miles are going to be on the motorway.

I know what you mean about not building them like they used to. My golf is just hit 193k and still pulls like a train. I saw that video a few weeks back too! A 1.4 would be pretty neck and neck with my golf, probably edge it really, so I think the 1.4 would be fine for me really, it's just for how long, Haha... I guess that's when you look at changing up or remapping.

The point about only hearing about the dud ones also crossed my mind, it's doesn't fill you will confidence that's all

Fantastic advice so far, can always rely on VW forums.

[moulin12]

I think the 1.4 would be fine for me really, it's just for how long...

The 1.4 will do pretty much all you would want or need to do under most circumstances, but it didn't take me long to want more from those kick-down moments. But equally, I bet it wouldn't take long to outgrow the 2.0 either, and then find myself looking for a R!

I think there are two solid reasons for looking at a 2.0 over a 1.4. One is for the smoother and more refined wet gearbox, over the more stymied dry box on the 1.4. The other is for trim level, with most 2.0s having leather seats and having 18 inch wheels, tinted screens etc (though depends on the extras you might pick up on the 1.4).

That said, I was happier to have a newer car for my budget and would probably make the same decision given the choice again.

[abc121710]

I think the 1.4 would be fine for me really, it's just for how long...

The 1.4 will do pretty much all you would want or need to do under most circumstances, but it didn't take me long to want more from those kick-down moments. But equally, I bet it wouldn't take long to outgrow the 2.0 either, and then find myself looking for a R!

I think there are two solid reasons for looking at a 2.0 over a 1.4. One is for the smoother and more refined wet gearbox, over the more stymied dry box on the 1.4. The other is for trim level, with most 2.0s having leather seats and having 18 inch wheels, tinted screens etc (though depends on the extras you might pick up on the 1.4).

That said, I was happier to have a newer car for my budget and would probably make the same decision given the choice again.

Mine is manual and i love it, its so flexible, the 1.4 160 has power from anywhere you want, its enough for me at the moment anyway

[Waspy]

More great feedback.

On the point of "power from anywhere"... with two chargers, what's the lag like? Massively noticeable? If I floor it at 70 will a move?

I feel like a sponge, I'm info loading off these fantastic responses. Also making me eager to become a driver, rather than just an admirer...

[moulin12]

If I floor it at 70 will a move?

Indeed it will/does. Forum posts and youtube clips seem to suggest that 40-60 is particularly quick, though for me the sweet spot seems to be from 60 mph in 7th gear and which seems to take you up to 80 in not much more than a moment. But that's likely because I'm more conscious of what's happening in this range as I move into illegality territory!

It's lower down the gear, between 1 and 3/4, where the engine feels a bit puny, due to a combination of lag (despite the supercharger) and the gearing ratios, perhaps. And despite the twin chargers, there's lag before you hit the revs - but this equally applies to the 2.0. However, that's on the straight: on tight turns and twisty roads, feels lively even in low gear.

It's a fun car and, as has been said, is responsive for most situations you'll encounter - you just have to accept that there's only so much to be expected out of a 1.4. The other thing to note is that if you buy the dsg - whether 1.4 or 2.0 - you'll never be quick getting away from roundabouts due to the inability of the dsg box to lay down even power from start and which results in axle tramp should you do anything more than squeeze the accelerator.

Have seen a detailed power profile about on the web - will post it should I come across it.

Mine's an 11 plate. Other than needing a DSG software update, no problems experienced.

Consumption improves dramatically when motorway driving, though if you are eating through the m/w miles, there is something to be said about buying a tractor version

The other consideration is that unless your 1.4 comes with extras, you'll be getting a low level of trim with the 2.0, including privacy windows, 18 inch wheels etc (though mine came with these).

I'm not sure there's enough difference in the insurance costs to overly sway you in your choice? (For me, budget vs mileage/age of car was a factor in the decision to go for the 1.4).

[dimexi]

I dont know how much power the Mk2 golf gti had, but consider it would have lost a few horses by now 'cos of the age (re: what you said about the 122 bhp).

I have a 2.0 tsi - absolutely love it! Just the right amount of power I need. I can pull away from most cars in 6th gear on the motorway if I want.
I have driven the 170TDi and I liked that too - pretty impressive, but you will feel the difference in power in those high gears.

The lower models have too much lag (that I notice) for me. But it would be a good starting point re: insurance

[Waspy]

It's lower down the gear, between 1 and 3/4, where the engine feels a bit puny, due to a combination of lag (despite the supercharger) and the gearing ratios, perhaps. And despite the twin chargers, there's lag before you hit the revs - but this equally applies to the 2.0. However, that's on the straight: on tight turns and twisty roads, feels lively even in low gear.

It's a fun car and, as has been said, is responsive for most situations you'll encounter - you just have to accept that there's only so much to be expected out of a 1.4. The other thing to note is that if you buy the dsg - whether 1.4 or 2.0 - you'll never be quick getting away from roundabouts due to the inability of the dsg box to lay down even power from start and which results in axle tramp should you do anything more than squeeze the accelerator.

Have seen a detailed power profile about on the web - will post it should I come across it.

Mine's an 11 plate. Other than needing a DSG software update, no problems experienced.

Consumption improves dramatically when motorway driving, though if you are eating through the m/w miles, there is something to be said about buying a tractor version

The other consideration is that unless your 1.4 comes with extras, you'll be getting a low level of trim with the 2.0, including privacy windows, 18 inch wheels etc (though mine came with these).

I'm not sure there's enough difference in the insurance costs to overly sway you in your choice? (For me, budget vs mileage/age of car was a factor in the decision to go for the 1.4).

I'm not too botherd about lag on the motorways. When im cruising im normally just cruising, unless some mornon comes and pesters me. Its on the b roads where I have most fun, so good to hear it is still nippy when thrown at a corner.

It will be a manual for sure, so DSG being slow or whatever isnt an issue for me.

I do think I would miss some of the extras, but nothing that cant be added after. For example Im not a huge fan of the alloys which are standard on the 1.4, I much prefer the 18" ones, so the cost of a second hand set is another consideration.

£400 sounds like a lot when said like that, but then when you consider the price of driving anyway, and the fact I would be less inclined to spend money on it (Although it will get lowered, no matter what engine ) it might be worth it.

Brilliant informative post, thanks

I dont know how much power the Mk2 golf gti had, but consider it would have lost a few horses by now 'cos of the age (re: what you said about the 122 bhp).

I have a 2.0 tsi - absolutely love it! Just the right amount of power I need. I can pull away from most cars in 6th gear on the motorway if I want.
I have driven the 170TDi and I liked that too - pretty impressive, but you will feel the difference in power in those high gears.

The lower models have too much lag (that I notice) for me. But it would be a good starting point re: insurance

My golf hasn't really remained how it was when it rolled off the production line, I would say at this stage its has neither lost nor gained. But for the sake of £100, it doesnt make sense in my head.

Sounds like I am going to have to try the 170TDi...

[dunbruin]

You won't be disappointed with the 170 tdi. Apart from a bit more noise at startup when cold, the diesel is extremely smooth and quiet when on the move. And boy can it move! I spent many years driving petrol cars but I'm a diesel convert now. It's that extra torque that counts. Forget all the 0-60 times and top speed figures and focus on every day driveability. In my opinion, the 170 tdi gives you effortless daily driving and excellent economy, but when you want some B-road smile factor it's there in bucketloads.

People talk about turbo lag and, as with any turbo'd car, it's there to a degree but you can manage that by keeping the car in the power band. That way the surge is pretty instantaneous.

Of course, if you tire of the standard performance (brilliant as it is) there's always the option of 'tweaking' it slightly.

[Waspy]

Did some sums tonight as I wanted it see if a oil burner would be worth it. So here they are. This is based on 200 miles per week, petrol at 126.7, Diesel at 132.7. the MPG figure were what appear to be what people are reporting getting on day to day, I know its not ideal, but is the best guess I have. Figures are Fuel + Insurance (per week).

1.4 TSi - £28.80 + £25 = £53.80
TDi (170) - £24.12 + £27 = £51.12
2.0 - £32 + £32.69 = £64.69

You guys have convinced me, I am going to give the TDi a drive at the weekend if I can. I am confident the 2.0 is out now. With the Diesel being a GT it is temping for all the bells and whistles. But something inside me is telling me its all wrong and to go for the 1.4. But I cant make that choice until Ive had a spin in the 170.

[matt_j_smith]

You will never get bored of the 40 to 70+ acceleration in the derv. mines stock with no map and its bloody brilliant. Had a muppet up my backside through a 40 yesterday, when it opened out to a duel carriageway I floored it and it took me completely of guard haha! Just done a 1000 miles in my Scirocco now and everyday it makes me smile due to acceleration.

needless to say the muppet was sat miles behind hehehe

book in at a local VW garage for a test drive mate, that's what I did. Test drove a few things... GT86, A3 and the Scirocco and for me it was the scirocco. If you are local to Colchester I'll take ya out!

[Paralla]

I'd leave turbo lag out of it. The petrol’s are also turbocharged so also suffer the same effect, it's not exclusive to the diesels.

It's great you are going to drive both and decide for yourself but I'd be very surprised if you didn't prefer the TDI170 over a 1.4.

I've had my TDI170 remapped so now has 208ish bhp and its pretty quick. A MK 2 Golf GTI or a 1.4 Scirocco wouldn't see which way it went. Look at the list price of both new to give you an idea of how much more desirable a TDI 170 is over a 1.4.

A TDI will probably depreciate slightly less than a petrol as well so that swings the ballance a bit further.

Having said that I'm taking delivery of a New Cayman S in a few weeks and can not wait to be in front of a sporty free reving petrol engine again.