1.4 TSi Vs 2.0 170 Diesel

[mortc002]

As I have outlined in other posts I have been let down by my dealer and Roc delivered with no Dynaudio.

I have the option of a Diesel 170 GT which i know comes with extras not on the 1.4TSi

Can any 170 owners provide a summary of their thoughts on the engine in terms of performance? Especially anyone who has had the pleasure of driving the 1.4 tsi 160 as well :-)

Thanks in advance

[aspireite]

Couldn't you test drive one / both at the dealers which i would expect will be far more benefit

[gibbsy]

I had a serious think about this when I first thought about ordering a Roc. I looked at the performance of both which is almost identical, until that is you look at torque. My style of driving is more suited to the power the 170 can deliver mid to top range, I was really impressed. Also the GT had the darkened rear windows, fog lights (which I do only use in fog), duel zone auto climate and 18'' rubber.

Although the dealer did not have the 160 Roc, I did take out a Golf GT with the same engine, to 'get a feel for the engine'. To be honest I was blown away by the difference between the diesel and the 160. The GT 170 felt more accomplished, certainly not so frantic. Perhaps I'm too old now to be putting up with frantic, although I have owned a manic Honda Civic Vti with the same amount of power.

I did also take a GT 140 TDI for a long test drive, but again the was a marked difference in power delivery.

Think I would, in your position, take the GT 170, if only to future proof your depreciation. Others may prove me wrong.

[maisbitt]

Biggest differences? Mid range performance (far better on the 170TDI), Standard equipment (nothing that can't be specced on the 1.4TSI for a cost), Price (a lot more on the 170), Running Costs (lower, should get 25% more mpg minimum on the 170TDI).

The 1.4 has a flatter and more linear power delivery, whereas the TDI has tons of torque which give you a massive initial shove when you put your foot down. There's nothing between them from a static start at the lights, but the TDI will soon get away from the 1.4, and in the overtaking range, it will spank it.

You have to like Diesels though, they're very different the way they develop their power. Stick a TDI in the wrong gear and try to accelerate and nothing will happen. There is a definite technique to driving one (changing the gears to keep it in the 1800-3500rpm range whilst accelerating, you need to be much more aware of what the engine is doing/what gear you're in to get the best out of it). The TDI has quite a roar when revved as well.

If you're not traditionally a diesel driver, you'll have to drive one to see if you like the different driving style.

[mortc002]

Couldn't you test drive one / both at the dealers which i would expect will be far more benefit

My local dealer (Ridgeway Reading) does not have the 170 in stock for a test and I am familiar with the 1.4 after test driving one 6 months ago

[mortc002]

Biggest differences? Mid range performance (far better on the 170TDI), Standard equipment (nothing that can't be specced on the 1.4TSI for a cost), Price (a lot more on the 170), Running Costs (lower, should get 25% more mpg minimum on the 170TDI).

The 1.4 has a flatter and more linear power delivery, whereas the TDI has tons of torque which give you a massive initial shove when you put your foot down. There's nothing between them from a static start at the lights, but the TDI will soon get away from the 1.4, and in the overtaking range, it will spank it.

You have to like Diesels though, they're very different the way they develop their power. Stick a TDI in the wrong gear and try to accelerate and nothing will happen. There is a definite technique to driving one (changing the gears to keep it in the 1800-3500rpm range whilst accelerating, you need to be much more aware of what the engine is doing/what gear you're in to get the best out of it). The TDI has quite a roar when revved as well.

If you're not traditionally a diesel driver, you'll have to drive one to see if you like the different driving style.

Currents in a Diesel golf 1.6 2011 which I am more than happy with so I have heard enough to be confident in telling the dealer who messed my order up to stick it.
(Lancaster VW via Hawkins fleet- I stress great service form both just failure on data entry at the dealer side!)

[maisbitt]

Does your local dealer have a GTD in stock to test drive? Same size car, almost same layout, same engine.

It's a lot of money to pay out for a car, you might as well look at all options, even if that means ringing around neighbouring dealerships to find 1 with a 170 engine to demo. If you can't be arsed to do that then you've already decided on a 1.4.

What's your thoughts on money anyway? If you want a cheaper car and don't mind the higher running costs (and slightly lower residuals) then go with the 1.4.

If you want lower running costs but don't mind paying more for the car then TDI may be the best option. If you're leasing then the TDIs better residuals will already be built into the monthly cost (dearer car for little more rental).

Don't forget though that the price differential is shortened between the 2 if you end up wanting to spec most of the GT kit onto a 1.4.

[maisbitt]

Mort: If you're already in a 1.6TDI (105PS) then the 170TDI will blow your socks off - it will feel twice as fast under acceleration.

[mortc002]

Does your local dealer have a GTD in stock to test drive? Same size car, almost same layout, same engine.

It's a lot of money to pay out for a car, you might as well look at all options, even if that means ringing around neighbouring dealerships to find 1 with a 170 engine to demo. If you can't be arsed to do that then you've already decided on a 1.4.

What's your thoughts on money anyway? If you want a cheaper car and don't mind the higher running costs (and slightly lower residuals) then go with the 1.4.

If you want lower running costs but don't mind paying more for the car then TDI may be the best option. If you're leasing then the TDIs better residuals will already be built into the monthly cost (dearer car for little more rental).

Don't forget though that the price differential is shortened between the 2 if you end up wanting to spec most of the GT kit onto a 1.4.

May I refer you to another one of my posts, http://www.sciroccocentral.co.uk/forum/ ... f=2&t=8192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I more than anything are quite for the Disele!

[mike-p]

I have a 170GT and have driven several 140Tsi before and after remaps, the 1.4 engine is fantastic especially when remapped but the 170CR will spank it's arse every time. The midrange shove it way better and the economy even when pushed hard is very good.

But the 1.4 is still an amazing engine.

[markwiggy]

I have come from a long list of quickish petrol cars, Audi S3 20TFSI, Civic Type R etc and have got to say I am not at all disapointed with my 170bhp diesel Roc, infact I love it. Not driven a 1.4 but I would think the derv is the better option IMO.

Mark

[chrisyboyc]

its Simple the 170 diesel is brilliant i need a diesel as i do 40,000ish miles a year its quick, it returns 52mpg, it sounds good nice exhaust note. i dont think i would be happy with a 1.4 even if it has a Supercharger and Turbo.

[Scott_mac]

Personally much prefer the 1.4... yes you get more mid range in the diesel but you don't get as much power for so long with the petrol.

I'd question the comments above that a 170 Diesel will 'spank' the 1.4 or 'quickly get away' the 1.4 is lighter on its toes, feels more agile in the handling department and when actually lined up alongside a 170 it's completely nip and tuck as to which is quicker.

If you cruise along more, get the diesel, for spirited driving the 1.4 is the better car.

Ultimately though the above shows that basically what you need to do is try them both and see what works for you. I'll admit now that i'm anti diesel as i hate the power delivery and limited rev range.

A review, which i'll obviously claim is well balanced as it mirrors my thoughts exactly - http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/Fir ... GT/243493/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[skindemon]

Like markwiggy above, my previous two cars were powerful petrol (265bhp Beemer '6' & then Audi S3) and I'm very happy with my 170cr tdi. Bags of torque for lazy driving and overtaking, whilst doing superb mpg to boot.

And yet, it's my first diesel and I think it's great

[markwiggy]

Not quite so sure about the performance camparisions as neither offer breathtaking performance. They are what they are, mine is a diesel that gives ok performance and good MPG,I would not class it as a quick car as previously mentioned because it aint and never will be. If you want performance buy an "R".

Mark

[maisbitt]

Personally much prefer the 1.4... yes you get more mid range in the diesel but you don't get as much power for so long with the petrol.

I'd question the comments above that a 170 Diesel will 'spank' the 1.4 or 'quickly get away' the 1.4 is lighter on its toes, feels more agile in the handling department and when actually lined up alongside a 170 it's completely nip and tuck as to which is quicker.

If you cruise along more, get the diesel, for spirited driving the 1.4 is the better car.

The old 170TSI and the old 170TDI PD MK5 Golf were compared in a test (by Autoexpress, I believe). The 170TDI was almost 3 seconds faster on the 30-70mph overtaking sprint.

Bear in mind that the 1.4TSI in the Roc has dropped 10PS on the MK5 Golf, and that the TDI has gone common rail, giving it smoother power delivery and knocking 0.3 seconds off the old 0-62 time of the PD (using MK5 Golf vs MK6 Golf GTD as a comparator), and I think you'll find that gap will have widened.

If you know how to drive a TDI to get the best out of it and keep it in the sweet spot, it will wipe the floor with the 1.4.

The 170TDI's achilles heel is its massive torque surge and lack of grip from a standstill. Once it's moving it is so much faster than the 1.4 through the gears. For in gear performance in the overtaking range it is much closer to the 2.0TSI(200PS) than the 1.4(160).

As for spirited drive, what is more spirited than putting your foot down in the TDI in the right gear and getting a huge kick in the back of the seat from a torque surge that the 1.4 can't reproduce?

As for weight, the Diesel isn't that much heavier than the 1.4.

But you will never convince a Diesel hater. The price differential between the 2 is a big negative for a lot of reviewers, depends whether you spec all the GT stuff on a 160, if you do then that price gap halves.

[Scott_mac]

I think i'll vouch for my own driving abilities and understanding how to get the best out of each car.... and the 170 did not, at any point, feel like it was wiping the floor with the 1.4.

The common issue with diesel cars that people get caught up in is the perception of speed via what i call 'Torque Surge' where you feel that the car is blisteringly fast due to a huge torque surge low down, but when you factor in the gear changes etc there is often naff all in it. The overtaking performance is not on a par with the 2.0, i suggest you re-asses your perceptions if you think that is the case, having to change up a gear when overtaking can often be a somewhat unnerving concept!

With regard to weight the 170 is 'only' about 50Kg heavier, but the majority of that is in the engine and thus hanging out over the front wheels, the ones that do the steering.... physics can be a bitch at times and weight over steering wheels is one of them. It's like the folks who fit larger wheels, not realising the negative effect unsprung weight has on handling.

The 170 is a quick car, but the 1.4 is a better car - for me. It may not be for anyone else... i don't fit a spirited drive to be wafting around on a wave of torque, carrying speed through a corner, braking, accelerating at the correct point make it fun - it's not all about acceleration.

[Andrew Brown]

Personally much prefer the 1.4... yes you get more mid range in the diesel but you don't get as much power for so long with the petrol.

I'd question the comments above that a 170 Diesel will 'spank' the 1.4 or 'quickly get away' the 1.4 is lighter on its toes, feels more agile in the handling department and when actually lined up alongside a 170 it's completely nip and tuck as to which is quicker.

If you cruise along more, get the diesel, for spirited driving the 1.4 is the better car.

The old 170TSI and the old 170TDI PD MK5 Golf were compared in a test (by Autoexpress, I believe). The 170TDI was almost 3 seconds faster on the 30-70mph overtaking sprint.

Bear in mind that the 1.4TSI in the Roc has dropped 10PS on the MK5 Golf, and that the TDI has gone common rail, giving it smoother power delivery and knocking 0.3 seconds off the old 0-62 time of the PD (using MK5 Golf vs MK6 Golf GTD as a comparator), and I think you'll find that gap will have widened.

If you know how to drive a TDI to get the best out of it and keep it in the sweet spot, it will wipe the floor with the 1.4.

The 170TDI's achilles heel is its massive torque surge and lack of grip from a standstill. Once it's moving it is so much faster than the 1.4 through the gears. For in gear performance in the overtaking range it is much closer to the 2.0TSI(200PS) than the 1.4(160).

As for spirited drive, what is more spirited than putting your foot down in the TDI in the right gear and getting a huge kick in the back of the seat from a torque surge that the 1.4 can't reproduce?

As for weight, the Diesel isn't that much heavier than the 1.4.

But you will never convince a Diesel hater. The price differential between the 2 is a big negative for a lot of reviewers, depends whether you spec all the GT stuff on a 160, if you do then that price gap halves.

I firstly declare an interest as a MKV Golf 170TSI owner…

They are interesting figures you are mentioning for the 170TSI and the old 170TDI PD MK5 Golf (3 sec difference 30-70), but I don’t think they are correct. This lot are discussing a test between the two and quote various figures from tests-

http://forums.subdriven.com/showthread.php?2599311" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The in gear test results further down the thread show the diesel in a better light as the petrol is not tested in the correct gear for those speeds.

As you will no doubt see, there is very little to choose between their performance. I doubt that the MKVI engine, as used in the Scirroco, will be much, if any, slower than the MKV version, despite being 10bhp down.

I have driven a TT with the new common rail 170bhp engine and it is a good engine that I could happily live with, especially with its superior economy. But it was no faster than my Golf, despite the initial push in the back that the engine gives you.

What those comparisons do show is that, despite having a considerably higher torque output, and equal power output, the diesel’s performance is only on a par with the petrol’s.

[Seadoo110]

Having had a 1.4 tsi 160 Roc for 6 months and having driven a fair for 2.0 VAG 140 TDI's, they are completely different animals.

1.4 is a cracking engine, sounds surprisingly good, in my opinion trumps the diesel 1st/2nd ( as we all know 1st in a VAG derv is not great). But in the midrange for me it feels comparitively flat relative to the diesel, it does pull well to the red line but its pretty linear.

I'm finding urban driving in my 1.4 mpg wise is pretty terrible circa 25-28mpg thats going sensible and I can just about get 40/41 driving at 70/75 on the M way. I have averaged 28mpg in the last 3000 miles, which really is way below my expectations. The diesel will return close to 45pg and 55 on the M-way at similar speeds.

If your not doing massive miles i really think it comes down to preference of meatier mid range or have more rev's top play with pulling for longer.

However if the derv is being driven surfing the torque band i.e. pretty rapid the 1.4 will be guzzling fuel to keep up! (But it would keep up!)

[jammyd]

I have to put my word in now.

I have owned the 140TDI, had an extended test drive in the 160, and now have the 170TDI DSG... in my opinion and it is only my opinion is that the 160 is better than the 140 but not as good as the 170.

The mid range figures for acceleration are not great on the 160 and there is no way I could ever have gotten away from the 170 in the 160, it just does not have the pulling power.

I for one if you gave me a 160 with the same spec as the 170TDI would in a heartbeat take the 170 as it is the all round better car...

The common issue with diesel cars that people get caught up in is the perception of speed via what i call 'Torque Surge' where you feel that the car is blisteringly fast due to a huge torque surge low down, but when you factor in the gear changes etc there is often naff all in it.

having had Derv's for 6 years and also had Petrols, I have to say I have never got " caught up in is the perception of speed via what i call Torque Surge"... I have only ever got caught up in the fact that my TT derv could leave most cars looking stationary on the motorway, and that if you use the gearing correctly, then you will never be out of power, unless of course you are breaking the speed limit...