1.4 TSi Vs 2.0 170 Diesel

[mortc002]

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.

I gave the car back today (1.6 105PS) and only noticed the 105PS on the return slip. That was by thoughts after ssuming the 1.6 was 140PS!

[viperoc]

Ask a diesel driver and they can only point to 2 things of note: mpg and mid range shove- not very sporty characteristics are they? And the roc IS a sporty car ....

[Scott_mac]

Ask a diesel driver and they can only point to 2 things of note: mpg and mid range shove- not very sporty characteristics are they? And the roc IS a sporty car ....

Exactly!

I can think of 2 sporty diesels, one made by Audi, one by Peugeot and both mainly used for 24 hours at a time in France in and around June...

GT Car = Diesel

Sports Car = Petrol

Neither are bad, so buy the one that suits!

[viperoc]

Ask a diesel driver and they can only point to 2 things of note: mpg and mid range shove- not very sporty characteristics are they? And the roc IS a sporty car ....

Exactly!

I can think of 2 sporty diesels, one made by Audi, one by Peugeot and both mainly used for 24 hours at a time in France in and around June...

GT Car = Diesel

Sports Car = Petrol

Neither are bad, so buy the one that suits!

Well said!!

[maisbitt]

Some people really do think they bought a sports car and not an attractive Golf variant. Both TDI and 1.4TSI are compromises over the original 2.0TSI.

1.4TSI - much cheaper than a 2.0TSI, slightly better economy, missing out on all the GT equipment (unless you spec it up at considerable cost, shortening the gap in purchase price).

170TDI - similar price to 2.0TSI, same equipment levels as 2.0TSI, far better economy, better residuals, significant (but not massively) better performance than the 1.4TSI (I am talking mid-range here, not boy-racer traffic light duels).

For the extra that a 170TDI costs over a 1.4TSI, you'll get that money back in lower running costs (better fuel economy and retained value) over 3 years.

Being economical doesn't make the TDI any less or more sporty than the 1.4TSI, it has it's power delivery in the place most users will want it - midrange for overtaking, not bottom range for screaming away from the traffic lights and showing that 1.2 Corsa in the other lane who's the daddy (unless you're 18 and driving a roc - lucky you!). Neither are "sporty" engines. You have a performance Diesel and you have an elaborately aspirated 1.4 - neither of which are going to win any track awards.

The reason I bought my Roc is that I wanted something economical and powerful enough to overtake slower traffic when required, as well as having great residuals (I have lost 20% on my 140TDI for 2 years ownership: discounted purchase price vs trade-in value, admittedly some of that low loss is due to me buying it at 15% VAT). I'm used to buying 3 door Golfs, but the Roc is better specced, looks better and is better equipped for the same money. I'm getting a 170TDI now because it wasn't available when I got mine (the joys of being an early adopter).

I've driven the 1.4TSI/160 a few times now - you really do have to thrash it to get the best out of it - the TDI never feels thrashed when you put your foot down. Does that feeling of thrashing a car to get anything out of it make it sporty?

Petrol does not automatically equal sporty car.

[Andrew Brown]

Some people really do think they bought a sports car and not an attractive Golf variant. Both TDI and 1.4TSI are compromises over the original 2.0TSI.

1.4TSI - much cheaper than a 2.0TSI, slightly better economy, missing out on all the GT equipment (unless you spec it up at considerable cost, shortening the gap in purchase price).

170TDI - similar price to 2.0TSI, same equipment levels as 2.0TSI, far better economy, better residuals, significant (but not massively) better performance than the 1.4TSI (I am talking mid-range here, not boy-racer traffic light duels).

For the extra that a 170TDI costs over a 1.4TSI, you'll get that money back in lower running costs (better fuel economy and retained value) over 3 years.

Being economical doesn't make the TDI any less or more sporty than the 1.4TSI, it has it's power delivery in the place most users will want it - midrange for overtaking, not bottom range for screaming away from the traffic lights and showing that 1.2 Corsa in the other lane who's the daddy (unless you're 18 and driving a roc - lucky you!). Neither are "sporty" engines. You have a performance Diesel and you have an elaborately aspirated 1.4 - neither of which are going to win any track awards.

The reason I bought my Roc is that I wanted something economical and powerful enough to overtake slower traffic when required, as well as having great residuals (I have lost 20% on my 140TDI for 2 years ownership: discounted purchase price vs trade-in value, admittedly some of that low loss is due to me buying it at 15% VAT). I'm used to buying 3 door Golfs, but the Roc is better specced, looks better and is better equipped for the same money. I'm getting a 170TDI now because it wasn't available when I got mine (the joys of being an early adopter).

I've driven the 1.4TSI/160 a few times now - you really do have to thrash it to get the best out of it - the TDI never feels thrashed when you put your foot down. Does that feeling of thrashing a car to get anything out of it make it sporty?

Petrol does not automatically equal sporty car.

Neither car is that fast. They are the basically warm hatches. So your choice comes down to your preference in driving characteristics (ignoring the cost issue). I enjoy driving both diesels and petrols. The feeling of speed in a diesel is great, but I also enjoy being able to stick my golf in second gear at 10mph and let it pull, in a fairly linear manner, to over 60mph. You see revving as a negative thing (‘thrashing’), while plenty others actually enjoy have a wide power band and being able to rev the engine to 7000rpm.

And I would like to see details of tests that show the diesel variant having a significant advantage over the petrol one in mid range acceleration.

[dinger19]

Well said maisbitt.

[Scott_mac]

maisbitt - like i said, neither are a bad car, buy the one you want.... I personally didn't think the 2.0 TSi added much to the overall experience, quicker yes, but not as fizzy and fun as the 1.4 and the handling wasn't as involving, the 1.4 is more nimble and light on its toes.

For me, the R is the one to get, given i couldn't justify the company car tax, the 1.4 was genuinely the one i wanted!

Everyone wants something different - thankfully - so buy the one you guys want.

[pishpashposh]

Some people really do think they bought a sports car and not an attractive Golf variant. Both TDI and 1.4TSI are compromises over the original 2.0TSI.

1.4TSI - much cheaper than a 2.0TSI, slightly better economy, missing out on all the GT equipment (unless you spec it up at considerable cost, shortening the gap in purchase price).

170TDI - similar price to 2.0TSI, same equipment levels as 2.0TSI, far better economy, better residuals, significant (but not massively) better performance than the 1.4TSI (I am talking mid-range here, not boy-racer traffic light duels).

For the extra that a 170TDI costs over a 1.4TSI, you'll get that money back in lower running costs (better fuel economy and retained value) over 3 years.

Being economical doesn't make the TDI any less or more sporty than the 1.4TSI, it has it's power delivery in the place most users will want it - midrange for overtaking, not bottom range for screaming away from the traffic lights and showing that 1.2 Corsa in the other lane who's the daddy (unless you're 18 and driving a roc - lucky you!). Neither are "sporty" engines. You have a performance Diesel and you have an elaborately aspirated 1.4 - neither of which are going to win any track awards.

The reason I bought my Roc is that I wanted something economical and powerful enough to overtake slower traffic when required, as well as having great residuals (I have lost 20% on my 140TDI for 2 years ownership: discounted purchase price vs trade-in value, admittedly some of that low loss is due to me buying it at 15% VAT). I'm used to buying 3 door Golfs, but the Roc is better specced, looks better and is better equipped for the same money. I'm getting a 170TDI now because it wasn't available when I got mine (the joys of being an early adopter).

I've driven the 1.4TSI/160 a few times now - you really do have to thrash it to get the best out of it - the TDI never feels thrashed when you put your foot down. Does that feeling of thrashing a car to get anything out of it make it sporty?

Petrol does not automatically equal sporty car.

The way you rationalise you should have bought a BMW 120 diesel, its faster and more economical than the VW engines! I bought the 1.4 as at the time no-one else offered that kind of engine and the scirocco is an attractive car, I'd be interested to see the sums for working out the 170 diesel will work out the same price as a 1.4 over 3 years for someone that does less than 10k a year - i quite frankly don't believe you.

[maisbitt]

PIshpashposh: Was taking depreciation into account as well as fuel, petrol Roc values are softening a little compared to the Diesels, and will continue to do so as fuel prices climb, unless the price differential between premium unleaded and Diesel opens up significantly.

You can see the depreciation effect on lease prices. To lease a 170TDI costs very little more than to lease a basic (no add-ons) 160TSI despite the £2900 purchase price gap.

As for the BMW option, taking depreciation into account, they have a lower retained value and are poorly equipped, so a 120D would be the dearer option, despite modest gains in economy, and they are pig-ugly.

[Scott_mac]

Guess it depends on where you lease, using my local dealer (who have dealerships in all brands discussed)... for me the 120D Sport (and for a Coupe which is not pig ugly) was cheaper than a 170TDI and the 1.4 was significantly cheaper again, even with some options.

My local dealership suggested that the low running costs of the 1.4 and the 140TDI were of greater appeal to the general public at the moment and the others were seeing a bigger hit on residuals as a result.

Diesels may have better fuel economy but the fuel is more expensive and servicing is higher also... it's not quite so clear cut when you get down to the nitty gritty.

[viperoc]

Oh yes, depreciation is another argument thrown in favour of diesels but thats a house of cards built on a significant proportion of the car buying public believing that diesels are more desirable- then demand (based on supposed mpg benefits) pushes up residuals and therefore makes depreciation lower- which in effect makes leasing cost effective. Its a house of cards based on the 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome. Its only works when everyone (or the majority at least) believes the same thing. What makes me laugh is that so many people pay significantly more for a diesel and dont do anything near the number of miles to get their additional expenditure back...!

Going back to the driving characteristics- yes I genuinely consider linear, clean revving, acceleration is sportier than negotiating one short-lived lump of torque to the other with a very low redline. Diesels are great......in people carriers, lorries and taxis but have no place in performance orientated cars.

[maisbitt]

Long term reliability of the 1.4TSI (160) was a big concern to me. If I plan on keeping my car beyond it's warranty, I do worry about reliability, and the dual charged 1.4TSI has had plenty of issues linked to it that are unique to that engine, across the VAG range (except Audi, who still favour the 1.8TFSI unit). Most issues have been caught under warranty, so far. If you're only planning on keeping the car 3 years then it's of no concern.

Supposed mpg benefits - there's nothing "supposed" about it, the facts are there, VW's TDIs are significantly more fuel efficient than their TSIs (even the 122PS variant). Someone doing just 10,000 miles a year is likely to save at least £400 a year on fuel in a TDI (based opon real world optimistic average figures of 38mpg for the TSI and 50mpg for the TDI). The emperors clothes syndrome applys to anything - something is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Are people prepared to pay more 2nd hand for a Roc than a Golf? Right now they are, but that could change (especially if the Golf has fewer creaks and rattles out of warranty), same way as people are prepared to pay more for a Diesel right now. That should only change if the price gap between petrol and diesel opened up so far as to negate the benefits e.g. 25%. The dirty diesel argument no longer applys to diesels with their DPFs either.

I do think the 1.4TSI is under equipped as standard - VW should make it available in GT trim, rather than make owners buy all the options separately (£1545 if you get them all) and get only a small proportion of the cost back at trade in. My local dealer has said they find it noticeably harder to shift non GT Rocs. People expect to get a multifunction steering wheel, front fogs and 18" alloys on a Roc. That is another reason for me not to get a 1.4TSI.

Do you still think you have a performance orientated car and not an attractive everyday car? 160PS or even 170PS is nothing out of the ordinary these days, no matter how it's generated.

For those that think the 160TSi is sportier in feel to the 2.0TSI, what do you think makes a sporty car? Does it feel sportier because you have to push it a lot harder to get the same effect? Go even sportier and get a 122PS variant.
The 2.0TSI is sportier than the TDI and 1.4TSI because it has plenty in reserve under the bonnet and you'll rarely have to use it's full potential on the open road. That could be a reason not to get one, if you think you'll never use the extra.

What Car's 3 year running cost puts the 170TDI GT at about £120 more than the 1.4TSI (160) over 3 years, on the assumptions of average mileage (10,000 miles per year) and no optional equipment (how many people won't add 18" alloys or a multifunction steering wheel at a minimum though?). Above average mileage will also tip the £120 difference in the TDIs favour. Either way is costs £40 a year more to drive the dearer and better equipped car on average mileage.

[Scott_mac]

Why are you bringing spec into it though? That again is a personal preference....

I don't want 18" Wheels particularly, the 17's being lighter, thus less unsprung weight, thus potentially better handling... I also couldn't care less about front fogs or smoked rear windows.

I did want a multifunction wheel, so added it but that was a lot less than paying for the GT.

As for what makes a sporty car, it's called feedback, interaction with the car, handling.... all of which the 1.4 is at least as good as the 2.0 if not better. Speed isn't the be all and end all, despite the fact people obsess with it. My former car was a Lotus Elise, 120bhp meant it wasn't particularly quick and a Mondeo would kill it on a motorway, but the acceleration was phenomenal, handling still the best of any car i've driven and you could exploit all of the power on the road - a Ferrari may give a bigger buzz from the noise but until you're really pushing it it's not as appealling.

As i keep saying though, each to their own. You're clearly a big fan of Diesels and like how they drive and feel justified in your purchase, which is absolutely fine, however for me, a Diesel car doesn't cut it as a sports car. I am in the position of not having to pay for my fuel either so the MPG is less of a concern for me, which re-iterates my point that what suits one person doesn't necessarily suit others.

[Dogzyboy]

Going back to the driving characteristics- yes I genuinely consider linear, clean revving, acceleration is sportier than negotiating one short-lived lump of torque to the other with a very low redline. Diesels are great......in people carriers, lorries and taxis but have no place in performance orientated cars.

Have you actually driven a Tdi in Common Rail form? Judging by this statement I'm guessing not.

[maisbitt]

I seriously doubt the 2.0TSI handles less well than a 1.4TSI. Heavier 18" wheels on a GT = worse handling? The R's standard 19" wheels must be quite the drawback then. I would expect lower profile tyres on the larger wheels to give you better feedback, otherwise we'd have sportscars with tractor tyres on them.

[viperoc]

Going back to the driving characteristics- yes I genuinely consider linear, clean revving, acceleration is sportier than negotiating one short-lived lump of torque to the other with a very low redline. Diesels are great......in people carriers, lorries and taxis but have no place in performance orientated cars.

Have you actually driven a Tdi in Common Rail form? Judging by this statement I'm guessing not.

Yes I have. In fact I deliberately decided to go for a drive in the TDi 140 to maximise my MPG as I am now doing 20k miles a year; I must have been feeling very sensible that day....! Amazingly it cost no more than the twincharger 160 on the lease. So, I asked for a test drive in the common-rail only and decided that if it was sufficiently impressive then Id go for it. I hadnt sampled the petrol 160 at that point so didnt know what I may be missing (if anything.) The test drive blew me away except for the engine. Dont get me wrong- its smooth and refined (for a diesel ) but there was no drama. There was plenty of shove, no matching soundtrack. It seemed such a mismatch...so despite the economical argument in its favour, I couldnt do it. I ordered the 160 and its surpassed my expectations. It actually is a torquey unit so you dont have to thrash it; but if you're in the mood, you can. I like that. The 140 tdi just didnt match the looks and attitude of the car.

I have owned diesels but only in MPVs/ family cars as they suited the purpose of that vehicle.

Diesels have come on leaps and bounds and we choose them for good rational reasons; but surely the Roc is a car that pulls on the heart strings and should have an engine to match?

Ive owned plenty of low powered but enthusisatic, revvy petrol cars that on paper dont impress with 0-60, mid range and top speed statistics- but did feel sport. I think Scot mac, above, said it right.

[maisbitt]

Summary:-

If you care about more money in your pocket when you fill up and trade in and want some torque then get a 140TDI
If you still care but don't mind losing a little economy and gaining more power and torque then get a 170TDI
If you want to pretend you have a sports car but care about your fuel economy (relative to petrol) then get a 160TSI
If you want a hot hatch and don't mind so much about fuel economy then get a 2.0TSI
If you want a truly sporty car and couldn't care less about economy then get an R

[Scott_mac]

I seriously doubt the 2.0TSI handles less well than a 1.4TSI. Heavier 18" wheels on a GT = worse handling? The R's standard 19" wheels must be quite the drawback then. I would expect lower profile tyres on the larger wheels to give you better feedback, otherwise we'd have sportscars with tractor tyres on them.

Unfortunately you're statement says it all.... skinny tyres don't give feedback, they give grip, traction - read most reviews of modern cars and they all harp on about a lack of feel in modern cars. Handling is different to grip, very different.... the R needs the larger wheels and tyres to put the power down, thinner, larger profile tyres and it would just light them up all day long.

Tractor tyres aren't the solution either, you need a balance.... however look at an F1 car, are those tyres low profile? Are they 19' in diameter?

Most experts universally rate the original Lotus Elan as the finest handling car in the world, personally i prefer the longer wheelbase of the +2 but i won't rate myself up there with Gordon Murray etc.... they run on 165/70R14's and would run out of grip a long time before an Elise or Scirocco would, but in terms of knowing what the car is doing, feedback through the wheel, the Elan is still better. http://www.classicandperformancecar.com ... s4_se.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not saying there is eon's of difference between them but a 1.4 does feel more nimble than a 2.0.... and both are a substantial step up from the Diesel cars when it comes to handling, physics can be a bitch. Many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference and on the road i'd hope it's not a range of the car people are testing frequently (the limits of handling) but it's there... and as I said before, the car i wanted was the R, it's far from the greatest handling car, certainly not at the price, but it has a fluidity about it and the performance is certainly breathtaking it's also fairly practical!

If you're serious about driving, you don't drive a Diesel as the fun car... sorry. I said it above, sports car = petrol, GT Car = Diesel.

[mike-p]

I have my 170GT as my mileage muncher and my Boxster as the weekend and track car.

If I had to have only one car to do it all it would have to be a BMW 335D convertible (if they made them), but it would be too much of a compromise.

Personally I'm happy with the 2 I have.

The 14.Tsi is a fantastic car for a 1.4 engine, but it's not an alternative to either the 170GT or the 2.0Tsi for differing reasons of course.