PDA

View Full Version : 1.4tsi 122bhp or 2.0tdi 140bhp



lchrisl
15-02-2009, 11:21 PM
Going to order the car tomorrow dont know what one to get.i have seen alot of people on here have gone for the 1.4tsi 122 bhp i have only test driven the 2.0tdi 110bhp as that was the only one they had in what do you think i should go for?

bilen123
16-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Brochure says the TDI's are DFP. Remember, these filters clog up very quickly if the car is not used on long runs. That is why I opted for a 1.4 TSI as our car car will only be used for the school run

Caution - from a another thread..... the TDIs have cambelts and the 1.4 has a timing chain (need to check to be sure) so that might sway you
Caution - TSI 1.4 recommended fuel is super-unleaded for the best consumption (need to check though) and this is 5p/litre more epxensive then unleaded

lchrisl
16-02-2009, 07:37 PM
i decided to get the 2.0tdi it should be here end of april early may cant wait lol

WeegieBob
16-02-2009, 10:55 PM
Probably too late as you'll have ordered your car by now - however I've test driven the 140 Tdi and even with only 8 miles on the clock it was very smooth & responsive.

I was given a newspaper road test on the new Golf and the critic reckoned that the 140 was the better option of the two diesels if you wanted better performance at a slight cost in economy - and of course the extra £500 for a 140.

I've ordered a 140 Tdi as I was supplied with the Mk V version last year when my Mercedes was in for warranty work and the car blew my socks off! Talk about giving the competition an opportunity.

WeegieBob. ;)

iallen1@btinter
18-02-2009, 09:06 PM
The fuel and performance figures are nearly exactly the same for the 110 and 140 diesel, i went for the 1.4tsi 122bhp and its only 0.2 seconds slower to 60mph than the 140 diesel, tremendous power and a lot cheaper. I only do 6000 a year so couldnt justify a diesel

knt
18-02-2009, 10:20 PM
Yup, if you don't do many miles per annum then petrol will be a better buy than a diesel.

Considering the premium price for diesel version and also diesel fuel.

iallen1@btinter
18-02-2009, 10:36 PM
cant understand what the point of the 140 diesel is when the 110 diesel figures are nearly exactly the same

bilen123
19-02-2009, 10:35 AM
Is it becasue the 110 only comes as manual and the 140 comes as DSG (for DSG you need a more powerful diesel?)
Anyway your right about going for petrol if you are doing < 6K a year as the DFP filters I've been told clog up

J400uk
02-03-2009, 01:47 AM
TDI 110 is a pointless buy IMO. If you do 10k+ miles go for a TDI 140 if not get the TSI 122. The 110 diesel is barely any more economical than the £500 more epxneisve 140, and is less powerful than the 122 TSI. It is getting replaced with a smaller and more efficent 1.6 TDI 105 in the Summer.

iallen1@btinter
02-03-2009, 05:44 PM
If you dont want the dsg, i reckon the 110 is ok to go for

J400uk
02-03-2009, 05:51 PM
If you dont want the dsg, i reckon the 110 is ok to go for

I disagree, I genuinely cannot see a single advantage to buy that engine, unless you are doing serious miles.

You would have to do close to 50k miles (at current diesel prices) to earn back the extra outlay it cost you over the TSI 122.

Added to that, the petrol unit is far smoother with stronger performance, it dosent take a genuis to see why so few are opting for the 110 TDI.

iallen1@btinter
02-03-2009, 06:01 PM
I have ordered the petrol 1.4 tsi 122bhp, the power is tremendous and its only 0.2 seconds slower to 60 than the 140 diesel. Alot of the diesel cars only do high mpg on a run, and i only go on the motorway a couple ot times a year, a diesel engine needs to be worked not chugging around town, and letting all the filters clog up

lchrisl
02-03-2009, 07:35 PM
I disagree, I genuinely cannot see a single advantage to buy that engine, unless you are doing serious miles.

You would have to do close to 50k miles (at current diesel prices) to earn back the extra outlay it cost you over the TSI 122.

Added to that, the petrol unit is far smoother with stronger performance, it dosent take a genuis to see why so few are opting for the 110 TDI.


I ordered the 110bhp diesel just because i prefer more torque and when it arrives its going in for a remap. but now am thinking i should have went for the 140bhp diesel

J400uk
02-03-2009, 07:40 PM
Fair enough, its still a good car, just not the engine I would choose or reccomend. The TSI 122 only has slightly less torque at 2000rpm (50nm) and it still manages to accelerate to 60mph 1.2 sec faster.

If you want the 2.0 TDI 140 then surely you can still cancel and change?

lchrisl
02-03-2009, 08:09 PM
Fair enough, its still a good car, just not the engine I would choose or reccomend. The TSI 122 only has slightly less torque at 2000rpm (50nm) and it still manages to accelerate to 60mph 1.2 sec faster.

If you want the 2.0 TDI 140 then surely you can still cancel and change?

Dont want to change now because it will probably take longer. ill just get it remapped the guy who does it says i will get 145bhp to 150 bhp and about 255lb of torque so cant really complain

iallen1@btinter
02-03-2009, 09:52 PM
my old man has got the 110 diesel and is more than happy with it

CharlesCourtney
17-03-2009, 06:37 PM
Caution - TSI 1.4 recommended fuel is super-unleaded for the best consumption (need to check though) and this is 5p/litre more epxensive then unleaded

Are you sure - I have the 1.4 TSI in my 3 month old Golf Plus and it clearly stated 95 (or Normal) - this replaces a 55 plate 1.6 FSI which was 98 (super)

As an aside I must say that the 1.4 TSI is a superb engine (I have the 7 speed DSG with it) and it is so responsive and far better than the 1.6 with the old auto box. The 1.6 was not bad as long as it was drinking the aforementioned 98 Super-unleaded..

bilen123
18-03-2009, 11:25 AM
Hi Charles

I am quoting what the brochure says.....it does actually say normal unleaded but with a note next to that statement that says ...for optimum results you need to use super-unleaded. (I can not rtememeber the exact wording)

Consumption is key for us so I would not like to see it comprised or do damage to my engine by using normal unleaded.
I would like very much to use normal unleaded as it is cheaper!

CharlesCourtney
18-03-2009, 11:52 AM
Hi Charles

I am quoting what the brochure says.....it does actually say normal unleaded but with a note next to that statement that says ...for optimum results you need to use super-unleaded. (I can not rtememeber the exact wording)


On the Golf Plus brochure i have it says this (my bold)



Thanks to the knock control, unleaded four star (at least 95 RON) can be used instead of unleaded Super plus. In order to achieve maximum fuel consumption benefits on the FSI engine, Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used.


I cant remember what it says in the manual - will look tonight, but the sticker on the fuel filler only says 95 (with no mention of 98) on the 1.6 FSI I had it said 95/98 - and would not run very well on 95




Consumption is key for us so I would not like to see it comprised or do damage to my engine by using normal unleaded.
I would like very much to use normal unleaded as it is cheaper!

Well I use normal unleaded and get slightly better fuel economy than I did with the 1.6 FSI on 98.

bilen123
18-03-2009, 12:00 PM
Thanks for this...I will double check the brochure tonight myself but if I recall it sounds like they are saying the same for the 1.4TSI (122) as they said to you for your golf plus (because of knock control normal is ok but you get the best results using super)

Dealer just back and said use super-unleaded

CharlesCourtney
18-03-2009, 08:19 PM
Thanks for this...I will double check the brochure tonight myself but if I recall it sounds like they are saying the same for the 1.4TSI (122) as they said to you for your golf plus (because of knock control normal is ok but you get the best results using super)

Dealer just back and said use super-unleaded

The Technical Data manual under the 90 kW (122 PS) TSI says fuel "Super RON 95"

The fuel filler on closer examination says "min 95" and the Tips and Maintenance says :

"You may use petrol with a higher octane number than the one recommended for your engine. However this has no advantage in terms of fuel consumption and engine power"


In my old 55 plate 1.6 FSI there was a definite difference between 95 and 98 - with the 95 there was knocking and I did get better MPG with the 98 which just about covered the cost difference in the fuel.

But the new 1.4 runs fine on 95.

iallen1@btinter
18-03-2009, 08:51 PM
I have just got the mk 6 1.4 TSI SE, the garage say you can run it on either and if you use unleaded just know and again use super unleaded, they said on some of the earlier TSI engines they did pinc a bit but new software stop this, i have just filled up tomight and all the tesco super unleaded pumps were out of order, so i put unleaded in and it seems fine

knt
18-03-2009, 09:38 PM
Super unleaded also contains substances that's suppose to clean the system as well.

iallen1@btinter
18-03-2009, 10:14 PM
is it worth sticking with normal or super

bilen123
19-03-2009, 12:53 PM
Can this be a big issue - not for consumption but for engine reliability?
The 1.4TSI's have not been aroung long so we have no history to go on.

If you use normal all the time then longer term (+4yrs) you might damage your engine??? that's the debate
If you normal and fill up with Super every 5 fills then this might be mitigate any impact
If you use super all the time then you should enounter no issues (as it's recommended)

I guess it boils down to how long you envisage keeping the car - me 5yrs+ so I can't take the risk of using normal just in case it does have an impact (I'm not a mechanic so I can't see what impact though)

CharlesCourtney
19-03-2009, 02:57 PM
Can this be a big issue - not for consumption but for engine reliability?
The 1.4TSI's have not been aroung long so we have no history to go on.

If you use normal all the time then longer term (+4yrs) you might damage your engine??? that's the debate
If you normal and fill up with Super every 5 fills then this might be mitigate any impact
If you use super all the time then you should enounter no issues (as it's recommended)

I guess it boils down to how long you envisage keeping the car - me 5yrs+ so I can't take the risk of using normal just in case it does have an impact (I'm not a mechanic so I can't see what impact though)

Please don't take this as me having a go, but it is of interest, and I would like to find out what the correct answer is here.

As I said, in Sept 05 i got my first VW a 1.6 FSI (Golf Plus SE) and it was clear that it ran much better on 98 than 95. Now I have the 1.4 TSI I have switched back to 95.

Having read your post I have done some Google'ing and found this http://www.petrolprices.com/about-fuel.html :



Using Super Fuels

One of our users commented that using higher octane fuel than your engine requires actually gives no benefit and may be a waste of money. This is because virtually NO engines require 98 RON over 95, and the market for 'super' fuels seems to be based on people's misunderstanding of octane ratings and the placebo effect of filling up with 'more powerful' fuel - making motorists think their engine is running better in some way.

What do the fuel companies say then, to justify the "increased power" claims for the super grade fuels? Some companies say that while all fuels contain cleaning additives, 'super' fuels contain more or better detergents to keep the injectors cleaner than standard fuel. Others say the fuel is a few percent denser which gives slightly more power per litre. These benefits may be marginal though in comparison to the extra cost involved so it is worth ensuring that your engine will actually benefit before filling up.


Given that I still can't see how if the manual says 95 is fine you could be doing damage to your engine - why would VW go to the bother of saying 95 for some and 98 for others if 95 might damage to your engine if VW had any evidence to this effect then they would just say in the manual just use 98, why take the risk.

If anyone wants to use 98 then use 98, but if you believe you are getting an advantage in terms of fuel consumption and/or engine power then even VW say you are not (see my earlier post from the Tips and Maintenance manual).

bilen123
19-03-2009, 03:21 PM
No offence believe me, the more information the better - just hope other poeple comment to get a consenus.
I do agree with you that normal should be ok, but why are dealers recommending super?

When I pick mine I bet they put in normal unleaded!!

CharlesCourtney
19-03-2009, 03:41 PM
No offence believe me, the more information the better - just hope other poeple comment to get a consenus.


I would also like more info - please if anyone has it post it or a link!




but why are dealers recommending super?


I Don't know why the dealers recommending super, but this is my 6th new car and on 3 of the 6 (none VW as it happens) the dealers have got basic technical info wrong about the car when doing the hand over - one question I always ask is about "Running in" and have on 3 occasions been told "No need to do that" only to get the manual out and it clearly state you should.

engineermk
19-03-2009, 03:42 PM
Guys,

The cleaning additives in the fuel are no related to the octane rating. They vary from brand to brand. So, with regards to engine longevity, you can run on 95 or 98 RON. Sticking to oil company fuels (Shell, BP etc) is a better bet than supermarkets.

All current engines should run on either 95 or 98 (or even 91) RON fuel. The knock sensor will detect the pre-ignition and retard the ignition accordingly. On wide open throttle accelerations you may feel the difference between 98 and 95RON, in normal day to day traffic i doubt you'd notice it, just as I doubt you notice a significant difference in fuel consumption.

My last three VW Audi have all recommended 98RON but I've always used Shell & BP 95 RON with no ill-effects over 180.000miles.

bilen123
19-03-2009, 04:05 PM
Thanks for this....will is normal I think
Going back to the previous comment - do we need to run these cars in?

CharlesCourtney
19-03-2009, 04:30 PM
Going back to the previous comment - do we need to run these cars in?

For my Plus 1.4 TSi (Dec 08) for the fist 1500km (I think) you just have to take it easy, not use full power - It is all detailed in the manual - well worth reading that section before leaving the forecourt.

knt
19-03-2009, 05:32 PM
I would recommend running the cars in as mentioned in the manual.