Which engine for the GT?

[stephen3rd]

Hi,

Signed up last night as i have started looking to replace my Girlfriends Fiesta Zetec S with a Mark VI Golf GT.

Based on opinion of current owners, which engine would you folks recommend? The 2.0 diesel or the 1.4 TSI?

We would like a nice balance of performance and economy. (Although i would prefer more performance!!!)

Thanks in advance.

[Robbie G]

How many miles per year do you anticipate doing?

If performance is your primary aim, then it has to be the 160PS petrol engine, as it's simply quieter and faster than the diesel. However the diesel is plenty quick enough for most, and returns better economy.

Personally I went for the petrol as I don't commute far, but even if I did 15k miles a year I'd have still gone for the petrol as it's the engine I prefer.

You really need to test drive both and see which suits your driving style, as you may prefer one over the other to such a great extent that all other practical factors go out of the window.

Sometimes with the diesels, people prefer the low rev punch than the torquier engine can supply. However the 160PS engine overcomes this by supercharging output thereby bringing in more torque at lower rev ranges on the petrol engine.

There are so many factors involved. You need to ask yourself all of the above questions and above all, try them yourself.

[james_tiger_woo]

If it's a diesel - GT or GTD?

I've got a diesel GT but I'll be interested to see how that compares against the GTD....

[elvismiggell]

What sort of driving does she do? Lots of stop start in urban traffic, or more smooth flowing extra urban or areas where there is less traqffic and fewer traffic lights?

I have a Mk5 GT TDI which at the moment is mainly being used for urban journeys and the fuel economy only hovers around 40mpg.

The 1.4 TSI is quicker 0-60 and better around town in terms of economy. For longer journeys I would imagine the pulling power of the diesel would be better.

.....IMHO of course!

[Robbie G]

If it's a diesel - GT or GTD?

Thread title states GT :confused:.

[james_tiger_woo]

Thread title states GT :confused:.

I know that, but if the OP's considering a Diesel GT, then perhaps looking at a GTD might be an option if performance is a consideration - but there's a lot of other factors - mileage, cost, etc. which may impact upon that.

Alternatively, I think the OP should buy his OH a Polo and himself a Golf :)

[stephen3rd]

Thanks for the quick responses.

Mileage is about 11 - 12000 per year and virtually no long motorway drags.

GTD will be a little out of budget i'm affraid.

And with regard to the Polo for her and Golf for me, i will prefer to stick to my fully loaded 320d Msport Saloon chipped to 210bhp.

I had a 120d and considered a 118d MSport for the other half, but i have to say i was really really impressed by the Golf.

[james_tiger_woo]

Ah well, in that case - keep your 320D :)

If it's not for you, why a GT (why not an SE - or even a 1.6 Diesel)? And at that mileage - I'd stick with Petrol. I do 25k+ a year so diesel works for me but at your mileage, I'd say Petrol.

[stephen3rd]

Although it isnt for me directly i always like a nice car.

The GT just seems to give all the really nice little touches that i really like to have.

My other half although only driving for the past 3 years has come to appreciate a nice car.

I dont think i could have the SE and knowing that the GT existed. In saying that, that does always leave the fact that while owning a GT, the GTD and GTI still exist!

I think the GT is a nice compromise for our budget.

My preference for the engine would probably be for the 1.4 TSI. Not having driven the car with this engine, has it improved over the Mk V version? I have read some negative reviews of the engine being a bit rough but they do seem to be reviews of the Mk V.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[james_tiger_woo]

Well, I like my GT and although I like the GTD, I think the drop in economy would be felt.

I'd consider the petrol GT though as you'll not get the premium back that you'd be paying for the diesel.

Spec well and have fun :)

[stephen3rd]

Thanks again james_tiger_woo!!

[Robbie G]

My preference for the engine would probably be for the 1.4 TSI. Not having driven the car with this engine, has it improved over the Mk V version? I have read some negative reviews of the engine being a bit rough but they do seem to be reviews of the Mk V.

Thanks again for the feedback.

As far as I know it's the same engine as was in the MkV, the only related factors they have changed are sound deadening in and around the engine bay and glass / doors etc. It's seemed very quiet and refined to me, and with the DSG it's as smooth as anything. Despite the fact that it appeared in the MkV, it's a new engine that they stuffed in the MkV to boost end of life sales.

I personally can thoroughly recommend, I think it's an outstanding engine, but you must test drive it first. Incidentally I'd be interested to see links to the reviews that state it's 'a bit rough', as the engine has won various excellence awards.

PS ignore Jeremy Clarkson's Times Online review as it's the first Google result iirc. The man's a legend but a serious motoring journalist he is not :D.

[stephen3rd]

Robbie G,

I will hold my hands up and say that the one reference to the 1.4 being rough that i can remember is the article you refer too.

Agreed, the man is a genius but should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Out of interest, what sort of mileage have you been getting from it?

Thanks

[Robbie G]

I don't have it yet, it's due next month. However I've test driven two dealer cars and also a friend has one that I've played with, so I've had a lot of contact with it and am therefore able to comment critically.

He's told me he gets 35mpg urban and only ever gets near the top quoted efficiency when plodding along a motorway for long distances at 75mph.

The cars I've driven have also been DSG, so bear in mind a few things about that article, which refers to a manual car:

- Clarkson may be equally bad at changing gear smoothly as he is at writing about cars
- I'm not even sure the article refers to a MkVI Golf. If he was driving a MkV, various improvements may have occurred in the drive train of the MkVI (the gearbox may be better in the MkVI manual car)
- He seems to have had the 'W' button engaged, which reduces torque and forces the car to change up earlier

My only negative comment from driving the car is the slight hesitation at very low speeds when not in sport mode. But seriously it's barely worth mentioning and once you let rip it's a responsive car that's refined, fun to drive, and has plenty of poke.

[cs2009]

My preference for the engine would probably be for the 1.4 TSI. Not having driven the car with this engine, has it improved over the Mk V version? I have read some negative reviews of the engine being a bit rough but they do seem to be reviews of the Mk V.


I have the Mk VI GT TSI, but haven't driven the Mk V version.

I have found the engine to be an absolute gem. Punchy and incredibly smooth and quiet under all conditions. Under normal acceleration, the main noise from the engine is just a faint whooshing from the supercharger.

I'm sure the diesel would be very good, but I didn't go that route as I had heard that the new DPF equipped engines don't like short journeys, as the exhaust never gets hot enough to avoid regeneration cycles.

Chris.

[stephen3rd]

cs2009,

I think that is the type of recommendation i was looking for.

Would be good to hear some of the diesel owners thoughts that have a GT.

[nebw]

Do you want the DSG box ? If you do, I think that should steer you towards the petrol variant, because:
- mpg figure improves slightly for petrol, but drops significantly for diesel, when you spec the DSG box, reason being the diesel has the wet clutch 6 speed DSG whereas the petrol has the new dry clutch 7 speed, which has much lower internal losses. I think petrol goes from about 45 to 47, while diesel goes from 57 to 52. You'd have to do a huge number of miles to justify a diesel DSG on fuel costs alone;
- the diesel is a bit harder to drive smoothly round town than the petrol, when combined with DSG. Particularly it is hard to judge braking correctly as the DSG changes down as you roll to a halt e.g. at traffic lights. Not a fault as such, just an unavoidable result of diesel engines being harder to turn.

Hope this helps.

p.s. I had a diesel GT, which was ok, but I would have preferred petrol if I could have got it at the time.

[stephen3rd]

The choice of gearbox is a good point.

It would be the Manual box and not DSG.

Not only to keep costs down but i just feel you have more control with the Manual.

I am pretty sure i am coming down on the side of the 1.4 TSI but it is always good to hear the opinions of owners.

Stephen

[james_tiger_woo]

cs2009,

I think that is the type of recommendation i was looking for.

Would be good to hear some of the diesel owners thoughts that have a GT.

These might interest you then:

1000 Mile report - http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=68203

5000 Mile report - http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=72508

[elidag]

I have the diesel GT with DSG and find it very smooth. Don't know how much quieter the petrol can be that the diesel as I struggle to hear the engine - a point that has been commented on by every passenger I have had in the car. I tend to do a lot of motorway journeys and so I am seeing a return of over 54MPG(indicated) which I am very happy with. Just as a side note garages round here(Leeds) seem to be charging the same for petrol/Diesel now as compared to a 12p difference last year

[james_tiger_woo]

Agreed - it is very quiet - even from the outside it's quiet (it's still obviously a diesel but it IS very quiet)

[stephen3rd]

That is a couple of nice reviews.

I am always guilty of not using the "Search" box often enough.

Thanks

[james_tiger_woo]

Bear in mind the review's subjective :)

[david25]

I have a MK5 140 petrol (manual), after a test drive of the MK6 160 manual, I would comment;

- It either much smoother or the new damping works really well, it
has none of the coarseness (when cold) compared to the mk5 unit.

- Performance, well the needles go round the dial quickly, but subjectively it felt like it was holding back and not rev'ing as freely. Maybe it just needs more miles. Its around 200rpm higher geared at 60 (2000)

- Really quiet and very more refined, however it lacks the sound and therefore some of the character of the MK5 unit.

However, as a direct comparison with a Zetec, it should be much better in every way. I'd recommend the petrol + manual. FYI I'm getting 42mpg in mixed driving with the MK5.


Hi,

Signed up last night as i have started looking to replace my Girlfriends Fiesta Zetec S with a Mark VI Golf GT.

Based on opinion of current owners, which engine would you folks recommend? The 2.0 diesel or the 1.4 TSI?

We would like a nice balance of performance and economy. (Although i would prefer more performance!!!)

Thanks in advance.

[stephen3rd]

Thanks again for all the advice.

You guys have pretty much confirmed what i thought before i posted.

A Mark VI GT 1.4 FSI Manual will do nicely!

Thinking on the following options.

2Zone Air Con
Convenience Pack
Mettalic Paint
RCD 510 Stereo
Bluetooth Telephone prep
Parking Sensors

The only concern i have about the options is the Bluetooth, based on the fact it looks like it will only fully operate with an ageing Nokia.

Anyway i will search the site for which handsets work fully.

S

[paul.mgrath]

I have the 140 GT diesel and i find it not as torquey as the 140pg. However when you get to around 2300 the car does pull away nicely. I went for the diesel as i find you don't really have to change gear whilst mooching about - lazy:p.

To compare the dieslel to the TSI i can't comment as i have only driven the 2.0 diesel.

[J400uk]

Afraid I don't currently own either... but TSI gets my vote considering the annual mileage and non-motorway use

Ignore Clarksons review, in real life its a very smooth pleasent engine to use. Easily the best if not one of the best 4-cylinder petrols on the market.



I'm sure the diesel would be very good, but I didn't go that route as I had heard that the new DPF equipped engines don't like short journeys, as the exhaust never gets hot enough to avoid regeneration cycles.



From what I have heard that only applies to the older PD diesels like those in the MK5. Dosent seem to be a problem with the CR diesels.

[maisbitt]

My old 170TDI PD Golf (MK5) used to play up regularly with DPF issues, it even needed an official remap from VW.

1100 miles in with a new 140TDI CR and i've been unaware of any DPF issues (no high speed idling or lumpy performance between 1200 and 2000rpm to indicate forced regeneration).

[netherfield]

We bought the Diesel and are very happy with it,both past the age of racing around,but is still zippy enough when required.

[djradium]

A few months ago it may have made sense to get the petrol because of the difference in price between petrol and diesel at the pump. However, when i was filling up at asda today i noticed that unleaded was 101.9 and diesel was 100.9. Glad i got the diesel

Much better ecomomy and still quite rapid through the gears.

[paul.mgrath]

Went to pick the kids up from me dads yesterday and its 30 miles of twisty fast flowing B roads plenty of climbing with similar drops and as the car has only done 400 miles am trying not to rev it too much. So with 3000 rpm gear changes had absoloutely no problem. The car is silent and handles the bumps well. Don;t know how much of this is down to the Vancouvers but the only time the car was unsettled was when i hit an undulating section of road at 100 (2500rpm!) and the car did a bit of a bunny hop. Fortunately the car landed straight but i had my heart in my mouth. Mental note for future - watch the speedo as my car in my opinion seems to run away if you let it.

I have also noticed that the red line has moved up 500 revs from the Pd

[GTMan]

I have driven both and I preferred the TSI. It seemed to be more willing and free revving (very subjective I know).

Diesels may have better fuel consumption but the exhaust is pretty nasty for human health. Yes the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) filters 85%+ of particulates but they cause and exacerbate respiratory problems etc. To put this into context, the latest allergy research indicates that diesel particulates are one of the major causes of the rise in allergies in industrialised nations. Also note that DPFs can stop functioning and even fail if the vehicle is not used often enough on longer higher load/speed runs.

The TSI won the international and green engine of the year so it cant be bad technically either!

Regarding Mr Clarkson's review, the TSI GT is a "warm hatch" and one should not expect GTI or Ferrari performance!

I ordered a TSI GT in late May and expect it in a few weeks. I keep telling myself to relax, it is only a car after all:D....

[CharlesCourtney]

The choice of gearbox is a good point.

It would be the Manual box and not DSG.

Not only to keep costs down but i just feel you have more control with the Manual.

Stephen

Have you driven a DSG ? - cos trust me you don't get that feeling with them - I have had a few normal Auto's and with some you did get the feeling of being a little divorced from the box - you don't with the DSG. (also helps I have the MFW and paddles)

Can't help on cost though :)