Golf 2.0 140 vs 170
Discussion
I had a Golf 2.0 TDi GT 140BHP as a courtesy car for quite a few weeks when someone ran a stop sign and crashed into my own Golf 1.4S. Obviously the performance was far superior to my own car but I actually spent far less on fuel than I do with my own petrol Golf. For one thing, I really have to rev my car hard and labour the engine whereas I didn't with the more powerful, low revving diesel. The only slight issue with the performance was a slight hesitance trying to pull away quickly from a standstill, for example, when pulling out into fast moving traffic.
I've never driven one but if you go for a 1.4T it has a supercharger and a turbo.
I've never driven one but if you go for a 1.4T it has a supercharger and a turbo.
There is about 11mpg and 70 lbs of torque difference between the 140 diesel and TSI petrol. Now to me, this is quite a lot of difference, and even if I get the petrol for 2K ish less, over 5 years with the way fuel prices are going, I can't understand why the petrol is the better buy? Won't I need to rag the petrol everywhere to get the performance, and therefore probably be looking at 20mpg difference?
The diesel torque is fantastic. The car picks up speed for overtaking, tackles inclines smoothly and easily and with the Mk6 you don't get that diesel rattle except a bit at cold idle. The Mk5 is still refined and if you go for an 08 reg onwards you get extras such as heated leather seats and automatic headlights and wipers that were added to help sales before the car was replaced with the Mk6. A company called Accident Exchange provided the courtesy car I had and if you have a VAT number and can pass yourself off as a dealer you can buy ex courtesy cars at auction directly from their website.
Our company ran a few of these, both 140's and 170's and of the two I would go for the 140. The 170 is a fairly nasty engine, rough as a badgers arse and with a tiny power band, which completely overwhelms the front tyres when the turbo kicks in. The 140 is a bit more bearable, however I honestly wouldn't buy either. Every single one we had was problematic, from DPF issues to leaking radiators, along with a quite ridiculous thirst for oil. To drive they were also completely ruined for me by the on off power delivery, making them fairly unsophisticated.
If I had 11k to spend on a family car and wanted a Mk5 Golf it would have to be a GTi and nothing else. Its a bit less economical than the 170, but its far more reliable and I'm sure will be worth more in 5 years time with an extra 60k on the clock - and runs on cheaper fuel.
If I had 11k to spend on a family car and wanted a Mk5 Golf it would have to be a GTi and nothing else. Its a bit less economical than the 170, but its far more reliable and I'm sure will be worth more in 5 years time with an extra 60k on the clock - and runs on cheaper fuel.
BlueEyedBoy said:
There is about 11mpg and 70 lbs of torque difference between the 140 diesel and TSI petrol. Now to me, this is quite a lot of difference, and even if I get the petrol for 2K ish less, over 5 years with the way fuel prices are going, I can't understand why the petrol is the better buy? Won't I need to rag the petrol everywhere to get the performance, and therefore probably be looking at 20mpg difference?
It may not be the better buy, it depends how many miles your doing. I just don't understand the "TDI innit" culture a lot of people seem to apply to buying Golfs, automatically assuming the diesel will be cheap to run regardless of circumstances. My only advice to you is to try both and do the maths.va1o said:
It may not be the better buy, it depends how many miles your doing. I just don't understand the "TDI innit" culture a lot of people seem to apply to buying Golfs, automatically assuming the diesel will be cheap to run regardless of circumstances. My only advice to you is to try both and do the maths.
Some of the 04-07 cars do have some issues all the rest are good as gold . I rag my car continuously and 20k later no issues what so ever , now on 73k . I really like the 170 engine and I can tell you it ain't far off a 325i for performance , driving dynamics obviously not so good being a washing machine but at the end of the day I can't afford to run a petrol engine car . The new tsi engines will have issues like the tdis , it's only so much power can be extracted from small displacements without compromising reliability . I have been using a 1.6 Audi a3 to get around and it's killing my pocket , yes the difference is that big bodhi said:
The 170 is a fairly nasty engine, rough as a badgers arse and with a tiny power band, which completely overwhelms the front tyres when the turbo kicks in. The 140 is a bit more bearable, however I honestly wouldn't buy either. To drive they were also completely ruined for me by the on off power delivery, making them fairly unsophisticated.
You must be talking about the older PD engines. The 170 revs further than the 140 so not sure what you mean by 'tiny powerband'. It is mapped fairly aggressively and I accept that it isn't refined, but these lumps serve the entire VAG group in cars as large as the Superb or A6. Surely they're not that bad!I did 80k in the 170 PD and found it to be a rewarding, if a little rough drive. The point to point ability of these cars is what makes them fun to be in. The wall of torque and the way it was delivered was fun at first but my o/h grew tired of the neck-snapping nature of it.
I'm now in a 1 series and the dynamics are totally different. Smooth and linear right up to the red line.
Having done decent mileages in cars with the 140 engine, how they drive depends on the gearbox they are mated too.
I had an Octavia that was quick to 60 and would do 80mph in 3rd and over 100 in 4th, but would struggle at speeds over 110mph.
Then the Mitsubishi Lancer I had was slower to 60, because there were too many gearchanges, but used to pick up all the way to 120 and above. Spec on the Lancer was brilliant - way better than a Golf costing £5k more.
Having come across 170 Golfs in both, there was very little difference at all. I'd buy a 140 and re-map it for a couple of hundred quid if it's not fast enough for you.
I had an Octavia that was quick to 60 and would do 80mph in 3rd and over 100 in 4th, but would struggle at speeds over 110mph.
Then the Mitsubishi Lancer I had was slower to 60, because there were too many gearchanges, but used to pick up all the way to 120 and above. Spec on the Lancer was brilliant - way better than a Golf costing £5k more.
Having come across 170 Golfs in both, there was very little difference at all. I'd buy a 140 and re-map it for a couple of hundred quid if it's not fast enough for you.
If you want a VW group car tuned this company does it. You can even get their products through some VW dealers. http://www.abt-sportsline.de/en/
BlueEyedBoy said:
There is about 11mpg and 70 lbs of torque difference between the 140 diesel and TSI petrol. Now to me, this is quite a lot of difference, and even if I get the petrol for 2K ish less, over 5 years with the way fuel prices are going, I can't understand why the petrol is the better buy? Won't I need to rag the petrol everywhere to get the performance, and therefore probably be looking at 20mpg difference?
I had a similar issue a year ago when i was looking to buy a MK5 TDI 170, but it soon became apparent that the similar powered petrol 1.4TSI was a grand cheaper (not 2k then!). This was enough for me as i only do about 10k miles a year.I had a shot in the 1.4 and thought it was ok, no need to thrash it to get it to perform, its not the GTi of course but its no slouch, engine noise on boost is sweet. The petrol is as you say down on torque but its a fair bit lighter than the diesal, it corners very well.
I drive it reasonably hard and get 35mpg, lighter foot would get 39mpg so whats the point in that
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff