2.0 TDI Engine advice (170bhp)

[Agent_Trig]

Hi,
I'm looking into buying a 170 2.0 TDI A3 in the next couple of weeks and would like to know if there is any difference in engines depending on age.

I've heard people say "dont get a 2005 as they are inefficient and sound rough" but its all just pub talk and I would like to know the proper facts before I start looking.

So if there is any difference in engines depending on age, could anyone list out the differences and what year these occurred on please?

Thanks

 

[Agent_Trig]

Can anyone help?

 

[Jonay]

2005 is a 140 engine, I think its 2007 onwards that had the 170.

It can sound rough at times(140), but once it gets going its a nice engine to drive, it just wants to keep on going!

 

[Agent_Trig]

2005 is a 140 engine, I think its 2007 onwards that had the 170.

It can sound rough at times(140), but once it gets going its a nice engine to drive, it just wants to keep on going!

Thanks for the reply, but are you sure about this?

As from what I can gather when looking at them is that both 140 and 170 were available at all ages but I hear from people about difference in the engines themselves. Something to do with PD engines or CR engines or something like that.

Does anyone have any information in this if it's true?

 

[mike foster]

Both 140 and 170 were available until, I think 2008. Both engines were (are) PD.(Pumpe Duse) which is direct injection.

The newer cars, think they were first introduced in 2009, are CR (Common Rail) engines and the PD's are no longer used.

I have a 140 which is great to drive and if you want to make it a bit quicker you can always have it mapped.

Can't comment on the 170 really although I believe they are quite a bit more thirsty !

 

[jbs2472]

I have an A3 (60 reg) Sportback Sport 170 s-tronic loaner until mine arrives and i get 48-50 mpg on my 30 mile round trip and that is all B roads with 7 schools to pass in the morning.

I find the engine very responsive and quiet compared too older type diesels.

 

[Legacy 91...]

want advice buy a new one with a good warrenty main dealer servicing and as soon as it runs out of warrenty get rid asap nothing but problems 1.9tdi best engine EVER ! just go threw forums and search for faults 2.0l tdi audi's cost nothing but £££££...

 

[Vertigo1]

Well I've had a PD140, PD170 and CR170 so I know a bit about this

The 170 was first introduced in 2006 - the earliest plate it'll be on is a 56. It was categorically never available in the A3 before this time.

The first engine was a PD (Pumpe Duse) unit. It was a fair bit more refined than the similar 140 unit, the addition of an extra balancer shaft probably had something to do with that. The performance was noticably better, more than a mere 30bhp extra would suggest, and was especially more free-breathing and revving towards the top than the 140.

The PD unit was replaced with a CR (Common Rail) model in around 2008 I believe, although don't quote me on this. The new CR unit is a LOT more refined and quiet than the older PD, although performance is identical.

One other thing to be aware of is economy, or lack thereof. I found the economy of the PD170 absolutely shocking compared to the PD140 - a good 10+ mpg worse in all situations. I've been running a CR170 for just over two months now and was hoping it'd fare a bit better but it doesn't appear so. If you want economy then the 140's your best bet but the 170 is very nice

HTH

EDIT: Oops - the PD170 will possibly have been available on late 06 plates too, but was definitely not available before the second half of 2006.

 

[Agent_Trig]

Well I've had a PD140, PD170 and CR170 so I know a bit about this

The 170 was first introduced in 2006 - the earliest plate it'll be on is a 56. It was categorically never available in the A3 before this time.

The first engine was a PD (Pumpe Duse) unit. It was a fair bit more refined than the similar 140 unit, the addition of an extra balancer shaft probably had something to do with that. The performance was noticably better, more than a mere 30bhp extra would suggest, and was especially more free-breathing and revving towards the top than the 140.

The PD unit was replaced with a CR (Common Rail) model in around 2008 I believe, although don't quote me on this. The new CR unit is a LOT more refined and quiet than the older PD, although performance is identical.

One other thing to be aware of is economy, or lack thereof. I found the economy of the PD170 absolutely shocking compared to the PD140 - a good 10+ mpg worse in all situations. I've been running a CR170 for just over two months now and was hoping it'd fare a bit better but it doesn't appear so. If you want economy then the 140's your best bet but the 170 is very nice

HTH

Thanks for this, it's exactly the kind of info I wanted

When you saying the PD170's economy was shocking.. how shocking? Could you give me some figures you experienced on both the PD140 and PD170 please?

I need economy, but also need performance so I'm trying to find the right balance.

I'm coming from an FTO GPX which is currently giving me about 29mpg on a decent motorway run.

 

[Vertigo1]

I found the PD170 averaged around 33-35mpg in urban driving whilst the PD140 would be nearer 40mpg. On the motorway, at a constant 70mph, the PD170 would manage about 50mpg and at 90mph it'd be about 40mpg. The PD140 was nearer 60mpg at 70mph.

It's not like the 170 uses twice as much fuel or anything as daft as that, but I was definitely struck by quite how much thirstier it was. If you're coming from a thirsty petrol the 170 will still be a fair bit more efficient

 

[audicruiser]

We have a CR 170 MY10 Sportback S-Line with S-Tronic and get similar figures. Around town 35mpg, on a run up the motorway nearer 50mpg. Most I have seen from it is 56mpg on a run on A roads at 55mph.

It's a lot better than my A3 in the Sig!!

 

[347]

just to add my results , my 170 pd 56 plate with dpf delete and remap and full milltek exhaust I average 46 mpg , and thats a mixture of town and fast A roads .
as stated the pd 170 is noticably smoother than the 140 pd

 

[spencer361]

Get a 140 and remap it, mine is at 182bhp and at 70 mph I'm getting around 56-57mpg, at 80mph I get 52-53mpg and round town 44mpg upwards. Im currently running it on 225/55 16 inch snow tyres and getting better economy then with my s-line wheels on. so if you want eco, buy some skinny wheels and turn your air con off ha ha

 

[basssound]

Just running a standard 07 170bhp A3, combined average of 38.5mpg, on a 13mile trip to work in the morning it'll do low 50's without any trouble. Really it all depends how you drive
Also I'm very unsure wether to mod the engine or not as I've heard the 2.0 isn't any where as strong as the 1.9!?!?

 

[tannerpp]

I'm running an '07 170 TDI DSG Sportback (with Cruise) and during 2010 I averaged 49.8mpg over 13k. Stealer serviced and with the exception of going through tyres a little quicker than I might have expected :-o there have been no major mechanical issues and I've been very happy with both the economy and the performance. The only reason I will be replacing is to the new shape when it comes out.

 

[Agent_Trig]

Seems that the mpg figures do vary quite a lot from car to car (or driver to driver).

I'm definitely swaying towards a PD170 (cant afford a CR170 and the un-refinement that people talk about the PD140 does put me off).
It's a shame because within my budget (£13-£14k), I can get a lot of car with the 140, but not so much with the 170.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[spencer361]

I Had an '06 megane sport before my sportback pd140, the audi seems quieter between 50 and 70 mph. Id go for a loaded 140 as i'm already missing xenons, sat nav and even the arm rest!

 

[devonmikeyboy]

A remapped PD140 is just as refined as any PD170. Personally i would have a PD140 over a PD170 any day. All engines after the PD140 came with a DPF fitted which i couldn`t live with.