A3 3.2 vs 2. FSI vs 2.0TDi MPG?

  • Thread starter imported_hornet_basher
  • Start date
No, why would I drive around with 5000rpm? You don't drive around with 4000rpm either with diesel, although that's where the maximum acceleration is (highest power output, not highest torque). When you need power, you change to smaller gear. Power is needed when you accelerate the car, and that's when you change to lower gear anyway, to save in economy.

Otherwise you drive with biggest maximum gear anyway, since you keep the speed constant, or with little variety (and you don't need the maximum power output).

You don't believe that petrol engines make more, but you expect to believe that diesels do? Both dynos exists, and there isn't enough data to make comments on either. Somehow VAG believes it's 140bhp. BMW believes their makes more than their petrol counterpart. So comments like "VAG doesn't want to eat petrol marketshare" is über rubbish, since in Germany diesels sell more than petrol engines.

Ouh yes, I've driven both. I've also seen them against clock, they've been tested often against clock. Somehow FSI engine is always faster, I wonder why. But then again, time is relative and you can say a tractor is faster, as much as you want. Prove it?

There isn't A3 8P with 1,8T 150bhp, let me know when there is. Until then, you can compare S-Class Mercedes to your Clio and hope for victory.

Now, for the next post, show me result of TDI winning FSI against clock. It'll be interesting to see lesser powered car with more weight to win.

- Yak
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, why would I drive around with 5000rpm? You don't drive around with 4000rpm either with diesel, although that's where the maximum acceleration is (highest power output, not highest torque). When you need power, you change to smaller gear. Power is needed when you accelerate the car, and that's when you change to lower gear anyway, to save in economy.

Otherwise you drive with biggest maximum gear anyway, since you keep the speed constant, or with little variety (and you don't need the maximum power output).

You don't believe that petrol engines make more, but you expect to believe that diesels do? Both dynos exists, and there isn't enough data to make comments on either. Somehow VAG believes it's 140bhp. BMW believes their makes more than their petrol counterpart. So comments like "VAG doesn't want to eat petrol marketshare" is über rubbish, since in Germany diesels sell more than petrol engines.

Ouh yes, I've driven both. I've also seen them against clock, they've been tested often against clock. Somehow FSI engine is always faster, I wonder why. But then again, time is relative and you can say a tractor is faster, as much as you want. Prove it?

There isn't A3 8P with 1,8T 150bhp, let me know when there is. Until then, you can compare S-Class Mercedes to your Clio and hope for victory.

Now, for the next post, show me result of TDI winning FSI against clock. It'll be interesting to see lesser powered car with more weight to win.

- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

You been drinking ?, would explain this incoherent rubbish !.

Here goes: based on golf MK5. Oh and check the weights /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

TDI
FSI

YOU seem to think that VAG undergrading the TDI's is a marketing thing NOT me, never said that so you must think it.

If YOU actually read my post regarding A3 1.8T, I WROTE ( Mk1 ) or cant you read !

S CLass vs Clio ? WTF.

I dont drive around at 4000rpm, correct, I dont need to YOU need to drive around at 5k though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that Yak is after some 'solid' evidence. Well, it is not that hard to find. See, for example http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php?artikel_id=5155&artikel_seite=4.
This well-respected source states that 80-120 km/h in 6th takes 15.0 s in the A3 2.0 FSI and 11.2 s in the A3 2.0 TDI.

[/ QUOTE ]

cheers blackw, but it seems Yak dosen't grasp real world in gear figures and indeed lives on a race circuit, so thought that the 0-60 and 0-100 figures might serve as better proof.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Japper, this TDI makes more power than advertised applies also to FSI engines, so that's a lame argument. 1,6FSI engines have produced 92kW (instead of normal 85kW) in dynoruns. There's differences in engines, and this means nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually thats not entirely true. Generally the petrol VAG engines make close to what Vag specifiy the derv fuelled ones make the big increases.

Well this was certainly the case with the 20V 1.8 engines. Just about every rolling road event I have every been too (theres been a lot!) the petrol engines make pretty much what they should have (theres always going to be a slight variation obvioulsy!) and the diesels make a decent improvement over what they are listed as. Obviously some of this increase will be down to heat soak and the oil engines not being effected by it so much as the petrol variants.

I'm not entirely sure you uinderstand what Japper means by real world driving. On a race track then yes a petrol variant of a car will no doubt have a slight advantage over a diesel car due to the longer rev range but not on the road. Each gear change the petrol engine makes will loose you time, something that wont effect the diesel car as the chances are whatever gear it's in it will be in the power band.

Can anyone remeber Tiff and Jeson racing round the track in the BMW 330 coupes? One was petrol teh other diesel?

J.
 
I have a 2.0FSI, it averages out (wife driving here) at 37mpg in the summer months and 32 mpg in the winter, It's done that through the two winters I have owned it, It is the weirdest 150 bhp car I have ever owned, my lads 112bhp mk2 GTI IS a quicker more responsive car. If I come to overtake anything it's a good job it has 6 gears because to get past anything quickly downchanges need to be performed in threes or fours, It really is a gutless piece of s***. and while i'm having a whinge the thing is nearly as noisy as a diesel anyway, It may well be quicker on 0-60 than the TDI, but in the real world the diesel would leave it.
 
[quoteCan anyone remeber Tiff and Jeson racing round the track in the BMW 330 coupes? One was petrol teh other diesel? J.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can MB, and there was nothing in it, although the diesel was heavier and about 20bhp shy of the petrol. If I remember correctly, as I am getting old and have resorted to driving a tractor /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh_roll.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have a 2.0FSI, it averages out (wife driving here) at 37mpg in the summer months and 32 mpg in the winter, It's done that through the two winters I have owned it, It is the weirdest 150 bhp car I have ever owned, my lads 112bhp mk2 GTI IS a quicker more responsive car. If I come to overtake anything it's a good job it has 6 gears because to get past anything quickly downchanges need to be performed in threes or fours, It really is a gutless piece of s***. and while i'm having a whinge the thing is nearly as noisy as a diesel anyway, It may well be quicker on 0-60 than the TDI, but in the real world the diesel would leave it.

[/ QUOTE ]

johnmv55, exactly the 'real world' driving scenario that I was referring to. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
 
Fantastic. This post was actually about relative MPG figures, but it was always going to end up as a debate on whether diesel or petrol is the most powerful.

Here's a thought - whats the most OBSCURE topic you could post, that could be relied upon to end with another diesel vs petrol power argument?

My humble offering is about to go online...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Fantastic. This post was actually about relative MPG figures, but it was always going to end up as a debate on whether diesel or petrol is the most powerful.

Here's a thought - whats the most OBSCURE topic you could post, that could be relied upon to end with another diesel vs petrol power argument?

My humble offering is about to go online...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sorry jungle as it's gone off subject a wee bit. I've had a bad weekend, and bit at the first offering. Should have known better /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shutup.gif
 
blackw, in 6th gear? Lets take some real numbers to optimum gearing, not some overrated gear, which no one will use in real life to accelerate (except *******). 80-120km/h can be done with 3rd, or even 2nd & 3rd with FSI engine. Where's those results?

We're talking about performance here, aren't we? Not some rubbish.

- Yak
 
[ QUOTE ]
blackw, in 6th gear? Lets take some real numbers to optimum gearing, not some overrated gear, which no one will use in real life to accelerate (except *******). 80-120km/h can be done with 3rd, or even 2nd & 3rd with FSI engine. Where's those results?

We're talking about performance here, aren't we? Not some rubbish.

- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

Yak

Obviously you must have missed my post, so here goes.

TDI: 30-70 = 8.0 secs
FSI: 30-70 = 8.7 secs

Despite the TDI weighing 50-60kgs more. You wanted printed figures. I can tell from taking both cars on a test drive on known roads which is faster.
 
I drive both regularly and there's just no way an FSI is quicker on the road,just no way.
The way the cars produce their power is far more crucial than outright power figures.
Ducati have been winning races for years with bikes that don't produce the same outright horsepower as other bikes because they have the same feature as diesels,low down drive.
Low down drive is what boots you out of corners and roundabouts and pulls an instant 10 yards on the FSI behind you,which he'd need a huuuuge straight to pull back.

As Japper says,if you take two cars with roughly the same BHP and roughly the same weights,the one with the greater torque will always win when there are corners.

I remember when I had my revvy 150bhp Alfa 156 and I was thinking about a 130tdi A4.

I came up behind one going round a roundabout.
He then booted it out of the roundabout and instantly pulled out a lead that I simply couldn't pull back on the following straight,even though I had 20bhp more.

That was what convinced me that turbo diesels,for a given BHP,are the better option.Combined with their superior MPG and anyone choosing a petrol model (again,for a given BHP) is either mad or hates diesels beyond reason.

Even Lambourghini are planning a diesel ( yes I know they started out making tractors,so let's not have the obvious joke...)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Combined with their superior MPG and anyone choosing a petrol model (again,for a given BHP) is either mad or hates diesels beyond reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just hate diesels.
Love the power but hate the noise.
Maybe a V6 would be OK, but as yet I have not had the pleasure of driving one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
 
Likewise, just never liked diesels, hence the 2.0FSI, but thats going this year, probably end up with a 2.0T I would think, just couldn't handle owning a 3.2 at 24mpg, I already own one car that does those mpg figures.
Having said that VW are putting a 170bhp diesel in the GTI, that may sway me, but I would NEVER own another 2.0FSI, the number of times I have pulled out to overtake and chickened out is unreal.
 
Anyone know when this 170bhp Golf will come. Is it a true GTi but with the diesel engine, ie not gt?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know when this 170bhp Golf will come. Is it a true GTi but with the diesel engine, ie not gt? [/quote

just picked it up in conversation when looking at the new GTI as a replacement for my Audi that's all, the salesman just said "you do know they are putting a 170bhp diesel in the GTI don't you" sorry can't help any more.
 
You can put forward your arguments for diesels and you'll still get silly bints like our head of accounts' girl.

She's choosing her new company car and apart from the fact that she is going for a 1 series (purely and simply for the badge) she is going for 118i petrol engine...

Now this is a woman that thinks anything over 2000rpm is forbidden and is in top gear by 40mph.

Ideal territory for the 120d,you'd imagine.Certainly a helluva lot better suited to low rev driving than the 118i.

She won't have a diesel though.
She perceives them as noisy and smelly. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/swear.gif

Not....a.....clue.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/noidea.gif
 
I was lent a 2.0fsi and it is no where near as fast as the 2.0tdi, in fact the 2.0tdi doesn't feel far behind our 3.0 cab.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You can put forward your arguments for diesels and you'll still get silly bints like our head of accounts' girl.

She's choosing her new company car and apart from the fact that she is going for a 1 series (purely and simply for the badge) she is going for 118i petrol engine...

Now this is a woman that thinks anything over 2000rpm is forbidden and is in top gear by 40mph.

Ideal territory for the 120d,you'd imagine.Certainly a helluva lot better suited to low rev driving than the 118i.

She won't have a diesel though.
She perceives them as noisy and smelly. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/swear.gif

Not....a.....clue.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/noidea.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

She'll have a clue in Aberdeenshire winter, when she can't get the thing to go in a straight line /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh_roll.gif
 
Yes, she probably will with ESP turned on, even BMWs can go straight in winter with that feature /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

About roundabouts and accelerating away from them, what accelerates the car is power. Here you need to be on the right gear to get that power to accelerate the car. Problem with every N/A car, it's not as forgiving as charged car, which develops more horsepower down low, but not necessarily up there (and once you get it up there, it will pay off).

As for Lambo and diesels, and Ferrari with SUV, yet that SUV won't have victories at tracks (nor will Porsche's), but they're made because people want them. Sick.

As for johnww5, if you can't overtake with 150bhp, sorry to say, there's something wrong between the driver and the car, instead of the car. And no matter how fast car you have, you won't get past any easier (unless you use off-road capabilities). And if your torque makes it accelerate faster than power, then you should be a physics doctor or something, and prove everyone wrong. Power is anyway, what determines amount of work done in amount of time. No power, no go. And this is also the reason why diesels accelerate faster outside their superiour torque-range, although the driver may disagree, but clock will prove the driver wrong.

- Yak
 
audi upgrades
[ QUOTE ]

About roundabouts and accelerating away from them, what accelerates the car is power. Here you need to be on the right gear to get that power to accelerate the car.
- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Yak,but that's incorrect.
It's a well known fact that car and bike racing teams deliberately tune engines to produce less power,and more torque,at twisty tracks.

Why do they do this ?

So they can get drive out of slow corners !

As for your comments about not being able to overtake with 150bhp,that's incorrect as well.
I know what he means.
My Alfa 156 made 155bhp,but it was all at the top end.
It only had 5 gears,so you often found yourself 'between' gears.
You were going too fast for 3rd,but 4th was no good as there was no torque to pull you into the horsepower,so you were sitting there with your foot to the floor and nothing was happening.
The only way to get things going was to slip the clutch and get the car into the horsepower.
Not good for the clutch and not safe for day to day driving.

Horsepower is no good if you cannot get access to it.
If you tune a car/bike for horsepower alone,you end up with something that is undriveable and needs 15 gears.
 
So Yak, you have seen independent test showing your wrong and you have heard from a number of owners and people who have test drove the FSI who say it's gutless compared to TDI and your still right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Smart boy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 

As for johnww5, if you can't overtake with 150bhp, sorry to say, there's something wrong between the driver and the car, instead of the car. And no matter how fast car you have, you won't get past any easier (unless you use off-road capabilities). And if your torque makes it accelerate faster than power, then you should be a physics doctor or something, and prove everyone wrong. Power is anyway, what determines amount of work done in amount of time. No power, no go. And this is also the reason why diesels accelerate faster outside their superiour torque-range, although the driver may disagree, but clock will prove the driver wrong.

- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats johnMV55 by the way. Just a couple of points, my job is a race car engineer, quite a succesfull one as well, I actually do understand what a gearbox is designed for, and just for info BHP is derived from the torque X RPM, actually (in imperial units torque (lbs/ft) x rpm divided by 5252) this is why petrol engines usually make more bhp than a diesel--because they rev higher, hence the never ending search for rpm in F1. However, IN THE REAL WORLD I do not wish to be downchanging gears by the handfull, or following vehicles I wish to overtake with the engine "screaming" at 4500-5000rpm waiting for the overtake opportunity. On a race track I agree, the 2.0FSI would be the quicker car, but I as many others don't spend a lot of time there.In the real world, cross country etc the diesel is the quicker/easier/more relaxed car to drive quickly...........having said that, I don't like them!!!
 
Without further comments, here are some figures I borrowed from another forum, http://uk-mkivs.net/. All data comes from tests carried out by VW Driver mag.

Golf 5 2.0 TDi
Max Speed - 126
0-60 - 7.8
0-80 - 14.9
30-50 (in 3rd) 3.4
50-70 (in 4th) 5.1
50-70 (in 5th) 6.2

Golf 5 1.6 FSI
Max Speed - 119
0-60 - 10.2
0-80 - 18.4
30-50 (in 3rd) 6.2
50-70 (in 4th) 9.0
50-70 (in 5th) 12.8

Golf 4 GTi 1.8T (2 Door 180 PS)
Max Speed - 138
0-60 - 7.1
0-80 - 11.2
30-50 (in 3rd) 3.8
50-70 (in 4th) 5.2
50-70 (in 5th) 6.4

Golf 4 GTi 1.8T (4 Door 150 PS)
Max Speed - 134
0-60 - 7.9
0-80 - 13.5
30-50 (in 3rd) 4.8
50-70 (in 4th) 7.1
50-70 (in 5th) 8.2

Golf 5 2.0 FSi
Max Speed - 128
0-60 - 8.5
0-80 - 14.6
30-50 (in 3rd) 4.8
50-70 (in 4th) 6.6
50-70 (in 5th) 8.6
 
Sorry, Japper, have not seen data on the DSG's. From memory, there could be something on autobild.de, but not as complete, will check it in the evening.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Golf 5 2.0 TDi
0-60 - 7.8


[/ QUOTE ]

Better not try and race my colleague then..

That's quick innit ????

What's the 0-60 for a 2.0tdi A3 sportback ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Japper, have not seen data on the DSG's. From memory, there could be something on autobild.de, but not as complete, will check it in the evening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm..reading my original link to the times from Autocar it seems as though they tested the DSG, but on the spec sheet state 6spd manual, so not sure if the 8.2secs was the DSG time.

The golf is heavier than the A3 so the A3 should have the edge /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/noidea.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Japper, have not seen data on the DSG's. From memory, there could be something on autobild.de, but not as complete, will check it in the evening.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think from memory the DSG times are slightly (as in about 0.2 secs) quicker than the manual 6 speed
 
Thanks blackw for those times, "any in gear" 30-50 etc time is quicker in a TDI, they just rattle and throw black stuff everywhere!!
Having said that my neighbour has a new A6 3.0?TDI with the new multi injecting injectors, that is very quiet even when cold
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks blackw for those times, "any in gear" 30-50 etc time is quicker in a TDI, they just rattle and throw black stuff everywhere!!
Having said that my neighbour has a new A6 3.0?TDI with the new multi injecting injectors, that is very quiet even when cold

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 3.0TDI is the first VAG to use the piezo (spelling) unit injectors then ?. I thought it was going to be the 2.0 170bhp TDI lump.

I'm not a fan of big cars, but the new A6 saloon ( 3.0 TDI ) in s-line format looks the dogs danglies, and I bet it's a bit nippy too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ok.gif
 
i believe so, they alter when they inject and how much depending on everything I think!
I read they can inject on a single firing stroke something like 9 times, Thers an article in the last Audi magazine
 
[ QUOTE ]
About roundabouts and accelerating away from them, what accelerates the car is power. Here you need to be on the right gear to get that power to accelerate the car. Problem with every N/A car, it's not as forgiving as charged car, which develops more horsepower down low, but not necessarily up there (and once you get it up there, it will pay off).

And if your torque makes it accelerate faster than power, then you should be a physics doctor or something, and prove everyone wrong. Power is anyway, what determines amount of work done in amount of time. No power, no go. And this is also the reason why diesels accelerate faster outside their superiour torque-range, although the driver may disagree, but clock will prove the driver wrong.

- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

Yak you are correct here. A car with 200lbs torque and 100 bhp will accelerate as fast as one with 200 bhp and 100 lbs of torque, if all other factors are equal.

Of course, all other things are not equal, and most engines produce peak power later than peak torque. This means that to get back to peak torque, a driver needs to change up a gear, and the change in gearing negates the torque advantage.

An engine with 150 bhp will ultimately be faster (in all meanings of the term) than a 140bhp engine, whether diesel or petrol.

However, most people will find early torque peaks more accessible on the road, and that it where diesel scores very highly. A 2.0FSi driven on the redline will always be quicker than a 2.0TDi.

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to drive a 2.0FSI on the redline without a race gearbox (high 1st gear ratio and closer ratios elsewhere). This is, again, where diesel gives an advantage as there is close to peak power for more of the rev range, allowing access to more power more of the time without the need to resort to close ratio gearboxes.

Ultimately I would agree with your assertions that, using the gears, you can extract more acceleration from the 2.0FSi. However, you would do very well to achieve this on the road.

Not that any of this matters - some people hate diesels, and some love the easy power and economy.

Each to their own!

BTW, when Audi diesels have twin sequential turbos, even you may be tempted!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Time to change the car and get a (used)replacement in a month or two.

Got a 210 S3 at the momement, over the last 10k or so it has avereraged 28.4 mpg on the DIS (seams to be quite accurate if I get the calculator out and check it) thats on 75% A/B roads and 25% motorway. Wifey's the main user and does a round trip of 35 miles on A and B roads every day for work.

I'd like to go for the 3.2 but think her work commute on busy A and B roads could be dire for the mpg!!

So it boils down to mpg and service interals and cost.

so what are the real world mpg's on these tree engines?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Geez,

Did I open a can of worms?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
jungle, yes, twin sequential turbos may tempt me, but doesn't look like Audi will bring those to small cars, at least not yet. But they could start with removing the rattle and more insulation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, as this discussion won't really lead anywhere, I'll just wonder about those golf-forum numbers, just looks funny:

TDI
0-60 - 7.8
0-80 - 14.9
FSI
0-60 - 8.5
0-80 - 14.6

Someone else who has little trouble finding those numbers accurate?-) If they're real (and not a typo), then one of those cars has weird boost or weird slowdown between 60 and 80.

And to johnmv55, TDI isn't quite one at acceleration either, so that's not an advantage to VAG TDI at least /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Yak
 
My 2.0FSI on a good run with little traffic sometimes just touches the 40mpg mark, this is at about 70-75mph and a 50 mile run, and NOT into a head wind. Normal A or B road driving with stop/starts etc usually 34-35mpg, just keeping up with the traffic flow.
Personally, this is MY take on it, I would go for the 2.0T petrol, It will be interesting to see what people get mpg out of that on A/B roads, I would imagine slightly more than your S3, maybe 29-30mpg, but I would think a fair bit more than a 3.2, I also own a T5R Volvo, so I know what 24mpg feels/costs like
 
[ QUOTE ]
jungle, yes, twin sequential turbos may tempt me, but doesn't look like Audi will bring those to small cars, at least not yet. But they could start with removing the rattle and more insulation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, as this discussion won't really lead anywhere, I'll just wonder about those golf-forum numbers, just looks funny:

TDI
0-60 - 7.8
0-80 - 14.9
FSI
0-60 - 8.5
0-80 - 14.6

Someone else who has little trouble finding those numbers accurate?-) If they're real (and not a typo), then one of those cars has weird boost or weird slowdown between 60 and 80.

And to johnmv55, TDI isn't quite one at acceleration either, so that's not an advantage to VAG TDI at least /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Yak

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks right, and sure that it's just gearing, i.e. the TDI has just changed gear and the FSI hasn't had to yet. If you saw the results to 90mph, i'm sure the TDI would be back in front.
 
Nope, at least according to accelerationg graphs, TDI changed gear at ~66mph, and FSI at ~59mph, so they're both approaching gearchange soon (but that 59mph explains the 0-60 figure though). FSI's third should reach 90mph.

Anyway, can't be the gearchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
2.0 TDi vs 2.0 FSi vs 2.0T vs 3.2 Tyre life?
Replies
26
Views
2K
jungle
J
V
Chipped 2.0TDI VS 2.0T FSI
Replies
2
Views
2K
Smudge973
Smudge973
D
a3 2.0 tdi vs 2.0 t fsi mpg
Replies
20
Views
21K
MIkethemike
MIkethemike
emzino
2.0TDI 140 vs 2.0TDI CR 140 (MPG)
Replies
3
Views
3K
biggiep
biggiep
Woob
1.6 vs 2.0 vs 3.2
Replies
23
Views
3K
aythree
A
Top
Back