A few questions for 2.0 TDI 140 Owners

[AK]

Hello everyone,

I’m currently looking for a new car at the moment and chances are it will almost definitely be an 8P chassis Audi A3 that I will be going for . I’ve joined the forum for a couple of weeks now but have only just started viewing some recently.

From reading previous posts on here about the 1.6 FSI, I think I’m going to avoid this model and concentrate ideally on the 2.0 TDI 140 Sport as I’m looking for something with plenty of torque throughout the rev range and something that’s a bit sporty yet refined.

The car will mainly be used for a mixture of different journey types, stop/start, town driving and motorway journeys. Therefore reliability is also paramount for me as well as performance.

According to my budget, It will most probably be a late 2003-2004 model, and it can be either the 3 door or the 5 door sportback – not too fussed whether I have more doors or not. However, my first question is are there any differences or advantages (handling or performance wise) over one another...or is it just simply a cosmetical/more door difference?

Secondly, What I wanted to know is the typical things that I should look out for in a A3 in general and in particular this engine when viewing cars (common faults e.t.c.).

Also if people could share what kind of problems they have had with their 2.0 TDI 140 since owned? (ideally early models but later models too as ill probably try and get the newest car for my money) – hopefully this will give me an idea on their reliability too.

Much appreciated

Thanks,
AK

 

[gr1zly]

Hi Ak

I had a A3 2.0TDI quattro s-line. I've made more then 40000miles, first think is that the car is eating 1L of oil for about 4000miles. Don't look for cars with s-line sport suspension after 16000miles suspension started to by noisy (probably becouse bad road condition in poland). I didn't have any more problems with this car.

 

[KRL]

I think the ride is a little harder in the 3dr compared to 5dr.

 

[anygreg]

I think the ride is a little harder in the 3dr compared to 5dr.

But this aint a bad hing in my IMHO These days, there aint much to go wrong with these cars. Obviously check for body damage, over spray marks etc etc... basically checking the thing hasn't seen the wrong side of a hedge

Full service history of course...all main dealer...try and get the best spec for your money...ie, decent sized alloys, centre arm rest, BOSE etc..

Good colour, Black is best :icon_thumright: IMHO

Once your used to the power and need a bit more, get it remapped to 200bhp! Then enjoy the looks on other 2.0 tdi drivers faces as you pull away from them at the lights!

Good car, good choice, but when i come to change (which will be soon) i'll be getting back into a 330d

 

[motorbikez]

I had a 2004 tdi 140 sport in lava grey when I sold it it had 41000 miles on it and gave me no problems except intermitent creaky noises from passenger window, averaged 47 mpg and used no oil between services.I notice you may be after a sportback they never came out until mid 2004.
If I were you and budget permits I would go for a sportback more practical and IMO tidier rear end.Also ride is less harsh than 3 dr Which ever you get you will enjoy it.
By the way welcome to the site.

 

[AK]

Thanks for all the replies so far...much appreciated.

Since posting I've had a look at the SE and SPORT models. I think I prefer the sport - mainly due to its suspesion, wheels, trim, seats and little things that make it nice such as the door sills :icon_thumright:

I'm not too fussed with regards to the harsh suspension - I test drove a 1.9 TDI Sport and 2.0 TDI Sport and I found the ride to be quite nice - maybe because my current car (2003 VW Polo 1.4 16v) has coilovers so kind of used to the harsh ride quality as it is .

Having test drove a 1.9 TDI and 2.0 TDI, I didn't get them much over 30mph but I felt that both were quite similar in terms of performance (quite sluggish) and for some reason I felt that my existing 1.4 16v petrol Polo had more power to give from stationary than both - which I felt was really wierd. I was quite shocked at the 2.0 TDI's pulling power - and it got me thinking whether there was something wrong with the turbo or MAF in the particular one I drove?!

Is there a huge or noticable difference between the 1.9 TDI and 2.0 TDI? I know there is spec wise but from the comparative test drive I did, I personally felt there was nothing much.

Also another thing I noticed is that the clutch pedals werent operating that smoothly - there was slight roughness in pedal travel and a rubbing noise was heard when pressed/depressed. Has anyone had any form of gearbox or clutch issues with these or has anyone noticed the same as I describe on theirs? or is this just normal?

Thanks for any responses in advance

 

[Garth_S3]

Good car, good choice, but when i come to change (which will be soon) i'll be getting back into a 330d

How soon? I've got a 330cd for sale:
http://audi-sport.net/classifieds/showproduct.php/product/1189/cat/18
and trust me, you will not find a better one anywhere!

 

[AK]

Thanks for all the replies so far...much appreciated.

Since posting I've had a look at the SE and SPORT models. I think I prefer the sport - mainly due to its suspesion, wheels, trim, seats and little things that make it nice such as the door sills :icon_thumright:

I'm not too fussed with regards to the harsh suspension - I test drove a 1.9 TDI Sport and 2.0 TDI Sport and I found the ride to be quite nice - maybe because my current car (2003 VW Polo 1.4 16v) has coilovers so kind of used to the harsh ride quality as it is .

Having test drove a 1.9 TDI and 2.0 TDI, I didn't get them much over 30mph but I felt that both were quite similar in terms of performance (quite sluggish) and for some reason I felt that my existing 1.4 16v petrol Polo had more power to give from stationary than both - which I felt was really wierd. I was quite shocked at the 2.0 TDI's pulling power - and it got me thinking whether there was something wrong with the turbo or MAF in the particular one I drove?!

Is there a huge or noticable difference between the 1.9 TDI and 2.0 TDI? I know there is spec wise but from the comparative test drive I did, I personally felt there was nothing much.

Also another thing I noticed is that the clutch pedals werent operating that smoothly - there was slight roughness in pedal travel and a rubbing noise was heard when pressed/depressed. Has anyone had any form of gearbox or clutch issues with these or has anyone noticed the same as I describe on theirs? or is this just normal?

Thanks for any responses in advance

Anyone?

 

[Amchlolor]

There is a huge difference between the 1.9tdi and 2.0tdi.
35bhp, for starters.(1.9tdi is 105bhp, 2.0tdi is 140bhp)
Unless there's something wrong with the 2.0tdi, anyone and their granny will notice 35bhp of a difference.
The 2.0tdi is already quite rough, compared with the competition, but the 1.9tdi is worse still.
The 1.9tdi definitely has more low-down pull though, being an 8 valve engine rather than a 16 valver.
The 1.9tdi is siginificantly more economical though, if that's important.
PS, many 140's have an unhealthy appetite for oil.
I don't have a clue how you'll get the truth out of the seller.
FWIW, if I were to receive a call from someone wanting to buy my car from a garage, and asking my opinion, I would have to tell them it drinks oil.
It's only fair.
I doubt a garage will tell the truth.

 

[AK]

There is a huge difference between the 1.9tdi and 2.0tdi.
35bhp, for starters.(1.9tdi is 105bhp, 2.0tdi is 140bhp)
Unless there's something wrong with the 2.0tdi, anyone and their granny will notice 35bhp of a difference.
The 2.0tdi is already quite rough, compared with the competition, but the 1.9tdi is worse still.
The 1.9tdi definitely has more low-down pull though, being an 8 valve engine rather than a 16 valver.
The 1.9tdi is siginificantly more economical though, if that's important.
PS, many 140's have an unhealthy appetite for oil.
I don't have a clue how you'll get the truth out of the seller.
FWIW, if I were to receive a call from someone wanting to buy my car from a garage, and asking my opinion, I would have to tell them it drinks oil.
It's only fair.
I doubt a garage will tell the truth.

Thanks for the response mate. Yeah I would have thought the extra 35bhp would be noticable but it really wasn't in comparison.

However, One thing I did notice that I forgot to mention was that the car was shooting out puffs of black smoke everytime the throttle was pressed on the 2.0 TDI 140. Having never owned a Diesel, I don't know whether this should ring alarm bells or not?


Also, I have Vag-com so am running this on the cars I am viewing if the seller allows, and in this nothing was found. Am I right that if it was a faulty MAF sensor that was affecting the cars performance then fault codes would appear.

With regards to this oil consumption is this considered normal or is this usually a problem? I'm aware that there is a certain amount of consumption that is considered 'normal' (by Audi in the owners manual)...is it within this or is it a lot of oil?

 

[Amchlolor]

With regards to this oil consumption is this considered normal or is this usually a problem? I'm aware that there is a certain amount of consumption that is considered 'normal' (by Audi in the owners manual)...is it within this or is it a lot of oil?

If you look at the Audi manual, it actually says that under 1000 miles ( I can't remember the exact figure) is "within tolerances" for a litre of oil.
Now this is absolutely ludicrous these days, but, importantly, it covers their **** for when you go in complaining your car needs £15 of oil every 1500 miles.
They just point to the manual and wave bye-bye.
It's disgusting really.
Some 2.0tdi owners report negligible use, some report heavy use.
It's a lottery as to which type of engine you'll get, unless you're able to consult the previous owner for the truth.

 

[daveyjp]

My 140 used 3 litres of oil over 38,000 miles, most of it before the first service at 16,500 miles. My 170 has used barely any in 6,000 - no need to top up at all yet.

The 1.9 is a punchy engine. I've driven a 1.9 TDi Touran fully loaded and it was no slouch. Where it does lose out is at higher revs. Once it gets to 3,500 it feels very restricted and runs out of puff. The 140 will redline easily, although there is no reason to do so.

You need a run on a faster road and floor it at 50 in top gear, this will show the difference between the 1.9 and 2.0. The 2.0 will just keep going!

Puffs of black smoke are normal under heavy acceleration.

 

[AK]

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

 

[redbutcher]

I've previously had a 1.9 Tdi Golf for the last 3 years and now just got a 140ps 2.0 Tdi.

I agree with daveyjp - the 1.9 will pull away quickly and there is a lot of torque lower down in the rev range - but it does run out of steam very quickly.

I immediately noticed the difference in the 2.0 Tdi - don't try pulling out fast in 1st gear - it's not the same gear as in the 1.9 . The 2.0 has lots more torque and is quite happy to rev more - the torque doesn't fall away as quickly as it does in the 1.9.

This is what I've noticed after only a couple of days ownership anyway . I'll be keeping a close eye on the oil consumption on the 2.0 - but I have to say my 1.9 also used a fair amount in the first few months of it's life. This oil use did drop off though and it hardly uses any now.

Jon

 

[fesss_84]

well if you get a 140BHP 2.0 TDI A3, i suggest getting it ECU remapped. the original 140 is nothing.

 

[dantdi]

ive got the 3dr sport love it ride is bit hard but hey! power is great wanna get it re mapped tho .

 

[alfiejts]

I've always had petrol cars before (last two being a 144bhp 1.8 Alfa 156 followed by a 165bhp 2.0 model).

My 2004 S-Line 3-door DSG 140 2.0TDi is my first diesel.

It has loads of torque and you really notice that compared to either petrol cars. I only notice the lower bhp of compared to my last Alfo when overtaking, but its still more than adequate.

I've had mine for 18 months and its great. No regrets, other than I still have a love hate relationship with the DSG box. Some of the time I love it and some of the time I think I'll just get a manual box next time....

As a committed petrolhead the extra rev range of the 2.0 TDI makes it much easier for me to drive psycologically, as it revs to the red like like a petrol car....

 

[giblets46]

Diesels always seem to be slow off the mark compared to a petrol. They will easily beat a diesel to 20-30mph, but then diesels torque really shows. Great for overtaking!
Mine seems to have calmed down on the oil front since its first service

 

[K-Dash]

I used to drive a 106 GTi and my 2.0 TDi 140 is my first diesel.

My GTi was very quick and handled like a dream (it would being the younger brother of the 205 GTi) I've found my TDi with or without the eibach springs to handle perfectly (sort of)

When i test drove my TDi i couldn't believe how quick it was. I always had this thought in my head of diesels being for pulling caravans and ploughing crops.

I test drove a 120d M Sport diesel the same day and the A3 blew it away with regards to performance let alone interior (and imho exterior) styling.

My TDi does drink a bit of oil granted, but it doen't bother me.

its an 03 so the first of the 8p's but it only has one tiny single creak coming from the back of the dash and thats only in the cold.

Its not frighteningly quick but if i'd wanted a race car i'd have bought one.

I'm getting 68mpg average on a half hour trip from my girlfriends and since i've owned it i've averaged 47mpg. All this on gorgeous comfortable seats within stylish surroundings to the sound of a fantastic bose system.

Id expect a 2.0 TDi owner would tell you they love the car (unless its a company car) or they wouldn't/shouldn't have bought it.


good luck with your choice they are all nice cars.

 

[Amchlolor]

I test drove a 120d M Sport diesel the same day and the A3 blew it away with regards to performance.

Must have been something wrong with the 120D then, because it has at least 23bhp more, depending on whether it was a 163bhp or 177bhp model.

 

[Amchlolor]

I'm getting 68mpg average on a half hour trip from my girlfriends

Eh?!?!?!?
Does your girlfriend live at the top of a really, really big hill??
68mpg!!!!!!
Surely a mistype??

 

[motorbikez]

He's a young man and in love obviously looking at DIS with blurred love struck eyes.

 

[Amchlolor]

Must be some example of an A3.
Faster than a car with at least 23bhp more and 68mpg!
Incredible!
Christ, even I'd be knocking Audi's door down for one of them.

 

[sat1983]

I've never seen more than about 55mpg. I'd say nearer 50. And the 120d is a miles better engine than Audi's 140.

 

[bacardi]

Id expect a 2.0 TDi owner would tell you they love the car (unless its a company car) or they wouldn't/shouldn't have bought it.
.

Mine's a company car, I loved it to start with, then have been shocked at the diabolical build quality and even more outraged at the pathetic dealers

If it were my own personal car, I'd bin it, or shove it back up the offending dealers a$%e

being a company car I am stuck with it for another year

If it wasn't so unreliable, I'd have been very pleased

 

[K-Dash]

I sense some mocking, but i won't bite back because having read most of your posts bowfer i can see what your like.

I may not be a car expert and i've never taken notice of mpg before but....

There are 3 mpg readings on my dis

1. permanent until you reset it
2. reads what your foot is doing mpg wise and
3. the one that resets if the car has been sat for more than 2 hours or you reset it yourself.

the later is the one that im taking the reading from on the trip back from my girlfriends. It is about 80% motorway, traveling at 60mph. When i roll onto my drive it reads 68mpg. If that doesn't sound correct please do tell me what im doing wrong.

Maybe the one i drove was a bad one? but the 120d was a pathetic car imo. IMO!

 

[Amchlolor]

No idea about DIS, I pay no attention to it (apart from miles to empty).

BTW, yeah, 'what am I like'.
I should just accept your 140bhp car is faster than a much more powerful one, and I should also accept the wildest mpg figure I've seen in 3 years of visiting this forum.

What am I like...
Tch...
Tch...

 

[h5djr]

Perhaps the DIS is giving a faulty reading. Or perhaps the guy is a very smooth and gently driver. He did say 80% motorway at 60mph. I've seen over 100mpg on my DIS, but I was going down a very long downhill dual carriageway stretch of road in Ausria at the time!!

 

[Amchlolor]

I've seen over 100mpg on my DIS, but I was going down a very long downhill dual carriageway stretch of road in Ausria at the time!!

Yeah, but you wouldn't claim that as an average, would you.

 

[h5djr]

Yeah, but you wouldn't claim that as an average, would you.

Err No. Would be nice if it was - imagine 1200 miles between fill-ups!!

 

[Amchlolor]

Err No. Would be nice if it was - imagine 1200 miles between fill-ups!!

That would be excellent.
Dunno if you read, but I had to borrow a 1.6Fsi Golf to go to Manchester and back last week.
Partly because my wheelbearing is knackered, partly because the mileage would put mine over the agreed 36000 miles.
Anyhow, for the first time in years, fuel became an issue, down and back.
I'd struggle to go back to a petrol, for that single reason.

 

[K-Dash]

I'm not getting into a debate with you pal.

I'm just saying i found the mocking unnecessary.

Perhaps my DIS is reading wrong or i'm the most gentle driver in britain (that i doubt)

How ******* sad would i be to lie about my mpg to a bunch of people i don't even know. christ

Sorry for ruining your thread AK with my evidently wrong optimism and passion for a great car.

 

[Amchlolor]

Sorry for ruining your thread AK with my evidently wrong optimism and passion for a great car.

Hey, I'm all for optimism.
I just have a 'thing' for inaccuracies in the name of optimism.
I can fully understand you don't like the exterior or interior of a 1 series.
But the fact is a 120D is substantially quicker than a 140bhp A3, as it should be with 23bhp more.
0-60 is 7.1 seconds, compared with over 9 seconds for the A3.
I can't find 0-100mph times for the 120D, but I did find something saying it can do the 1/4 mile in 15.6 seconds/89mph.
Go time your own car and see how long 90mph takes.
I guarantee it's a damned sight longer than 16 seconds.
My own hairy hand has timed my own 140 as 26 seconds to 100mph.
So I'm guessing at least 20 seconds to 90mph?

 

[h5djr]

Put it this way. We know about Audi A3s and I think all of us on this forum would be very surprised that any A3 2.0TDI-140 could average 68mpg. I currently have a 170 that does around 43-44mpg. My previous A3 was a 140 and I used to get around 48-50mpg which is about right compared with other forum members. To get 68mpg must either be a very gentle driver or a faulty DIS. My own view would be a faulty DIS. They do often read a bit over what you are actually getting but not normally as much as nearly 20mpg. Try a brim to brim test and see how it compares with the DIS figure.

 

[sat1983]

Tis a great car dash, that's why I chose it too! Although I am surprised that you found the 120d sluggish compared to the A3!

 

[K-Dash]

I don't think i'll be the first person to think your never for optimism but im probably the first person to express it.

Have you nothing better to do with your time than look up figures to impress? or shame someone you don't know and are never likely to meet.

Just to end this poxy 120d discussion your having. I drove the car it felt sluggish unresponsive and generally just ****. Sorry if this dissapoints you. Do you work for BMW?

I'm not saying the A3 would beat everything on the road i know full well it won't my little french hatch would woop it which doesn't say much.

in answer to the two less patronizing posts.

When i get around the 68mpg reading its normally at between 12am-2am on a half hour journey when theres no traffic (barely) and no traffic lights so im constantly rolling.

My car normally reads 40ish around town during day.

my average since i bought it is 46.7mpg is this not realistic either. so thats 6 months worth of driving.

I understand and appreciate polite unpatronizing input

I also appreciate this thread has digressed somewhat

 

[bacardi]

.
But the fact is a 120D is substantially quicker than a 140bhp A3, as it should be with 23bhp more.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Substantially?

Think that's stretching it a little,

back to the cayman vs TT thread recently, 23bhp would, in cars of this size and weight, make little difference

I've certainly never seen a 1 series diesel that's quicker, let alone substantially quicker than my A3.

Much quieter though

 

[GeoffT]

Just to add my twopenneth to this debate.

I reckon that if K-dash is the type of driver that does 60mph on an empty motorway, then 68mpg is a possible average for the journey.

60mph indicated is probably 55mph actual, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an mpg in the mid 60s at that speed. It only needs the journey to be slightly downhill overall for 68mpg to be possible IMO.

 

[K-Dash]

I currently have a 170 that does around 43-44mpg. My previous A3 was a 140 and I used to get around 48-50mpg which is about right compared with other forum members..

Indeed. And i am currently averaging 46.7mpg..................

 

[h5djr]

I reckon that if K-dash is the type of driver that does 60mph on an empty motorway, then 68mpg is a possible average for the journey.

Yes I suppose if I drove at 55-60mph on a deserted motorway between 12 and 2 I could probably have got something like 60+ mpg out of my 140, if I didn't fall asleep first through boredom.