B7 Diesel Advice

[stoakseya4]

Some advice please. Am thinking of parting with the 1.9tdi Sport we have, for a B7 2.0TDI or 3.0tdi quattro.

Can someone please advise on performance figures for the 140bhp and 170bhp engines and also the 3.0?

Also, what gains/improvements result in bhp/ft lbs via remaps?

Many thanks...

 

[Macduff]

Don't have figures for performance to hand but I'd only consider Quattro with either of the 2.0 engines especially if you're looking at a remap later on.

 

[Sinny71]

Dont know much about remaps on them but the standard figs are;

Engine - 0-62 - top speed

2.0 140 - 9.7s - 128
2.0 170 - 8.6s - 141
3.0 204 - 6.8s - 153

After remapping my 1.9 I'd agree that its definitely wise opting for a quattro if funds allow.

 

[stoakseya4]

Having the S4 (quattro) and the 1.9 (2wd), would def want to keep quattro, as it makes such a more confident drive.

Sorry to be a pain I guess I can find figures out froma mag (?) but what are the fueld consumption figures and torgue figures like ?

Anyone driven all of them as comparisons? Imagine the 2.0 (140) is only marginally better than the 1.9 (130). The 2.0 (170) sounds an interesting compromise, and the 3.0 (204) sounds great... Not THAT much slower than the S4 !

 

[stoakseya4]

According to Top Gear Mag

The 0-62 times are slightly slower than you quote 9.0 for the 170 and 7.2 for 3.0. Not that that's an issue...

I also note there's a 3.0 with 204 bhp and 351ft lbs, and also a 3.0 with 233 bhp with same torque figure/0-62 time?

29bhp more with no additional torque and no quicker?

Fuel consumption also shows 42mpg for the 2.0 (170) and 36mpg for the 3.0 (204/233)... Still pretty impressive...

 

[Macduff]

Anyone driven all of them as comparisons? Imagine the 2.0 (140) is only marginally better than the 1.9 (130). The 2.0 (170) sounds an interesting compromise, and the 3.0 (204) sounds great... Not THAT much slower than the S4 !

Haven't driven a 3.0 but the 2.0 140 (FWD) is very smooth and has good driveability from just above idle to the red line. Much more petrol like than my 1.9 130. Have also driven a 2.0 170 Quattro which is a little rougher and feels sluggish until the turbo gets going but once going it flies. Downside was low 30s mpg. I doubt you'd see 36 from a 3.0. I've heard of some people getting mid 20s!

 

[Sinny71]

According to Top Gear Mag

The 0-62 times are slightly slower than you quote 9.0 for the 170 and 7.2 for 3.0. Not that that's an issue...

I also note there's a 3.0 with 204 bhp and 351ft lbs, and also a 3.0 with 233 bhp with same torque figure/0-62 time?

29bhp more with no additional torque and no quicker?

Fuel consumption also shows 42mpg for the 2.0 (170) and 36mpg for the 3.0 (204/233)... Still pretty impressive...

I just happeed to have the A4 brochure a few yards away so trusted Audi's figures mate, foolish I know.

As for the 2 3.0 ones (Audi quotes 204/223), from the brochure it looks like the Higher output is on the tiptronic whereas the lower is the manual box.

I'm guessing with a remap the 170 will be up around the 200 mark anyway and should be a lot lighter than the 3.0.

 

[Macduff]

As for the 2 3.0 ones (Audi quotes 204/223), from the brochure it looks like the Higher output is on the tiptronic whereas the lower is the manual box.

AFAIK, all 3.0 are now 233bhp/PS

 

[Sinny71]

D'oh, what e fecking numpty I am. For some unknown reason I decided to put up the CO2 numbers 204/223. Unlike the 2 2.0 versions that have to differentiate between the 140 and 170, they dont quote figs for the 3.0.

Apologies for being stupid..!!!

 

[stoakseya4]

Apology accepted !#
Will see in the local dealer has a demo at the weekend...