TDI 140 vs TDI 170

[c_w]

I've had a 56 3dr TDI 140 for a while now, but have recently needed a 5dr car so bought a 2006 TDI 170 Sportback. Here's my quick comparison summary and thoughts so far! One thing I noticed straight away is how much quieter and smoother 170 engine is, it really is much better for refinement than the 140 (have driven lots of 140s and they are always on the noisy side of acceptable, especially when cold). The new CR 140/170 engines must be quite refined now.

TDI 140 Positives
- Great spread of power from idle (no lag)
- Quick enough for most situations
- Supreme economy (55-60mpg on motorway runs)

TDI 140 Negatives
- Noisier than the 170 with a gruffer note under power

170 Positives
- Smoother and quieter than the 140 (still no BMW TD though)
- Quick (not massively faster than the 140 though) but pulls higher revs much smoother and eagerly
- No smoke due to DPF

170 Negatives
- Horrendous fuel economy in urban situations (mid 30s) compared to the 140 which would still did mid high 40s.
- Motorway economy is just about acceptable (got 49mpg in a strict 65/70mph 30miles round trip; the 140 would probably reach high 50s)
- Slight power lag under 1800rpm, feels like it's laggy compared to the 140 but then suddenly picks up


The mpg of the 170 worried me a bit when I picked it up and drove it home, steadily, at about 60-65mph, it was in that very windy weather we had a few weeks back and it only managed 39.5mpg with only short bit of urban driving either side of the motorway. The 140 would have done about 50mpg in the same journey I'm sure. I didn't read up about the 170 until AFTER I bought it of course! So I start reading about the poor mpg of the 170 engine and feeling like I've made a wrong decision buying the car as need the car to be economical due to work mileage. Also read about the DPF problems (regenerating and also a reason it has poor mpg) and read that removing it removes the problems, increases power (not bothered about this) but most enticing of all is a "10-15mpg" increase, which sounds like loads but also sounds like it brings it back to somewhere near the 140's mpg which sounds ideal.

 

[PilotAudi]

A good review c_w... we are about to get our 4th 8p last 2 were Quattros. The 140 is OK but not one for the enthusiastic driver IMO. The 170 with Quattro is a cracker. Our last SB did on average 38mpg.. the new BE 170 Quattro looks to be at least 10mpg better.

Driving a diesel doesn't mean boring with a 170 Quattro... just my thoughts ;-):thumbsup:

 

[slade777]

Good to see someone compare the cars. Ive got a 140 TDI and considering 170 when i change in 2 years but at the moment the fuel economy is excellent on the 140 i manage 640 miles a tank at the moment lasts me just about 2 weeks.

 

[Vertigo1]

Interesting. I had a 53 plate 140 and then a 56 plate 170. Obviously these were both the old PD type engines rather than the newer CR units but I found the same as you - the 170 was smoother (it had an additional balancer shaft I think) and pulled much harder and cleaner at higher revs (140 was out of puff at 4000, 170 would pull beyond 4500). I was actually amazed how much difference a "mere" 30bhp could make tbh.

As both the 140 and 170 are the newer CR units now, and presumably derived from the same basic engine, I'd imagine there's not much to choose between them for refinement. I am interested to know how old the 170 you drove was (i.e. was it a CR unit?) as the abysmal economy is one thing I don't like about my 170 and would hope the new one is a bit better (have one arriving in a week or two). Then again, even if it is just as bad for fuel as the current one, I'd still choose it over the 140

 

[paddy]

Audi do not list the 170 anymore.

 

[jbs2472]

You can buy the 170 it is just not listed on the configuration system, but then again that is a pile of rubbish.

 

[PilotAudi]

Try Audi.de or audi.fr theirs work but spec is not always the same, no BE for example.

 

[c_w]

Interesting. I had a 53 plate 140 and then a 56 plate 170. Obviously these were both the old PD type engines rather than the newer CR units but I found the same as you - the 170 was smoother (it had an additional balancer shaft I think) and pulled much harder and cleaner at higher revs (140 was out of puff at 4000, 170 would pull beyond 4500). I was actually amazed how much difference a "mere" 30bhp could make tbh.

As both the 140 and 170 are the newer CR units now, and presumably derived from the same basic engine, I'd imagine there's not much to choose between them for refinement. I am interested to know how old the 170 you drove was (i.e. was it a CR unit?) as the abysmal economy is one thing I don't like about my 170 and would hope the new one is a bit better (have one arriving in a week or two). Then again, even if it is just as bad for fuel as the current one, I'd still choose it over the 140

Yep it's a PD 170 (2006 Sportback). Motorway cruising 65-70 returns about 50mpg which doesn't sound bad in isolation but it's the urban economy that is so bad and really drags the average for a journey down. Whereas the 140 would appear to run on fresh air on urban roads the 170 constantly shows high 20s unless you're practically coasting.

I think AUDI have sorted the mpg differential for the new CR170 vs CR140? or maybe they've both just got a lot more economical so that the 170 isn't now so bad!!

 

[c_w]

I'm finding the recent DPF-delete hasn't helped mpg at all, I was really looking forward to the "10-15mpg" increase removing the DPF should achieve but it's returning exactly the same figures whilst driven with extreme care. +5mpg would have been nice!!

 

[h5djr]

I've owned both a 140 PD and a 170 PD and the mpg from the 170 was quite a bit down on the 140 but of course the performance was better.

When I changed my car in 2009 I test drove both a 140 CR and a 170 CR one the same time and back to back. I personally found the 140 to be the better of the two. The only difference by all accounts is a slightly larger turbo on the 170 and presumably because of this I found the 140 to be slightly smoother and quieter and with better pick-up out of a roundabout or corner. On several occasions I found I needed to drop a gear in the 170 where I didn't in the 140. Both cars had a s-tronic gearbox which I wanted anyway.

In the end I chose the 140 and I subsequently had it remapped to around 175. By doing so it lost none of the smoothness and pickup of the original but gave a bit quicker acceleration and top speed. Buying the 140 and have it remapped worked out some £600 cheaper than buying the 170. My current mpg for all types of driving averages around 48mpg.

 

[c_w]

Yea, though I think the newer CR140/170 engines is bit different to the PD 140/170 where the difference in mpg is a lot more?

I'm not quite sure why the mpg hasn't changed as the DPF really is a massive restrictor on the engine, and all info on the net (for DPFs of this type in general) seems to suggest that it just being there reduces mpg by 5 or so.

 

[Matt]

I've never had problems with the DPF on mine like others have had with theirs. It's remapped too which you would imagine would make it worse.

Remap really brings it alive performance wise, I thought it was reasonably quick before but its so much faster after the remap. It would be interesting to compare to a standard 170 as I think I would drop it quite easily.

 

[Bugsy_27]

Besides the exhaust tips, if there any other visual difference between the two?