2.0TDI-170 fuel comsumption

[h5djr]

I have just returned from a holiday in Austria with my A3 (and my wife). I drove across France using the A26/A4 autoroutes and through Germany using the Autobahn all the way there and a different route using some Autobahn and some ordinary roads on the way back. For return journey using the A4/A26 across France on Sunday morning I engaged the cruise control and set it to 90mph and only had to dis-engage it for the toll barriers and around Reims.

The overall distance covered was 2700 miles and the overall fuel consumption was 42mpg. This included some fast driving on the Autoroutes (90mph) and Autobahns (120mph) and some much slower 'poodling' around and mountain roads in Austria. At one stage in Austria my 'fuel remaining' on the DIS showed 1090km (675 miles)! Being able to set the DIS to km and using the digital speedo in km was very useful for sticking to the 80km/hr speed limit in the tunnels in Austria. The auto-lights fuction was also very helpful as you are required by law to switch your headlights on in the tunnels.

For return journey using the A4/A26 across France on Sunday morning I engaged the cruise control and set it to 90mph and only had to dis-engage it for the toll boths and around Reims.

When I did a similar holiday last year in my A3 2.0TDI-140 my overall fuel consumption was 48mpg. So for 21% more power (140-170) I used 14% (42-48) more fuel.

Diesel in France cost me 81p/litre, in Germany 78p/litre and in Austria 68p/litre.

 

[steve184]

yes i'm finding overall my mpg is about 5-6mpg lower on a 170 than a 140 under all conditions also.

 

[BennyB0Y]

I'm also getting about 42mpg or so too.

 

[maars]

What mpg do you get around town?

 

[BennyB0Y]

What mpg do you get around town?

The DIS says about 34-38mpg on average.

 

[Matt]

How often do you feel that you use the extra power the 170 has over the 140?

 

[Amchlolor]

Is a chipped 140 more fuel efficient than a standard 170 ?

 

[Beddie]

Is a chipped 140 more fuel efficient than a standard 170 ?

Quite possibly mate, my Bluefinned 140 is definately more efficient than when it was standard and has returned a long term average (albeit DIS reading) of 49.2MPG for mixed driving - commuting and the 'Ring...lol!

I had an A4 170TDI for a couple of days two weeks ago and thought the ****** thing had a diesel leak, felt a little 'flat' compared to my A3 and absolutely refused to do more than 36MPG even with the lightest of feet...

Even the salesman agreed when i returned the car, strange engine which is neither blisteringly quick nor very economical, i wouldnt hesitate to choose the 2.0TFSI over the 170 TDI as my old MKV GTI could return 36MPG if i took it easy...

 

[Amchlolor]

Quite possibly mate, my Bluefinned 140 is definately more efficient than when it was standard and has returned a long term average (albeit DIS reading) of 49.2MPG for mixed driving - commuting and the 'Ring...lol!
I had an A4 170TDI for a couple of days two weeks ago and thought the ****** thing had a diesel leak, felt a little 'flat' compared to my A3 and absolutely refused to do more than 36MPG even with the lightest of feet...
Even the salesman agreed when i returned the car, strange engine which is neither blisteringly quick nor very economical, i wouldnt hesitate to choose the 2.0TFSI over the 170 TDI as my old MKV GTI could return 36MPG if i took it easy...

Hmmm,that was what I suspected.
So what's wrong with the 170 engine then ?
Is it the 'mechanicals' that are wrong,or the software ?
If an aftermarket software company can make the 140 engine more powerful than the 170 without affecting efficiency,or even improving it,then it makes you wonder.

 

[Serberus]

My A3 2.0 TDI is remapped to 170 (Oettinger), when I was doing reasonable mileage (40 - 45 a day) I'd regularly average just over 46 MPG.

When I worked in Wembley I got 53 MPG going into work (that was driving along the 406 too!). Now my journey is only 7 miles to work I average around 42.

Would seem the remap is more economical than the standard DPF version.

 

[Amchlolor]

My A3 2.0 TDI is remapped to 170 (Oettinger), when I was doing reasonable mileage (40 - 45 a day) I'd regularly average just over 46 MPG.
When I worked in Wembley I got 53 MPG going into work (that was driving along the 406 too!). Now my journey is only 7 miles to work I average around 42.
Would seem the remap is more economical than the standard DPF version.

I think the DPF is the 'root of all evil' in the 170 engine.
Everything points to it.
Lack of efficiency and general 'breathless' performance all points to the exhaust being restrictive in some way.
The fact the non DPF equipped 140 can be made to put out the same power with greater efficiency also points to it.
I'd be really interested to see how a 170 would perform with the DPF bypassed,if that's even possible !?

 

[h5djr]

I think the DPF is the 'root of all evil' in the 170 engine.
Everything points to it.
Lack of efficiency and general 'breathless' performance all points to the exhaust being restrictive in some way.
The fact the non DPF equipped 140 can be made to put out the same power with greater efficiency also points to it.
I'd be really interested to see how a 170 would perform with the DPF bypassed,if that's even possible !?

It would be interesting to know if this same problem appears on other Audi diesel engines fitted with the DPF system. In the UK market the DPF is currently only fitted to the 170 but for Audi's home market in Germany, all diesels from the basic 1.9TDI, the 2.0TDI-140 and the 2.0TDI-170 are fitted with the DPF system. It's also true for Austria and probably other continental markets.

I sure there must be a similar forum to Audi-Sport.net in Germany. If anyone who speaks or understands German could have a look, it may tell us if the problem is related just to the 170 engine or to all diesels fitted with the DPF system. It obviously does not affect all 170s because mine shows no signs of it at all.

 

[Amchlolor]

Even if other cars are fitted with the DPF,it's entirely feasible that this 'affliction' is peculiar to the 170.
As some else said,the DPF might be a total red herring.
It might be something to do with the 'different' top end/fuel injection system on the 170.
Even if it is the DPF,it could still be peculiar to the 170.
If it's the most powerful engine it's fitted to,it could place demands on the DPF that it simply cannot cope with.
It stands to reason that the most powerful engine produces the most particulates,so the filter has more work to do.
It might work away fine on the other,less powerful,engines.

Something makes the 170 less efficient than a chipped 140.
The possible are;

1/ The DPF
2/ The software
3/ The different top end/fuel injection arrangement

 

[steve184]

I can't see how this can be the case - with diesels fuel is power, to get more power you have to inject more fuel, more fuel equals less miles per tank. You can't get all the extra power without using more fuel - in either engine.

I'm sorry but i dont believe all these mines remapped and it still does 866mpg - its just not possible - this will have more to do with specific driving style and road conditions in my opinion.

Ok my 170 on the DIS shows about 33MPG overall since the day i bought it - which probably equates to 31-32 real MPG. Ok doesn't sound so good from a diesel, except i use it for 95% town driving, two short rush hour journeys each day where i go on roads where i bearly get into 2nd gear (hence why i opted for S-tronic) - do that driving in a 2.0TFSI and you will see 20mpg or less i'm sure!

 

[h5djr]

When a engine is re-mapped it is usually possible to get more power for the same amount of fuel because the re-mapping is designed for that particular engine. When a manufacturer designs the mapping for an engine it has to be designed to cope with a wide varied of conditions and variations between hundreds of engines. It is often possible by re-mapping for an individual engine to get power for the same amount of fuel input or better mpg for the same power. Most people want the more power!

With my current 170 I am getting an overall of 42mpg compared with the overall of 48mpg from my previous 140. So for 21% more power (140-170) I am using 14% (42-48) more fuel. This is a direct comparison with the same driver, same type and way of driving and over a almost identical route of some 2700 miles.

It may well be the case the the DPF system is making some difference to this as well, but personally, if it means that the exhaust coming out of the back of my car is slightly cleaner and less harmful, then I for one am more than happy with this.

 

[Amchlolor]

I can't see how this can be the case - with diesels fuel is power, to get more power you have to inject more fuel, more fuel equals less miles per tank. You can't get all the extra power without using more fuel - in either engine.

It's feasible for remaps to improve economy and power.
They'll optimise the fuel/air mixture to the specific car,whereas Audi's software will be a 'general' setting suitable for all cars.

Combined with this,the better throttle response can actually mean the driver needs to apply less throttle for the same amount of 'go',helping economy again.

We all know Audi's engine build quality differs (going by wildly varying oil consumption) so a specific map to your car could make an immense difference.

 

[Beddie]

I'm sorry but i dont believe all these mines remapped and it still does 866mpg - its just not possible - this will have more to do with specific driving style and road conditions in my opinion.

Sorry to dissapoint you mate, but t'is true..

4k miles before the remap and 7K since shows a marked increase in MPG along with a huuuuge increase in power and throttle response, all with the same driver, me, along the same roads at the same time of day and the same radio station on the stereo etc etc...

As Bowfer and H5DJR have already pointed out, a well sorted remap tailored to the car can offer much better results than the generic Audi map as this is compromised in many ways, noise, emissions, soot output etc.. whilst the extra torque and better throttle response provided by the remap allows smaller throttle openings and a higher gear to be used for the same road speeds/conditions as before the map and hence less fuel used :icon_thumright:

I actually chose the 140 over the 170 as i always intended to remap and had already heard about the DPF issues when remapped and the noise and poor economy issues via the Seat guys on seatcupra.net before the 170 was released on the A3, so very happy about my choice,

Imo Audi have dropped the ball so to speak on the 170 engine and my feeling is that it has been a rushed release 'stop-gap' measure until the arrival of the 2.0 CR units..

 

[motorbikez]

I'm very happy with the performance of the 170 engine way more top end power than 140 and only 5mpg drop in fuel consumption 42mpg in my case as against 47mpg with my 140 sport.Something to think about how will remap affect your warranty in event of engine problems.

I know some people have been unlucky with tractor noises and heavy oil consumption but I've experienced neither more than happy with car.

 

[marklad2020]

I have a 140 DPF (in Switzerland). Can report absolutely no problems with it, and I regularly get well over 50mpg.

There is a simple reason why a remapped 140 can deliver better performance and better economy: Motor manufacturers optimize thier cars to perform well on the standard European fuel economy tests, which don't nescessarily reflect real-life driving conditions. An aftermarket map is based on real life conditions and therefore provides better results for most users.

The sensible thing to do obviously would be to change the standard tests - imagine how much Co2 that would save? But this requires political will and consensus, so you can forget about that..

Mark.

 

[coupe-se]

My 170 has done just over 15k now. With the wife driving our 170 the car does 50mpg+ without a problem. With me driving and not driving gently I get between 42-45mpg. I can put my foot down use the performance and still get 500 miles to a tank week in week out. Reality check guys, no way on this planet could a 2.0 TFSI car give the same economy if driven in the same manner.

There seems to be alot of ****** being spouted on this thread by people who don't actually own and run the 170.

The 140 engine is alot rougher to drive than the 170 and trading off a few mpg to get a higher performance engine is well worth it. I've had a play with a few drivers with 140 engines and the performance difference is quite marked.

On top of this I do not get a cloud of black soot when I accelerate hard and my mate who sometimes follows me on his motorbike on journeys always appreciates this fact.

Any of you want to put their 140 to the test performance wise, or TFSI eceonmy wise against my 170 .......... come on over to Peterborough and see for yourselves.

 

[BennyB0Y]

How often do you feel that you use the extra power the 170 has over the 140?

Mainly when I do motorway driving. Dunno whether it's psychological but it feels like you can see the fuel consumption on the fuel guage when you put your foot down to burst accelerate. I actually try to be light-footed and occasionally switch the ECON on to see if I can get more performance out of the engine (as I think the Air-con draws on the engine???).

 

[Beddie]

Any of you want to put their 140 to the test performance wise, .......... come on over to Peterborough and see for yourselves.

Would love to mate, hopefully your 170 would put up more of a fight than all the others...?

I'll bring Mr Bluefin and his 192 horses along and apologise in advance for any dent to the 170's ego lol! :icon_thumright:

Btw, didn't realise the 170 was completely soot-free from the exhaust, i've never seen the back of one..........

 

[d3fy]

I can't see how this can be the case - with diesels fuel is power, to get more power you have to inject more fuel, more fuel equals less miles per tank. You can't get all the extra power without using more fuel - in either engine.

I'm sorry but i dont believe all these mines remapped and it still does 866mpg - its just not possible - this will have more to do with specific driving style and road conditions in my opinion.

Ok my 170 on the DIS shows about 33MPG overall since the day i bought it - which probably equates to 31-32 real MPG. Ok doesn't sound so good from a diesel, except i use it for 95% town driving, two short rush hour journeys each day where i go on roads where i bearly get into 2nd gear (hence why i opted for S-tronic) - do that driving in a 2.0TFSI and you will see 20mpg or less i'm sure!

I also agree that I can't see how its possible, my commute is much the same as yours 22 miles a day in very heavy traffic, I get 25mpg out of my remapped 2.0T so that makes your 170 seem very poor?

 

[d3fy]

Would love to mate, hopefully your 170 would put up more of a fight than all the others...?

I'll bring Mr Bluefin and his 192 horses along and apologise in advance for any dent to the 170's ego lol! :icon_thumright:

Btw, didn't realise the 170 was completely soot-free from the exhaust, i've never seen the back of one..........

I will bring my 241 ponies too, but we will have to have very short races as I will need to trade a kidney at the Shell station every 280 miles

 

[Beddie]

as I will need to trade a kidney at the Shell station every 280 miles

Aaaah i remember those days with my MKV GTI with great fondness... a full set of wine glasses every 3 weeks with the pluspoints...

****** belting engine even if it did like a drink.. :icon_thumright:

 

[coupe-se]

Would love to mate, hopefully your 170 would put up more of a fight than all the others...?

I'll bring Mr Bluefin and his 192 horses along and apologise in advance for any dent to the 170's ego lol! :icon_thumright:

Btw, didn't realise the 170 was completely soot-free from the exhaust, i've never seen the back of one..........

Was more refering to the standard 140's to show the real difference, but would happily go against a chipped one for some fun. :icon_thumright:

My personal choice is always to go with the more powerful standard engine rather than remap a lower power engine up. No worries about warranty on a standard car is preferable for me. Maybe when the car is out of warranty I'll look at a remap which should have been reliably sorted by then and hopefully above 200bhp.:weight_lift2: You'd see just how soot free it was then!

 

[Beddie]

My personal choice is always to go with the more powerful standard engine rather than remap a lower power engine up. No worries about warranty on a standard car is preferable for me. Maybe when the car is out of warranty I'll look at a remap which should have been reliably sorted by then and hopefully above 200bhp.:weight_lift2: You'd see just how soot free it was then!

Yeah i can see your point mate as i had a nosey at the Superchips 170 Leon FR development car whilst i was down at their HQ having mine Remapped, very impressive figures at around 237BHP and 330lb/ft iirc

Unfortunately the DPF issues caused them to withdraw the remap from sale until it can be sorted fully although some tuners can turn up the wick a little on the 170 without causing DPF blockage but it only releases approx the same figures i obtained with my 140..

As i seem to have a problem (expensive one at that lol!) of not keeping a car for more than about 10 months i figured that they wouldnt have ironed out the mapping probs on the 170 before i wanted to change the car anyway so decided to save some cash and go with the 140 :icon_thumright:

Currently lusting after the new 2.0 CR unit rumoured to be 204BHP as standard...with a little added Bluefin of course..

 

[steve184]

well if you are gettign 25mpg fro a TFSI in very much the same conditions as me an im getting 32 - then that makes 7mpg better, for 30bhp less - you pays your money and you makes your choice i suppose, for me i prefer to get a few more miles in the tank.

Oh and and im talking about a real bad commute for me, one where the engine only justs get warm, and that ends in going up 6 floors in a multi-story car park (which takes 3mpg of the journey striahgt away) if i didnt have to do this it would be 35mpg - 10 more.

Having owned both a 140 and a 170 i can quite honestly say id rather have a 170 than a chipped 140 - its got enough vibes to rattle your teeth out! No amount of chipping will solve that problem ladies! I'm happy to pay a little at the pumps for a smoother drive

 

[stevehsv868]

Has anyone looked at the BMW diesel mpg figures ???

have a look here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data.aspx?model=1244

Bmw

118D 140 bhp (2007) 60mpg
120D 174 bhp (2007) 57mpg

Audi

140 138 bhp 51 mpg
170 168 bhp 48 mpg

 

[coupe-se]

So does that make BMW bigger liers than Audi then??

I cannot belive that if I drove the 170 BMW the same way as I drive my Audi, that I'd get much more than 45mpg on average.

 

[d3fy]

The new 120d is supposed to be great, it cuts the engine off every time you stop and then starts it instantly when you move off? (I think thats what I read)

 

[Matt]

Has anyone looked at the BMW diesel mpg figures ???

have a look here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data.aspx?model=1244

Bmw

118D 140 bhp (2007) 60mpg
120D 174 bhp (2007) 57mpg

Audi

140 138 bhp 51 mpg
170 168 bhp 48 mpg

If true then they are much more impressive!

Butt ugly car! 320d would probably be a nice car but they are stupidly expensive.

 

[Detector]

The 2.0 CR engines sounds good, I heard a rumour a few years ago that there would be a new TDi engine with a shade over 200BHP coming and it would be a 5 cylinder lump, I wonder if this is the beastie I heard about.

 

[h5djr]

The new 120d is supposed to be great, it cuts the engine off every time you stop and then starts it instantly when you move off? (I think thats what I read)

So every time you stop your air conditioning stops working - just what you need on a hot summers day!

VW used to have this system on a version of the Polo many years ago.

 

[Amchlolor]

So every time you stop your air conditioning stops working - just what you need on a hot summers day!

Audi think it's a good idea to have your wipers stop when you do.
That's a ****** safety issue,never mind a comfort one !

 

[Macduff]

Has anyone looked at the BMW diesel mpg figures ???

have a look here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data.aspx?model=1244

Bmw

118D 140 bhp (2007) 60mpg
120D 174 bhp (2007) 57mpg

Audi

140 138 bhp 51 mpg
170 168 bhp 48 mpg

BMW's figures always seem high. Have you looked at the mpg for the straight 6 petrol 3 series. Very impressive if you could actually achieve it but somehow I don't think you'd see those in reality.

 

[h5djr]

Audi think it's a good idea to have your wipers stop when you do.
That's a ****** safety issue,never mind a comfort one !

The wipers on my A3 don't stop when I do. Not sure if that's because I've got automatic wipers as standard (being an SE) or because it's newer than yours.

 

[Amchlolor]

The wipers on my A3 don't stop when I do. Not sure if that's because I've got automatic wipers as standard (being an SE) or because it's newer than yours.

Hopefully,they just realised it's a ludicrous idea and jacked it on all cars.

 

[benw123]

Has anyone looked at the BMW diesel mpg figures ???

Bmw

118D 140 bhp (2007) 60mpg
120D 174 bhp (2007) 57mpg

Audi

140 138 bhp 51 mpg
170 168 bhp 48 mpg

That doesn't surprise me. Saw what you like about BMW, but they make superb engines and their latest crop of diesels are no exception. By comparison, VAG's 2.0TDI is more akin to a tractor in terms of refinement. Even my Dad's new-shape Focus TDCi is virtually silent next the racket from my Sportback.