Most Economic Engine Above 1.6????

[Ferno]

I'm lookin to get an 8P real soon but i want to make the right choice in engine size as rite now i have a 1.6 petrol 8l and it' a slug. presuming the 1.6fsi is just as slow, i want summin bigger.

i spend most of my time driving around south and east london so can anyone give me sum insight into what i should go for.

thanks.

 

[Boydie]

the 1.9tdi is more economical than the 2.0tdi

but do you want deisel? would you be doing the miles?

I am not sure if Audi do a 2.0fsi but there is always the turbo option!!

as far as i am aware audi still put he 1.8t engine into the 8P but they would be a rare find and prob have to buy new

 

[sat1983]

As boydie says depends on the miles and wether you want petrol/diesel. In petrol guise, the 2.0 FSI would be the next mose economical with that bit more power. Personally, if it had to be petrol and providing you can afford the insurance (how old are you?) I'd go for the 2.0T.
In diesel power, i'd always choose the 2.0 TDI over the 1.9. The 1.9 is not that much more economical and it's older and much slower.

 

[Gti Jazz Blue]

Why don't you try a 2.0TDi 140 then.

We did 125 Miles back from Banbury at an average of 70 and managed over 50MPG.

Diesel isn't for everyone, but I'd give one a try.

 

[Macduff]

as far as i am aware audi still put he 1.8t engine into the 8P but they would be a rare find and prob have to buy new

They do but it's a new 1.8TFSI lump. Only been available for a few months

 

[Amchlolor]

If economy is your bag,the 1.9tdi is a good bit more economical than the 2.0tdi.
Prior to my 140bhp 2.0tdi A3,I had a 130bhp 1.9tdi A4.
The A4 did 49mpg no matter how hard I drove it.
I can't get anywhere near that in the A3.
I'm lucky to get the low 40's.
So the extra 10bhp of the 2.0tdi has cost me a fair bit more in fuel.
My 1.9tdi was also oil-tight,whereas my 2.0tdi drinks it (not unusual).
So that's another cost to factor in,at roughly £15 per litre every couple of thousand miles.

If most of your driving is town-based,you might actually be better off with the 1.9tdi.
It's definitely torquier than the 2.0tdi.
The usual 8 valve versus 16 valve thing.
The 16 valver needs revving more.

The 2.0tdi may hold it's value better than the 1.9tdi,but the 1.9tdi will cost you less to buy in the first place.
You'll probably get more discount on a 1.9tdi as well,seeing as it's not the 'trendy' engine in the range any more.

 

[Ferno]

my knowledge on diesel isnt too extensive! somone enlighten me.
im 18.
oh yea also i want to go for a dsg

 

[Amchlolor]

my knowledge on diesel isnt too extensive! somone enlighten me.
im 18.
oh yea also i want to go for a dsg

It's easy enough to follow really.
The 1.9tdi is the older engine.
A bit noisier,a bit rougher,but definitely more economical.

The 2.0tdi is the newer engine.
Quieter,smoother,more powerful,but less economical and can drink oil.

With regard to DSG,I'm afraid you're on your own there mate.
I'll never recommend what I consider to be the single worst option I've ever ordered on a car to anyone.
There are at least one or two who on here who will gush about it though.

 

[Ferno]

thanks for the help peeps

i think im gonna go for a 1.8tfsi for sure and have a test drive in both transmissions.

 

[Gti Jazz Blue]

thanks for the help peeps

i think im gonna go for a 1.8tfsi for sure and have a test drive in both transmissions.

Try and get a good few hours in the DSG with a mixture of road types.

The DSG seems to be like Marmite you either love it or hate it

 

[Amchlolor]

Try and get a good few hours in the DSG with a mixture of road types.

The DSG seems to be like Marmite you either love it or hate it

I dunno it if it's as black and white as that.
Even those that like it mostly acknowledge it has 'foibles' (delay when pulling away,auto red-line change up etc.)
As far as I can remember,there's only one person on here that thinks DSG is beyond criticism of any kind.

 

[Gti Jazz Blue]

I dunno it if it's as black and white as that.
As far as I can remember,there's only one person on here that thinks DSG is beyond criticism of any kind.

And that sure isn't me, the bigest bugbare I would say is the delay when you release the brake, for the clutch to engauge drive. You do learn to drive round it in most circumstances though.

 

[steve184]

bowfer that'll be h5djr (or whatever he cals himself) then!

 

[Amchlolor]

And that sure isn't me, the bigest bugbare I would say is the delay when you release the brake, for the clutch to engauge drive. You do learn to drive round it in most circumstances though.

Yeah,that's probably the biggest annoyance for me as well.
You simply daren't go for gaps in traffic that you could in a manual,coz you know there's going to be a delay between 'press' and 'go'.
Even the missus notices I'm more hesitant than I used to be in heavy traffic.
Zero confidence that the car will respond = just sit and wait for big gap.

 

[Amchlolor]

bowfer that'll be h5djr (or whatever he cals himself) then!

*Backs out of room whistling....*

 

[benw123]

bowfer that'll be h5djr (or whatever he cals himself) then!

That'll be Dave then!

To answer the original post, I can definitely vouch for the 2.0TDI 140. As well as being noiser and slower, the 1.9TDI also has a bad "on/off" characteristic with the turbo, where all the torque arrives in a massive rush around 1900rpm and barely lasts for another 1000rpm. It's enough to throw all your passengers around or spin the wheels if you're not smooth with the controls. The 2.0TDI is more gradual and delivers the power for longer.

 

[Macduff]

I can definitely vouch for the 2.0TDI 140. As well as being noiser and slower, the 1.9TDI also has a bad "on/off" characteristic with the turbo, where all the torque arrives in a massive rush around 1900rpm and barely lasts for another 1000rpm. It's enough to throw all your passengers around or spin the wheels if you're not smooth with the controls. The 2.0TDI is more gradual and delivers the power for longer.

2.0 PD140 is definitely the better engine in terms of smoothness and noise in comparison with our 1.9 PD130. Not sure about economy as I've only driven 2.0s for a day at a time and didn't have to fill them up but the 170 is a greedy engine.

According to the Audi site, an A4 2.0PD140 S-line should do 47.1.mpg on the combined cycle which is only 0.8mpg less than our 1.9PD130 Sport is supposed to do. I got just over 41mpg from our last tank and that was a good one. Obviously an A3 being smaller and marginally lighter it should get better consumption

 

[Amchlolor]

According to the Audi site, an A4 2.0PD140 S-line should do 47.1.mpg on the combined cycle which is only 0.8mpg less than our 1.9PD130 Sport is supposed to do. I got just over 41mpg from our last tank and that was a good one. Obviously an A3 being smaller and marginally lighter it should get better consumption

Yeah,you'd think that wouldn't you.
However,my own experience says otherwise.
The 2.0tdi is around 15-20% worse on fuel than my 1.9tdi A4,despite all the 'evidence' that it should be a lot closer.
My A3 isn't particularly bad on fuel either.
It's low 40's mpg,dipping into high 30's,seems pretty normal for it's type.
If you drive like a nun,you can get the high 40's,but my A4 didn't have to driven like that to do the same.
Maybe my A4 was a particularly frugal one,but it always averaged out at around 49mpg when I did my monthly calculations.

I do think DSG is partly to blame though.
You have to use larger throttle openings to seek movement,especially when pulling away from junctions etc.