1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

B7 Diesel Advice

Discussion in 'Audi S4/A4/A4 Cab (B7 Chassis)' started by stoakseya4, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. stoakseya4
    Offline

    stoakseya4 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    5
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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...
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Sep 16, 2014]

  3. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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.
    #2
  4. Sinny71
    Offline

    Sinny71 S55 LKS

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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.
    #3
  5. stoakseya4
    Offline

    stoakseya4 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    5
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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 !
    #4
  6. stoakseya4
    Offline

    stoakseya4 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    5
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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...
    #5
  7. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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!
    #6
  8. Sinny71
    Offline

    Sinny71 S55 LKS

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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.
    #7
  9. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    AFAIK, all 3.0 are now 233bhp/PS
    #8
  10. Sinny71
    Offline

    Sinny71 S55 LKS

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Feb 13, 2007]
    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..!!! :readit:
    #9
  11. stoakseya4
    Offline

    stoakseya4 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    5
    [Feb 14, 2007]
    Apology accepted !#
    Will see in the local dealer has a demo at the weekend...
    #10

Share This Page