New A3 TDi 140 or 170

[Silk]

I'm new here, so please be gentle.

I currently drive a Skoda Octavia TDi 1.6 105ps, but I'm looking to change my car and I'm 99% settled on an A3 Sportback TDi in Sport trim.

A combination of discounting due to new model out soon and good residuals, the cost of ownership is not as far away from a Skoda as it would seem - I'll be getting it new on a PCP.

The only sticking point is do I do the sensible thing and get the 140ps and spend the next 3 years regretting it, or do I go for the 170 and live with having to pay an extra 30 quid a month and lose a bit of economy (I'll be doing over 40,000 miles a year so it all mounts up).

I've already test driven the 170 and was very impressed. Could I live with a 140?

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[sportstractor]

my 140 is ok, and seems quite effortless to overtake etc... if i were to get a new one, i wouldnt discount the 140, the economy and price is fairly important on a diesel. But id imagine the 170 would hold its value a bit better possibly. Very difficult decision to make!

 

[Silk]

my 140 is ok, and seems quite effortless to overtake etc... if i were to get a new one, i wouldnt discount the 140, the economy and price is fairly important on a diesel. But id imagine the 170 would hold its value a bit better possibly. Very difficult decision to make!

Thanks for the quick reply.

To be honest, I wish the 170 wasn't available as I know I'd be happy with the 140 otherwise. I was looking at getting a Skoda Octavia with the same 140 engine before taking a look at the A3.

The 170 would cost nearly 1K more upfront, would add about 300 to the residuals after 3 years 120K miles and add 70 quid a year to the road tax. Not to mention the better economy figures of the 140. It's just that I loved the 170 I test drove and have a nagging feeling I'd always regret not going for it.

 

[sportstractor]

Go for the 170 then, in the real world I expect mpg is about the same!

 

[Dannyhall]

You're paying alot of money for a new car so why not go all out? Isit really worth spending all that and not being completely happy when you can pay a little extra which will return alot more in pleasure!

 

[Minstadave]

I'm not sure anyone could call it "effortless" to overtake in a 140. Get the 170 as a bare minimum.

 

[timmythechef]

My remapped 140 takes over effortlessly.

 

[rOb_A]

does a 170 give you 74mpg on the motorway? had loads of time last week going to birmingham so did a steady 60mph and got an average 74mpg, could not believe it but... id like more bhp than mpg if I'm honest

 

[Silk]

does a 170 give you 74mpg on the motorway? had loads of time last week going to birmingham so did a steady 60mph and got an average 74mpg, could not believe it but... id like more bhp than mpg if I'm honest

It's a question I'd like the answer to. The figures suggest there's not much in it. My Octavia 1.6D 105 would struggle to get over 70mpg, although I do carry a lot of stuff in the boot. I've measured it accurately over several full tanks and it returns an average of 55mpg (trip computer is over-reads be about 2mpg on average) and I don't drive it hard. If the 170 can beat that, I'll be happy.

I suppose it all depends on whether or not I can resist having a bit of fun with it.

 

[Silk]

I'm not sure anyone could call it "effortless" to overtake in a 140. Get the 170 as a bare minimum.

It only just over 20% more powerful and only 1 second better to 60, so I wonder if it's much different in real life.

 

[audicruiser]

We have a 170TDi on a 10 plate with S-tronic and it's a lovely car and drive. It was bought to replace my car in my sig. It averages 55 mpg in a run and low 40's around town.

We didn't even look at the 140bhp. You get the bigger brakes with the 170bhp plus bigger turbo and intercooler etc. it's not just a mapped engine to increase the power....

 

[rOb_A]

if i could have got hold of a 170 at the time i was buying recently I would have gone for one. I'm not unhappy with my 140 just like a little more when i put my foot down thats all

 

[audicruiser]

It only just over 20% more powerful and only 1 second better to 60, so I wonder if it's much different in real life.

Quite a bit because it's the torque that goes up to and it's that that shifts you. The 170 revs better too...

 

[sportstractor]

Well coming from a fairly rapid 8L s3, I swapped it for a 140 sportback, and it's better than expected. Loads of torque, just doesn't last. So yeah effortless is a fairly good description, it's not rapid, but have no problem hitting the speeds up hills overtaking. Not even gona bother wasting the money getting it remapped like I thought I was gona have too, as its just a work horse, and I'm not going to get all excited and spend a fortune on a diesel.

But yeah, if buying new you would probably be best going for the 170 if you have the itch for it.

 

[Old-Boy-Racer]

My 170 (remapped to 205) will get 60+ mpg at a steady 60 on motorway and pulls right through the revs (did so before the remap too). I think you'll regret it if you get the 140.

 

[Silk]

My 170 (remapped to 205) will get 60+ mpg at a steady 60 on motorway and pulls right through the revs (did so before the remap too). I think you'll regret it if you get the 140.

I've ordered a 170 today. I hope I've made the right choice.

Sportback Sport in white with Comfort Pack and Bluetooth. I know the new A3 Sportback is out soon, but I don't like the look of it, so I don't really care. I only hope it doesn't affect the residuals too much when I come to sell in 3 years and 140,000+ miles later. :-(

 

[Minstadave]

Residuals are going to plummet like the greek economy.

 

[timmythechef]

Especially with 140k on the clock.

 

[Silk]

Especially with 140k on the clock.

Ah, but it'll depreciate far less per mile than it would if I only did 10,000 miles a year.

 

[audicruiser]

Sod the residuals, live for today and enjoy your new car when you get it!!!

 

[Minstadave]

Live for the day and buy a 10 year old design diesel hatch? Not really living on the edge in my book.

 

[Silk]

Sod the residuals, live for today and enjoy your new car when you get it!!!

I like your style. I was starting to get depressed for a moment there. ;-)

 

[Silk]

Live for the day and buy a 10 year old design diesel hatch? Not really living on the edge in my book.

Now I'm depressed again. :-(

IMO, it's all the better for being an older design - if it ain't broke and all that. If "up-to-date" was my thing, I'd get something really horrid, like a Nissan Juke. Anyway, the CR 170 isn't a 10 year-old design engine, and that's what matters in the end. so, na, na, na, na na. ;-)

 

[Old-Boy-Racer]

Now I'm depressed again. :-(

IMO, it's all the better for being an older design - if it ain't broke and all that. If "up-to-date" was my thing, I'd get something really horrid, like a Nissan Juke. Anyway, the CR 170 isn't a 10 year-old design engine, and that's what matters in the end. so, na, na, na, na na. ;-)

You've done the right thing and well done on choosing the 170. Cars at the end of a production run have usually got all the niggles sorted and are good value for money. I don't think the new design is worth the premium they will want for it. I doubt the residuals will be that much different.

 

[rich1]

I'm picking up my 140 Sportback BE on 1/9/12 and it is plenty fast enough for our needs. If i wanted a fast car, i wouldn't be buying either as neither are quick.

 

[Silk]

I'm picking up my 140 Sportback BE on 1/9/12 and it is plenty fast enough for our needs. If i wanted a fast car, i wouldn't be buying either as neither are quick.

With respect, that's ridiculous. The TDi 170 is faster than the vast majority of cars on the road. Yes, you can get quicker, even a lot quicker, but most normal people wouldn't tolerate mpg figures in the 20s, just so they can get a similar kick in the **** but one that will last for another couple of thousand RPM and only rarely get used.

20 years ago, a 0-60 time of 8 seconds would have been considered pretty quick in a petrol hot-hatch. It's quite incredible to get similar performance in a diesel and still nudge 60 mpg.

 

[Pyrocam]

I went through the very same decision making scenario only a few weeks ago......
Test drove the tdi 140, 170 & 170 quattro.
Really noticed the difference between the 140 and 170 .... but not so much between the 170 & 170 quattro...

Eventually decided on the 170 Quattro and not long after picking it up I did a drive from Edinburgh to Manchester and back... averaging out at 56.4 Mpg.....

Had a 30 mile trip along the motorway the other day with a 63.1 mpg average too

You'll not regret going 170

 

[Silk]

My last two cars have been Skoda Octavias and I've been reasonably happy with them. This time I fancied a vRS but, when I priced it up, there wasn't much to chose between it and an A3 and the A3 is just that little bit nicer. On paper, the A3 is also cheaper on fuel and has a lower CO2 figure.

The thing that was worrying me most was the economy of the 170 v the 140 but I noticed the figures are almost identical when these two engines are in the VW Passat - the What Car? "true mpg" came out as being identical, even though the Passat 140 is in band C and the 170 is in band D. Just goes to show you can't really trust the official figures. As long as I can get over 60mpg at a steady 65mph with cruise on (when I'm working I'm up and down, and sometimes across, the motorways) I'll be happy. I'll be giving it a blast at weekends and when I get onthe twisty stuff.

 

[rich1]

With respect, that's ridiculous. The TDi 170 is faster than the vast majority of cars on the road. Yes, you can get quicker, even a lot quicker, but most normal people wouldn't tolerate mpg figures in the 20s, just so they can get a similar kick in the **** but one that will last for another couple of thousand RPM and only rarely get used.

20 years ago, a 0-60 time of 8 seconds would have been considered pretty quick in a petrol hot-hatch. It's quite incredible to get similar performance in a diesel and still nudge 60 mpg.

Ok, i should have said 'IMO'.

Quick to me is an M3 or 350bhp impreza as that's what i am used to. I have my reasons for getting the car i have bought.
From my POV, the 140 makes more sense as i am doing it to experience low running costs/safety etc not performance..