A3 Sport Back - 1.4TSI (150) v 1.6TDI (110) - Feedback from Owners pls.

[RickT]

A3 Sport Back - 1.4TSI (150) v 1.6TDI (110) - Feedback from Owners pls.

One final question from me....The cost to have a 1.4TFSI S line is the same as 1.6TDI S line excluding the MPG and fuel prices.

Out of the 2 engines based on 10K miles per year, the paper figures based on current fuel prices puts costs around the same over 2 years.

Does the 1.6TDI feel underpowered ?

What sort of MPG do people get from either engine?

Thanks

 

[McAudi]

Hi,

I have the 1.4 and get around 45mpg as an average. Long runs, and it shoots up to over 50. My last car (Civic 2.2 diesel) returned around the same but the smoothness and quietness of this petrol unit makes me realise on a daily basis that I made the right choice.

 

[cocob]

Agree with mcaudi - i also have the 1.4 petrol and the quietness and smoothness of the engine is remarkable. If you opt for it you won't be disappointed.

 

[snakehips]

All the research I did before buying seemed to indicate that the 1.6 is absolutely fine but that the 1.4 is a peach.

 

[SJC]

After having a 1.6 tdi golf I would never purchase that engine in another car. Have had the 2.0 140 in an a3 and now the 2.0 150 in another a3. For your millage go petrol.

 

[RickT]

Thanks guys, great to see some positive feedback for the 1.4, also the extra 40bhp will make a lot of difference too..

Just number crunching at the moment and booking a test drive on Monday

 

[snakehips]

Thanks guys, great to see some positive feedback for the 1.4, also the extra 40bhp will make a lot of difference too..

Just number crunching at the moment and booking a test drive on Monday

Crunch away but don't let your head rule your heart too much.

 

[leosayer1]

I'm another who has driven the 1.6TDi in the Golf.

In normal driving it's very pleasant but the moment you want some extra power you realise that it's got nothing extra to give. I think the engine has its place for company car drivers due to low tax and for very high mileage drivers.

For 10,000 miles a year the COD is a no-brainer. It's far more powerful, far quieter, much smoother and the engine weighs something like 60kg less. I'm getting an average of 38mpg from the COD but then it's mostly used for town driving. It's easy to see more than 50mpg on the DIS for longer journeys.

I guess resale value might be a consideration....I assume the diesels will have better residuals.

 

[RickT]

I'm another who has driven the 1.6TDi in the Golf.

In normal driving it's very pleasant but the moment you want some extra power you realise that it's got nothing extra to give. I think the engine has its place for company car drivers due to low tax and for very high mileage drivers.

For 10,000 miles a year the COD is a no-brainer. It's far more powerful, far quieter, much smoother and the engine weighs something like 60kg less. I'm getting an average of 38mpg from the COD but then it's mostly used for town driving. It's easy to see more than 50mpg on the DIS for longer journeys.

I guess resale value might be a consideration....I assume the diesels will have better residuals.

I agree from the reseach I have been doing that the COD 1.4 ticks all the boxes, plus will be better on the shorter cold start up runs the car will do, (ie DPF)

Thakns

 

[Vertigo1]

I guess resale value might be a consideration....I assume the diesels will have better residuals.

Not necessarily. As commented elsewhere, I think diesel's best days are behind us. Petrols have become so efficient these days that there's little reason to go diesel unless you're doing a lot of motorway miles. In a few years' time, I can see demand for used diesels declining and a lot of people switching from diesel to petrol.

 

[SJC]

I think the biggest factor in the future will be when they start phasing in the use of adblue. Jo blogs will not want the extra hassle with this and expense. Where as if you go to the pump for petrol it will be just fill and go.

 

[cilurnum]

As with everything, nothing is as equal as it appears and the plain figures often lie to you.

Before deciding on a petrol engine, which at first glance looks cheaper, I would advise you to look around coldly, and dispassionately at the problems modern direct injection petrol engines VAG are persisting with have. Nobody has produced a reliable one yet. In order to keep up with the economy and power demands of today petrol engines have had to get a lot more complex, and putting a more volatile fuel in petrol under higher pressure to get those power and economy figures is not a great combination where reliability is concerned. As time wears on petrol engines will have to get ever more expensive technology in order to mitigate those reliability problems completely wiping out the initial price advantage that a petrol has. Also keep in mind you will need to run this engine on 98 RON if you don't want new pistons or a new engine in a few years, which is more expensive than diesel, but the figures don't tell you that either. The MPG figures are done on the recommended fuel but the price comparisons are done on the basis of standard fuel.

As for the supposed power advantage, you need to look at where in the rev range maximum power is produced. The diesel will produce its maximum power far lower in the rev range (2000 to 3000 RPM) while the petrol engine will need to be revved far higher to get that power, somewhere around 5000 RPM. For the sake of fuel economy and engine reliability 5000 RPM is not a place you want to be for very long. So, while the petrol might have 40PS more in power on paper you're going to have a harder time getting to it and all that fuel economy you think you've got evaporates with it.

No engine is 100% reliable or without problems, I don't like internal combustion engines per se and although the sound of a diesel engine has improved it is still quite jarring, we got past the tipping point of diesel in favour of petrol in terms of power versus economy versus reliability a short few years ago. New petrol engines can only get more expensive from here on in and the residuals are going to be non-existent in a few years as the brick really drops that we've reached the limits of IC engines.

 

[RickT]

As with everything, nothing is as equal as it appears and the plain figures often lie to you.

Before deciding on a petrol engine, which at first glance looks cheaper, I would advise you to look around coldly, and dispassionately at the problems modern direct injection petrol engines VAG are persisting with have. Nobody has produced a reliable one yet. In order to keep up with the economy and power demands of today petrol engines have had to get a lot more complex, and putting a more volatile fuel in petrol under higher pressure to get those power and economy figures is not a great combination where reliability is concerned. As time wears on petrol engines will have to get ever more expensive technology in order to mitigate those reliability problems completely wiping out the initial price advantage that a petrol has. Also keep in mind you will need to run this engine on 98 RON if you don't want new pistons or a new engine in a few years, which is more expensive than diesel, but the figures don't tell you that either. The MPG figures are done on the recommended fuel but the price comparisons are done on the basis of standard fuel.

As for the supposed power advantage, you need to look at where in the rev range maximum power is produced. The diesel will produce its maximum power far lower in the rev range (2000 to 3000 RPM) while the petrol engine will need to be revved far higher to get that power, somewhere around 5000 RPM. For the sake of fuel economy and engine reliability 5000 RPM is not a place you want to be for very long. So, while the petrol might have 40PS more in power on paper you're going to have a harder time getting to it and all that fuel economy you think you've got evaporates with it.

No engine is 100% reliable or without problems, I don't like internal combustion engines per se and although the sound of a diesel engine has improved it is still quite jarring, we got past the tipping point of diesel in favour of petrol in terms of power versus economy versus reliability a short few years ago. New petrol engines can only get more expensive from here on in and the residuals are going to be non-existent in a few years as the brick really drops that we've reached the limits of IC engines.

thank you you for the informative post above, really gives a different dimension to think about?
is the recommendation fuel for a 1.4 150 98ron rather than a min requirement ? If the latter that does change things plus in regards to the torque element /power delivery it could be a false rep.

in regards to long term with the engine, while issues would not be great with the car, it will be under a maintance package.

thanks

 

[leosayer1]

As for the supposed power advantage, you need to look at where in the rev range maximum power is produced. The diesel will produce its maximum power far lower in the rev range (2000 to 3000 RPM) while the petrol engine will need to be revved far higher to get that power, somewhere around 5000 RPM. For the sake of fuel economy and engine reliability 5000 RPM is not a place you want to be for very long. So, while the petrol might have 40PS more in power on paper you're going to have a harder time getting to it and all that fuel economy you think you've got evaporates with it.

The torque figures for both engines are the same, from the same low rpm.

1.6 TDI: Power 104bhp at 3000-4000rpm Torque 184lb ft at 1500-2750rpm
1.4 TFSI COD: Power: 138bhp at 4500-6000rpm Torque: 184lb ft at 1500-4000rpm

So from 1500-2750 they produce the same power.
The COD produces more power above 2750rpm should you want it.

There's no mention of 98 RON fuel being required, only 95 RON. I tried 98 RON in one tank but couldn't detect any difference.

 

[snakehips]

Despite all the in-depth analysis going on here I'd still suggest you test drive both then buy the one you liked driving the most. Simples.

 

[cilurnum]

thank you you for the informative post above, really gives a different dimension to think about?

Alas, it is. I test drove the 1.4 engine and it really is quite lovely and smooth, but the problems these engines have had are very real and they are out there to be found. Do your own research but try not to drive yourself mad.

is the recommendation fuel for a 1.4 150 98ron rather than a min requirement ? If the latter that does change things plus in regards to the torque element /power delivery it could be a false rep.

Alas, the problems that these engines have historically had means that manufacturers have generally been very, very careful about what they say. Generally they will weasel out with it being a recommendation in the manual about what it should run on, and then it will tell you it can run on 95 RON. Alas, it looks as if they are still doing this.

 

[cilurnum]

The torque figures for both engines are the same, from the same low rpm.

1.6 TDI: Power 104bhp at 3000-4000rpm Torque 184lb ft at 1500-2750rpm
1.4 TFSI COD: Power: 138bhp at 4500-6000rpm Torque: 184lb ft at 1500-4000rpm

Quoting torque figures is a classic mistake most people make because they are actually meaningless. Even people who should be qualified to know better tie themselves in knots over this. What's important is what power an engine can generate at a specified engine speed. Torque is merely one part of the equation.

So from 1500-2750 they produce the same power.

They don't. You have torque figures, but that does not equate to power. However, you'll notice where the petrol engine can deliver that is over a much larger rev range. At first glance that might sound good but it just means that you will have to rev over a much larger range to get it. What that means for power overall, which is what counts, is not specified. When I test drove this very engine in a Seat Leon it did exactly that. You had to work it hard to get it and it was noticeable when motorway cruising in its responsiveness.

The COD produces more power above 2750rpm should you want it.

As all petrol engined cars should do when you increase engine speed, but as I'm trying to get over the problem is that being up there kills your fuel economy and revving higher is a big no, no with this type of engine.

There's no mention of 98 RON fuel being required, only 95 RON. I tried 98 RON in one tank but couldn't detect any difference.

From what I've heard and seen they're still putting that recommendation in the manual while still telling you it can run on 95. You won't detect a difference until your pistons go. You would think a petrol engine would be under less stress than a diesel and more reliable over shorter distances and mileage, but alas, it just isn't that simple these days.

Test drive both and make sure you go over your own route with a mixture of driving and not a pre-prescribed one. Get it on a dual carriageway and see how both respond in terms of your own throttle response and where you use the power and in traffic and standing starts.

 

[leosayer1]

They don't. You have torque figures, but that does not equate to power. However, you'll notice where the petrol engine can deliver that is over a much larger rev range. At first glance that might sound good but it just means that you will have to rev over a much larger range to get it. What that means for power overall, which is what counts, is not specified. When I test drove this very engine in a Seat Leon it did exactly that. You had to work it hard to get it and it was noticeable when motorway cruising in its responsiveness.

As all petrol engined cars should do when you increase engine speed, but as I'm trying to get over the problem is that being up there kills your fuel economy and revving higher is a big no, no with this type of engine.

Cilurnum, I think you're tying yourself in knots.

At no point in the rev range does the 1.6TDi develop more power than the 1.4COD.

 

[jasso86]

Fair points, but is as I'm reading an explanation on 1998 petrol vs diesel.

The MPG figures of the 1.4 speak for itself

 

[AJB]

The torque figures for both engines are the same, from the same low rpm.

1.6 TDI: Power 104bhp at 3000-4000rpm Torque 184lb ft at 1500-2750rpm
1.4 TFSI COD: Power: 138bhp at 4500-6000rpm Torque: 184lb ft at 1500-4000rpm

So from 1500-2750 they produce the same power.
The COD produces more power above 2750rpm should you want it.

There's no mention of 98 RON fuel being required, only 95 RON. I tried 98 RON in one tank but couldn't detect any difference.

This is all correct. Because the torque is the same at the same revs between 1500 and 2750, they must produce exactly the same power (power = torque x speed, and torque is equal at equal speeds). The petrol just keeps on going if and when you need to rev it, giving more power if/when wanted. In normal driving there's lots of low-down torque and no need to rev the CoD.

The handbook doesn't recommend or require 98 RON. It says that 95 is just fine. I agree that early direct injection FSI VAG engines did require/recommend 98 RON, but that's not true of the 1.4 CoD.

As to long-term reliability, it's too early to tell. Yes modern direct injection petrols are complicated, with lots of expensive parts. But so are modern high pressure common rail diesels.

 

[DK_Titan]

Km/litre 1,4 COD MY14 man. 95 RON