Telling the difference between the 140 and 170 2.0 TDI

[Bugsy_27]

Rang up about a 170 A3 I saw for sale on auto trader this morning and the first salesman I spoke to was fine and answered all my questions etc then when I rang back later I spoke to a different salesman who said that they didn't have a 170bhp A3!? I gave him the reg and he told me it was the 140 version, he checked and it was so this got me thinking, How can I tell the difference between the two when I go and view a car for myself?

Thanks!

 

[a_sagad]

Get a HPI check done on the car, as well as checking the performance.

 

[Lee_R]

Look under the boot carpet at the sticker on the boot floor, that normally tells you. Mine says DSG 140PS. The only visual difference is a 170bhp would definately have the Chrome exhaust trims.

 

[h5djr]

I noticed yesterday when I washed ans wxed my new 2.0 TDI-140 Sportback there is a small sticker inside the door opening near the door locking pin which says it's a 2.0 TDI-140ps.

But certainly the sticker in boot or the inside front cover of the service book should say, at the beginning of the fourth line from the top, 103kw for a 140 and 125kw for a 170 following by the gearbox type and month/year the car was built.

 

[aythree]

How can I tell the difference between the two when I go and view a car for myself?

Drive it... hammer it to 60... if it takes about an hour to get there it's a 140... if it takes about 7 seconds then it's a 170

 

[Bugsy_27]

Drive it... hammer it to 60... if it takes about an hour to get there it's a 140... if it takes about 7 seconds then it's a 170

haha I've got a 1.2 Corsa at the minute so they both feel fast compared to that!

Thanks for that guys, at least now I know things to look out for! :thumbsup:

 

[Hastie1776]

haha I've got a 1.2 Corsa at the minute so they both feel fast compared to that!

Thanks for that guys, at least now I know things to look out for! :thumbsup:

Drive it... hammer it to 60... if it takes about an hour to get there it's a 140... if it takes about 7 seconds then it's a 170

lol, lmao.

Get your stopwatch going!. :thumbsup:

A3 Sportback 2.0 tdi 140 0-60 9.6
A3 Sportback 2.0 tdi 170 0-60 8.1
A3 2.0 tdi 140 0-60 9.4
A3 2.0 tdi 170 0-60 8.0

 

[Munnzzz]

Hey, I believe the 170 has straight exhausts and the 140's point down towards road. If you need an HPI check i could do one 4u tomorrow as i work at a car dealership?

 

[h5djr]

Drive it... hammer it to 60... if it takes about an hour to get there it's a 140... if it takes about 7 seconds then it's a 170

According to road tests carried out by Audi Driver magazine the 0-62 for the 170 is 7.9 secs and for the 140 9.1 secs. A whole 1.2 secs. You would never notice the difference unless you were timing it on a stopwatch.

I have just traded-in a 170 Sportback and bought a new common-rail 140 Sportback and at 'normal' driving speeds I think there is very little to choose between them. The 170 has 6 mph more top speed but that is at over 140mph. The new 140 is quieter than the new 170 and considerable quieter than the PD170 or my previous PD140. It is also a lot smoother and has a much better mpg figure. The main difference I found between the two new common-rail versions when I test drove S-tronic versions of both cars is that I need to select a lower gear (I drive the S-tronic in manual mode almost all the time) for some corners and roundabouts in the 170 than I did in the 140. This, the better fuel consumption and the fact that it's quieter is the main reason I went for the 140 rather than the 170.

 

[Boydie]

Hey, I believe the 170 has straight exhausts and the 140's point down towards road. If you need an HPI check i could do one 4u tomorrow as i work at a car dealership?

That is correct - with the earlier ones anyway, not sure if the new facelift 140's have straight exhausts as well!

 

[h5djr]

That is correct - with the earlier ones anyway, not sure if the new facelift 140's have straight exhausts as well!

The new facelift 140, which are the new common-rail versions, do have straight exhausts. This is because the new 140 and the new 170 both have a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) fitted.

 

[Lee_R]

Don't get too obsessed with getting a 170, theres not much in it, try out a few 140's and you will see how theres little in it. You would have more chance finding a well specced car with the 140 as they are more popular and they also dont have DPF which has been well known to cause all sorts of trouble.

140 + Remap = Ideal!

 

[ragsterx]

1.4 secs faster 0-62, higher torque rate...
Test drive for yourself and you will see, the drivetrain pulls alot more and feels a better drive in the 170...
I test drove both and the 140 wasnt really that exciting, mind you the 140 was a sportback and the 170 was 3 door.

10 mph top end difference

The mpg is 1.3mpg difference (urban), 0mpg (extra urban) and 1.1mpg (combined). the figures speak.
If you were in a 140 against a 170 you would feel inadequate and get left behind.

 

[Boydie]

Cheaper option, 140 with remap will surpass a stock 170 plus no DPF issues

 

[h5djr]

Cheaper option, 140 with remap will surpass a stock 170 plus no DPF issues

Much more expensive to insure a 'chipped' 140 that a standard 170.

Personally I never had a single 'DPF issue' with my 170 in 2.5 years and 30,000 miles.

 

[Bugsy_27]

Much more expensive to insure a 'chipped' 140 that a standard 170.

I was thinking that, insurance on the 170 isnt bad for me-just over £700.

I'm just going to have to keep on looking i guess, theres got to be one out there thats just right!

 

[FL1X]

I test drove a 170 Manual and a 170 DSG before i brought my 140 the insurance wasnt much different but the 140 was a cheaper option and i have to say the difference in performance is minimal, ive been recorded doing 0-60ish in just shy of 9 seconds this was done in car with a stop watch so hardly a sterling figure but even so.

Facts and figures aside, there are few times that you will be at the line in the racing mood and have a 170 next to you who can launch of the line.

 

[Ian_C]

This is going to sound weird but I have driven my new 140 for a week and a half and it feels very strong in acceleration. Listen, i've come from the 197bhp TFSI and i'm not disappointed - serious.

I was all set to get it mapped immediately but I reckon i'll spent the £500 on Sat Nav first. After i've driven the car for 6months and got used to it, a remap will feel even better then.

Take it from me - the 140bhp is a great engine, and the torque available means you wouldn't notice a difference with an extra 30bhp lads.

 

[aythree]

If I had the choice I'd opt for the car that can accelerates to about 60 in under 8 seconds over a one that does it over 9 seconds all day long.

Not sure the reasoning that you'd never be in the racing mood and up against a 170 at the same time really applies.

For me, living in London, a quick get away and acceleration up to 40-60 is very useful and important i.e. zipping on to busy roundabouts, merging on to busy dual carriage ways, accelerating from double lane traffic lights which merge into one after 20 meters or so, and overtaking.

Looking around I find the average car on the road is usually capable of something between 9-12 seconds (i've got a mental note of most car's acceleration figures just so I know whether to try it on with them or not!! ), so having a car that is on average a couple of seconds quicker than most others will put you in a good position in most road scenarios. Whereas a car that does it in about 9 will be ok in a lot of situations but will leave you wanting frequent enough for it to become an issue at some point. At least that's what i've found.

I know i've put a lot of focus on 0-60 times, and I know there are other factors to consider, but I do find that the quicker the quoted 0-60 time is the better the car performs in "urban" driving situations.

Guess it just depends how you want your car to drive and which part of it's performance is most important to you.

 

[Matt]

You've got the new 140 Ian. I've driven both the new 140 and the old 140 and they are worlds apart. The new 140 seems a lot quicker, its a cracking little engine, nothing like the old 140.

If we are talking old 140 vs new 170 from experience of both:
I was happy to get a 140 when I was looking but had a go in the 170 when I got offered the chance... and I'm driving a 170 now funnily enough as a result! Pulls so much stronger all the way to the redline, feels more responsive and alert than the 140, had no DPF issues and I'm up to 20,000 miles. 42MPG average.

I've had a couple of 140 loan cars since getting the 170 plus driven my dads old 140 when he had it at length too and they do feel a bit sluggish as stock and run out of puff early on. Bit rougher engine note too. Feel more like a typical diesel in the way they drive.

Remapped one will sort out the sluggishness but then extra expense and hassle of insuring a non standard car (if you are going to be legit).

 

[h5djr]

You've got the new 140 Ian. I've driven both the new 140 and the old 140 and they are worlds apart. The new 140 seems a lot quicker, its a cracking little engine, nothing like the old 140.

I agree. I've owned a old 140, an old 170 and now I have a new common-rail 140 and better by far that either of the older ones.

Personally when I drove both, I prefered the new 140 to the new 170. Both are now fitted with a DPF.

 

[Bugsy_27]

Just came across this one this morning and I love it BUT it out of my price range!!

http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-u...cleYearOfManufacture=2007&vehicleRegLetter=57

 

[maars]

More importantly get a quattro over a 2wd

 

[Bugsy_27]

More importantly get a quattro over a 2wd

You think? I havent really been to bothered about that, just as long as it was 56 onwards, black, s line, 170 and had bose I was happy.

What does everyone else think? 2wd or quattro?

 

[10blazin]

it costs more in fuel but handles so much better ......and gets off rapid , but your getting a diesel so id go for qauttro if you have found an a3 without and your set on it then no big deal pal

 

[Bugsy_27]

hmm perhaps I should add the quattro to my list then ha its getting harder and harder to find one now lol

 

[10blazin]

it will be for 13 g but when i look on audi at the cars the spec on mine and milage ****** on the ones on there now mine should of been easy 17 kgot it for 14950 so hold out one will pop up

 

[Matt]

I dont have Quattro. Its probably nice if you find one at the right price with it but its definately not a must have. You wont struggle with FWD.

Higher tyre wear on the rear wheels, worse on fuel and more expense with servicing!

 

[10blazin]

your right you wont struggle with fwd , but youde struggle to stick with a qauttro dry wet or snow ....you make it almost sound like a negative lol

 

[Bugsy_27]

your right you wont struggle with fwd , but youde struggle to stick with a qauttro dry wet or snow ....you make it almost sound like a negative lol

haha Ill see what comes up first then

 

[Matt]

I was pointing out the negatives yes. If you find one with it go for it but if the right one comes along but without Quattro it'll be fine.

 

[BenUK]

I presume the 170 versions have slightly longer gearing than the 140 given that the 170 has a higher top speed?

 

[Ian_C]

Lee if you go in with 16.5-17k that guy will bite your hand off.

He's basing his price on the fact he has 11k miles only, but its a year and a half old and its been usurped already - so he'll never get 20 grand for that.

Give him a ring - he'll say no and then phone you back in a week any bets

 

[h5djr]

I presume the 170 versions have slightly longer gearing than the 140 given that the 170 has a higher top speed?

I don't think so. If I remember correctly I have looked at the gear and final drive ratios on each in Elsawin and they are the same. The extra 30ps may allow the 170 to get to a slightly higher maximum revs in 6th gear.

 

[maars]

I test drove a 140 2wd vs a 170 quattro and for me there was no comparison - the pickup/torque of the 170 and sheer traction/cornering grip of the 4wd was far better. Plus the extra safety afforded by 4wd. The 170 feels more like a petrol engine too, especially the way it revs out. Given my last car was a Clio V6 it was a tough trade-in but a sensible family car beckoned!

 

[just017]

You can find out by the Engine code.

I belive BKD is the 140 version, so if you go to see one and under the bonnet, on one of the stickers it has BKD, then i believe its 140 version

 

[h5djr]

You can find out by the Engine code.

I belive BKD is the 140 version, so if you go to see one and under the bonnet, on one of the stickers it has BKD, then i believe its 140 version

Audi also used a code BMM for the 140 engine between 06/05 and 06/08.

BKD was used between 05/03 and 05/07. My last (July 2004) 140 was a BKD.

 

[MartayMcFly]

Do they not do the red i thing VW used to do? ie the 140 would have a silver TD and a red I, but the 170 would have a silver T and red DI

 

[devonmikeyboy]

Audi also used a code BMM for the 140 engine between 06/05 and 06/08.

BKD was used between 05/03 and 05/07. My last (July 2004) 140 was a BKD.

BKD is the engine code for the PD140 16 valve without a DPF
BMM is the engine code for the PD140 8 valve with a DPF.

Do they not do the red i thing VW used to do? ie the 140 would have a silver TD and a red I, but the 170 would have a silver T and red DI

No they don`t.

 

[Sock]

This may be wrong but the Audi dealer told me that the 140 has a single exhaust pipe out the back and the 170 has 2 pipes?