Volkswagen Scirocco Forum banner
1 - 20 of 195 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
If you compare both 2.0 litre engines there is a difference. Diesel is cheaper... 2.0 diesel to 1.4 petrol isn't really like for like.

Still whats the discussion... I've got a diesel as i want reasonable performance with great economy (even if it makes me feel dirty putting a diesel in a sports car lol). If i wanted all out performance i'd go petrol every time :lol: Surely it's the same thought process for everyone.

Easily achieve 55+ mpg in my Audi A4 1.9Tdi scirocco should beat this as its lighter. Even if i drive my current heavy boatlike A4 around with a lead foot i've never got the MPG to drop under 44. :)

Petrol - Economy compromised for speed.
Diesel - Speed compromised for economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,088 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Baysideblue.... this is the discussion!

Also to you point re: engine to compare it will always depend upon what you are comparing, you have based your assumption on CC but if you use the more relevant performance figures v.s. cost then the 1.4 petrol is clearly the closer engine for comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Le_Savage said:
Baysideblue.... this is the discussion!

Also to you point re: engine to compare it will always depend upon what you are comparing, you have based your assumption on CC but if you use the more relevant performance figures v.s. cost then the 1.4 petrol is clearly the closer engine for comparison.
yeah sorry...! Had a blonde moment! I see where you are coming from now. :lol: the 1.4 is a fair comparison that way and indeed quicker and possibly cheaper.

My only thought when I was ordering my scirocco and chosing what to get was that 160 brake just seems a bit hardcore for a 1.4 litre engine. Given that non turbo 1.4s are usually around half that at 70-80 brake - Obviously the stress engineers and material engineers at VW wouldn't of released an unreliable engine and would of made sure it was up to the job. But it still seems awfully high loaded to me for the displacement. Does anyone know what boost they run out of interest - I'd imagine it would be a fair bit?

I'm not an engine designer / engineer obviously, but i have dabbled with tuning in the past as a hobby. My work isn't automotive at all but does involve stress analysis and materials engineering on things that go a heck of a lot quicker. Mach 4+ (3045 mph+) anyone!?!? :eek: so i do have a reasonable grounding in materials and their behaviours. :)

Still it's more down to me really than the car, I also didn't really consider the 1.4 as i'm a bit of a dinosaur in my ways in the form that the smallest engine I would drive is a 2.0T diesel / petrol. Theres no good reason of course as clearly the 1.4 is very powerful but i doubt i'm alone in my strange ways :lol: a lot of people think theres no replacement for displacement... as long as you don't take it as far as the yanks and have some silly 8 litre car that only produces 200 brake. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,088 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Baysideblue,
Some good comments and I tend to agree with re: the 1.4 being a little engine in a reasonable sized car... I might be wrong but I thought the 1.4tsi was turbo and supercharged and this was how they got such good performance figures from the unit, maybe I was dreaming. Either way the post was not an attack on the diesel owners as I have owned diesel golfs (1.9 TDI PD150) and a number of 2.0 TDI 140PS Tourans, incidentally the old 54 plate Ran with 45k on the clock regularly hit 68-70 mpg on a 40 mile run round the M25 while the new Ran (2.5k on the clock) gets little more than 48-50 on the same run, in other words they are as tight as a.... well you know when they are new and the fuel consumption on both the golf and ran improved continuously all the way to 40k. Finally and quite surprisingly I manage to get about 42-45 from the 2.0T Rocco on the same run whihc gives me approx 430-460 miles on a tank.
I have yet to use the same calculator to tell me how long the pay back period in the Ran is... but I am sure it will be more than the 3 years I intend to keep it so am hoping the residuals of the diesel will pay me back the rest at trade in time.

Will be interested to hear actual MPG figures from some Diesel users and at what mileages on the clock. All in the pursuit of wooly science of course.

Cheers, Justin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Had 53mpg driving a diesel roc normally. That was a dsg motor. Reckon you could get 60mpg easily from manual, the thing is so light that mpg must be easy to come by in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Wasn't taking offence lol! :lol: don't sweat. ;) Yep the 1.4 is supercharged and turbocharged :) thats how they get an impressive 160 brake instead of 70-80 (IIRC about normal for 1.4 NA).

Old rule of thumb used on my old car froum was about 10 horsepower per psi after the first 5 psi to overcome the blockage caused by the turbo (though its not as simple as this in real life - many more variables) so 5+9 = 14. Just under a bar (14.5) so not to bad looking at it -though it's still a fair bit for a small engine to take.

My old petrol 2.0 litre turbo car - IIRC ran 10 as standard for 200 bhp out of the factory... Still i wacked it upto 22psi on my AVC-R boost controller! with a bigger intercooler, bigger fuel injectors and remap of course! :lol: that thing was quick! :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Was a straightforward choice for me, going from mk v gti to the roc I justified a new car by cheaper overall running costs so went for the diesel. I too thought that the 1.4 might be highly stressed and also wondered if it might need a lot of revs to get the best from it. Would love to try one thought. Test driving the diesel I liked the torque and in my general mixed urban and A road commute it doesn't feel that much slower than my gti and it handles and rides better. Still feels weird being a diesel coupe though and I'll definitely be getting a bluefin when superchips finally get around to releasing it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
86 Posts
diesel yawn yawn yawn, all show and no go

notice all the diesel owners witter on about fuel economy and miles they get on a tank, and that diesel torque (having seen the torque figures on remapped 2.0tsi they will eat you for breakfast) and not that its a great drivers car or the power power band is so narrow you need to stir the box, its not a BMW engine unfortunately

the fact that they do a GT tdi is currently putting me off a petrol GT and making me wonder do i wait for an r20t
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
No one is denying that the tsi can be tuned to produce enormous torque or making unrealistic claims for the diesel. Just stating my reasons for choosing the car I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I'd love the 2.0 TSi but I can't weigh it off against my hatred of standing in the cold waiting for the tank to fill up. Once every 10 days is more appealing than once a week.

Now how about some maths: (stick with me on this)

0-60 2.0 TSi = 7.2s
0-60 2.0 TDi = 9.3s

...but it's not often that you do that. Usually 0-30 (accounting for lights, jams and speed limits) is more common so we can half the difference. i.e. 1.05s 0-30. Let's say we do that 20 times on an average day = 21s a day faster using the petrol. Or 2 hours 7 mins 45s per year faster.

For me it usually takes 10 mins to fill up accounting for getting to the station/waiting for the pump/time filling/paying etc... equating to 6 hours 5 mins per year (filling up once every 10 days). The petrol would be around once a week making it 8 hours 40 mins a year. The 2.0 TSi is therefore 2 hours 35 mins slower per year.

This makes the diesel 32 mins 15s a year FASTER. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
diesels are for tight wads, why buy a sports coupe and sitck an oil burner in it, 2.0tsi is the only option for this type of car , if ya want a diesel buy a skoda octavia its more in keeping with the (guess what i get to the gallon) Brigade, i am now waiting for the flack from the owners of rocs with the inferior engines fitted :lol: i may need some back up from the sensible owners who have the 2.0tsi, right im sitting in my bunker with my tin hat on,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Todays performance diesels aren't what they used to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10

Agree with the tight wad part though :lol: The way i see it is that i get about 90% of the performance for half the cost (obviously initial outlay is a bit higher). Only 23 and saving for a house at the moment, certain compromises had to be made :lol: Still get ACC so it should still be a hoot to drive.

At the end of the day do you get to use that last 10% of performance often on the road? not really unless your out at 3 a.m. Top speed is irrelivent Unless you do frequent track days you will never see it. :) My car before last could do 165 bannanas (indicated) - I only saw that once when i went off the clock on a "private" road ;) Hell even on track on the straight at the bedford autodrome wasn't long enough to see it again. 140 before having to brake hard for the hairpin at the end. Nor at brands / oulton or donnington. Might have a chance at combe or the ring. It was 0-60 in under 5 too.

Speaking of 0-60 that difference would be noticable. But again how often will you be doing standing starts on the road? I reckon once both cars are rolling there will be less in it. :) the diesel will still be slower obviously.

Despite the above, I did note earlier that I still felt dirty for putting a diesel in a sports car. So you are right about that too. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
if you read the road tests on the road the difference is quite noticeable between the 1.4 and the 2.0tsi, one test said the acc was pointless on the 1.4 and oil burner as you couldent push hard enough
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
always good fun when petrol is poured on the fire for the petrol/diesel debate, i love it, funny us petrol owners never justify having to buy a petrol and diesel owners have to put up with a load of sh#te

superdave love the logic as you've also proved your diesel is faster than a Ferrari 430, Evo etc etc, in deed so is my TSi :D

i may visit the station more often, but heh, its a great looking car to fill up and when you turn the key to pull away you (as well as everyone else) hear that tsi :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Ive had a 2.0 TSI since Nov and have to say its been great only seeing other REAL Roccos on the road, now Im ready for the onslaught of wannabee scirocco owners who can't afford the real Mcoy and the only Scirocco that should ever have been released!!! I blame VW for giving the opportunity for poor people/chavs to own a TDI and 1.4 tsi it just isn't right!!! Hee he he batten down the hatches i feel a storm brewing.
 
1 - 20 of 195 Posts
Top