^fubar

Nail on head.

You also forgot to mention that the diesel will sell for more and will sell a million times easier, oh and coupled with the fact its the more desirable vrs!

I know for a fact that my car is cheaper in the long run. I simply wouldn't have bought it otherwise and I only do 15k a year. That's even with the whole £120 every 40k for the dsg that he keeps banging on about, the £0 for the cambelt and the total lack of issue that the dpf is on the Cr engine.

As for the 0-60, we will never know what the 1.8 would have got on that day cos someone didn't have any balls.. So again until you can prove your incessant drivel I suggest you shut the hell up.

Oh and just to add, as you seem to posting in a parralell universe, you are right, you can't change the law of physics:

TSI DSG:

155g/km

160ps

250Nm

1295kg

CR DSG:

149g/km

170ps

350Nm

1395kg

The extra 100Nm of torque and extra 10bhp would more than offset the 9% extra weight. in fact a full tank and/or and extra passenger would more than do that anyway.....

Nothing to do with interia of a diesel, or whatever the hell you are banging on about - it produces what it produces regardless of how much power is required to spin the engine.....this is measured either at the flywheel or the wheels so the power needed to spin the engine is already discounted.

Little table for you. With you own figures above the TSI has a slightly better power to weight, small yes ie only one an half percent but in the TSI's favour. This table also shows TSI has a better spread of power which contributes to obtain the better acceleration figures than VW-Audi provide.

revs.....170 CR.....160 TSI

30%.....60............70

40%....90..............95

50%....115...........115

60%....140..........140

70%....150..........160

80%....160..........160

90%....170..........160

Torque is nothing without revs.

Engine do loses quite a lot of BHP during acceleration when spinning up the crank and a diesel crank is much heavier than a petrol crank hence the greater power absobtion for a diesel accelerating and why a diesel car with similar power is 5-10% slower accelerating due to it greater weight on the car and its internal rotating parts.

Edited 21 April, 201214 yr by lol

He doesn't know the meaning of facts!

I also got mine VAT free and without the options and DSG would have cost me £15500.....which was about £600 more than the petrol.....BRAND NEW and a VRS.

I have been averaging 55-60mpg over the last couple of weeks on my commutes as i haven't been in a rush......

Its easy to make figures up, but what is the point? I know the same journey in a 2.0 petrol, i would be getting 30-35mpg and filling up once a week at least.

I would also love to put 2 cars on a forecourt, one diesel and one petrol and see which one sold first for the most money? Not that we really need to answer that.

Surely you are not comparing a 2 litre TSI with a 2 litre diesel?

The TSI vRS is in a different league to the 2 litre CR. You generally have to compare a petrol with 80% of the engine capacity to the diesel for the same performance.

In road cars the 1.2 TSI is broadly equivalent to the 1.6 CR, actually the TSI is slight quicker by all the VW-Audi figures which you choose not to accept.

In WTCC the 2 litre diesel, in the Leon, is being replace by the 1.6 TSI as the 2 litre diesel is uncompetative. Just ask Tom Boardman as I did at Autosport earlier this year, see his times at the last few races. He cannot wait to ditch the 2 litre diesel and adopt the 1.6 litre petrol as it produces about 5-10% more power from its 80% capacity.

There is a mountain of facts all in my favour when it comes to performance. Show me any article, any manufacturers figures that show the 170 CR is quicker than the 1.8 TSI?

You got a brilliant deal on your diesel VRS but it simply is not enjoyable enough to drive for me to consider, not that much of an improvement over the 140 hp diesel I had. If it had 400 Nm of torque and a proper power plateau and did mid 50s mpg with mixed driving I would have considered with the right deal but the BMW 320D is a much better car than the 4 cylinder VAG diesel but too expensive for it sperformance so petrol is best for the sub 20K cars.

Edited 21 April, 201214 yr by lol

You talk total rubbish. It has 170bhp. That's the figure after all the guff you are on about about spin speed, inertia etc.

If a petrol and a diesel weighed the same, had the same power and weight figures then they would have the same 0-60 etc.....it's simple physics. Nothing to do with interia and any other such drivel.

Yes I am comparing the 2litre petrol because the last time I looked the vrs didn't come in the 1.8 unless you get one in India.

So as both myself and fubar have said the diesel wins on mpg and depreciation and until proven otherwise the 170bhp is faster than the 1.8tsi. More horses and more torques. It's simple physics.

You can model the figures and search the Internet until you are blue in the face, but official figure are and always have been worthless as I have proved with the 0-60 times. If you would like me to I will do some more runs at Gti this year to prove it wasn't a fluke.

As I have also said, you are quick enough to slate the 170 cr without having actually driving one and insist on banging on about the 140 pd you had.....which is totally different.

I will stick with my 350nm torque and mid 50s mpg without having to granny it everywhere like has been posted earlier by someone else stating they will do a 30 mile trip and get 45mpg at 65mph. If I did 65mph like I did when I couldn't be bothered to queue for fuel the other week I got 64mpg over a 20mile trip home......some 30% increase.

It could have all been sorted last year in a drag race to disprove all your official figures and I'll say it again, you hadn't got the balls......just like your fuelly account.

Edited 21 April, 201214 yr by jrw

Forgot to mention on that one putting for example 2 head to head 11 plate VRS's head to head TODAY based on franchised dealer book prices valuations published in Parkers the diesel one has lost 10.533% of its value and the petrol has lost 25.684% of their new costs. "usually around 3 or 4 % of list for 3 years at average mileage" im liking your depreciation figures more but hey the petrol has suffered 143.843% more depreciation than the diesel in year 1 alone their figures show a £2320 lose in value on the diesel and £5445 lose on the petrol a £3125 difference. How much more did the diesel cost again just 12 months before???

Funny how he hasn't quoted this post? Presume he can't find any official figures on it to disprove it

Surely you are not comparing a 2 litre TSI with a 2 litre diesel?

The TSI vRS is in a different league to the 2 litre CR. You generally have to compare a petrol with 80% of the engine capacity to the diesel for the same performance.

All he said was the difference in MPG he didn't make up mystical figures about performance no one has questioned stock for stock the 2.0 petrol v 2.0 diesel different peoples needs/budgets suit the different engines.

If it had 400 Nm of torque and a proper power plateau and did mid 50s mpg with mixed driving I would have considered with the right deal but the BMW 320D is a much better car than the 4 cylinder VAG diesel but too expensive for it sperformance so petrol is best for the sub 20K cars.

Mine has 447nm of torque and gets mid 50's with ease mixed but that's nothing to do with anything. Wasn't that impressed with the 2.0 or 3.0 diesels in BMW myself tbh and I agree price would have been a killer even if I had. Ironically I had to decide between a diesel VRS and a 535d M-Sport....... I stand by my decision as it was the correct one for me.

That entire post was nothing to do with the price of fish you went on about WTCC 1.2TSi 1.6CR even dirtied the forum with the alternative word for "chair" and some mountain but that was in no way related to anything above lol why?

btw from your post before where you have the table that isn't a table talking about % of RPM .... all you have proven with that is that the petrol needs to get to higher revs to generate its BHP so does that mean the diesel gets there first as it only has to get to 4200 rpm not 5100rpm? As you didn't say I will await some clarification Have you worked out the correct figures for your earlier posts I replied to?

Below is the choice I had at car Giant on 21st February this year

December 58 Octavia 1.8TSI Elegance 66K miles FSH at £5199, 3 stamps in the book, Option extras (sunroof, better paint and light assist) 40mpg

December 57 Octy PD140 Elegance 71K miles FSH at £7499 3 stamps in the book. no extras 50 +mpg

Both were mint cars , even the salesman said "You're better off with the petrol mate"!!

There are not many 1.8 around at that price forthat kind of vintge most are nearer £7k+.

(1 L&K on AT £5.2k, 57, 96k)

The best other I have seen over the last year, was and 08 L&K 40k at £7k

I have to laugh at people mentioning the 'massive' torque available in the diesel. The thing 'only' produces its 'massive' torque (258lb) over........wait for it..........750rpm between 1750-2500rpm, that is extremely narrow, now add the weight.

lol's Tsi produces (184lb) over the 1500-4500rpm band, so it's closer than people think I bet.

Now if you want to see the diff between the 2.0 petrol and diesel DSG in the golf !

He even gives him a couple of head starts !

I have to laugh at people mentioning the 'massive' torque available in the diesel. The thing 'only' produces its 'massive' torque (258lb) over........wait for it..........750rpm between 1750-2500rpm, that is extremely narrow, now add the weight.

lol's Tsi produces (184lb) over the 1500-4500rpm band, so it's closer than people think I bet.

Now if you want to see the diff between the 2.0 petrol and diesel DSG in the golf !

He even gives him a couple of head starts !

Yes and no that's the same the 2.0 petrol vrs against 2.0 diesel vrs something that is not in discussion here until lol just decided to move over to that instead of answering to the random figures he had quoted.

The torque produced and rev range for 1.8Tsi being 1500 - 4500rpm this is a natural characteristic difference between the petrol and diesel engines the diesel produces it for less rpm range however as a diesel it is not like it has another 4000 rpm to go after its reached a much larger amount a lot quicker, gearing then comes into play. But where the diesel is listed to peak its torque there and will obviously then drop off it still generates more torque all the way threw its rev range after 2500rpm all the way until the red line than the petrol one makes at its peak if you see where im coming from. So the petrol gets its much lower peak for longer but the diesel has still got more torque threw its entire rev range even at its lowest point its more than the petrol even produces at its max!

At the end of the day there will never be some sort of a 10 second gap here but the discussion has been towards some wildly random figures and quotes made like a new diesel vrs costs £4000 more than a petrol when Skoda say its £815. No need for people to read false information that they may believe and act upon.

I have to laugh at people mentioning the 'massive' torque available in the diesel. The thing 'only' produces its 'massive' torque (258lb) over........wait for it..........750rpm between 1750-2500rpm, that is extremely narrow, now add the weight.

lol's Tsi produces (184lb) over the 1500-4500rpm band, so it's closer than people think I bet.

Now if you want to see the diff between the 2.0 petrol and diesel DSG in the golf !

He even gives him a couple of head starts !

Why has the 2.0tsi suddenly come into it. I merely mentioned it to compare the differences in prices and mpg.

The power has never been in question between the 2 litres. It has 30 more bhp but actually looking at that there only seems to be about a second difference between the petrol and the diesel. Not knowing Spanish I don't know if they gave times. Be interesting to know what they were if they did.

I would imagine at 40 less bhp the 1.8tsi would be a good second behind on the qtr mile times over the diesel but alas I'm still out there for someone to go head to head with me.

I will stick with my 350nm torque and mid 50s mpg without having to granny it everywhere like has been posted earlier by someone else stating they will do a 30 mile trip and get 45mpg at 65mph. If I did 65mph like I did when I couldn't be bothered to queue for fuel the other week I got 64mpg over a 20mile trip home......some 30% increase.

I would hardly say 65mph is "grannying it",

Just enjoying the open road and letting all the other knobheads, break the law, waste fuel racing by at 80-90mph and gaining what exactly??

64 is great MPG.... still not enough for me to spend thousands extra as I hardly do motorway miles!

As I say I paid 600 more for mine over the petrol so I have more than made up them savings over a petrol vrs. Buying second hand is a totally different kettle of fish.

At the end of the day people buy the car that they want hopefully that suits the circumstances.

I've had diesel for my last 5 cars, inc last 2 cars that were 204 and 225 Bhp that went pretty well.

I have went back to petrol power and the difference in my circumstances is amazing, I don't care about mpg, as why buy a car that looks 'fast' but worry about mpg ? Yes, people may say it is close, but it isn't really, NA petrols v diesel maybe, but turbo petrols ?

I have 'played' with my mate in his VW Scirocco diesel on the dual carriageway (all legal.....) and it was night/day, he is close....he changes gear.....goodbye. Day to day is it that extreme? I dont know, but I would always enjoy passing a diesel !

Why has the 2.0tsi suddenly come into it. I merely mentioned it to compare the differences in prices and mpg.

The power has never been in question between the 2 litres. It has 30 more bhp but actually looking at that there only seems to be about a second difference between the petrol and the diesel. Not knowing Spanish I don't know if they gave times. Be interesting to know what they were if they did.

I would imagine at 40 less bhp the 1.8tsi would be a good second behind on the qtr mile times over the diesel but alas I'm still out there for someone to go head to head with me.

Tbh jrw, look at the distance on that track that the Gti destroys the Gtd !

Well a second over that distance is pretty telling......how many car lengths?

You keep saying no one wants to try you, well I reckon the 1.8 would be equal if not faster, the 2.0 well we won't talk about that will we?

I personally think you (jrw) disrespect (lol), opinions are what count and we all buy different cars for diff circumstances.

If opinions count in this thread ? Then the diesel is pretty slow but enjoy your mpg, I don't miss my 330d.

I haven't driven the 1.8tsi so can't provide factual comment in way of comparison but it wouldn't surprise me if it was as quick, if not quicker than the CR, looking at the figures and knowing the CR as I do.

I found the CR to be a compromise, it didn't give particularly good mpg and it wasn't very quick compared to my previous tfsi and my current tsi (when standard). I averaged 37mpg over 2.5 years which wasn't enough to make up for the lack of thrill factor.

My remapped CR made 204bhp and whilst it made a reasonable difference I was convinced it still wasn't as quick as my standard tfsi or tsi prior to remap so peak figures don't tell the whole story.

From experience of my CR I am very surprised a late 6's 0 to 60 is possible but then mine wasn't DSG and I suppose that makes a difference. If it is possible then I fully expect other models such as the 1.8tsi to achieve times also significantly less than the manufacturers claimed figures, this stands to reason. I look forward to seeing jrw do a repeat performance at Inters this year anyway (btw looks like we are both on the ukmkivs stand - i am Black V5 on there). Really makes me wonder what mine would do but I won't be putting it down the strip.

Don't get me wrong, the CR vRS is a good car and it's a nice engine but it just wasn't for me. As for comparisons with the 1.8tsi after all said I would still probably take the CR as it is a vRS at the end of the day and there's not sufficient difference performance-wise to go with the non vRS.

Edited 22 April, 201214 yr by Guest

Way up in this thread now after making a show of himself someone tried to change the subject to 2.0 petrol v 2.0 diesel and he still hasn't commented on his very strange figures that he stated as fact. Yet here it is more or less moved over to debating a fact that's never been disputed..... :(

Jonno I would have said the same but as this subject kept coming up on the forum and torque is often used as a possible reason why the more bhp and peak torque might not be enough in the diesel. As I said above of course the diesels torque peaks early then drops off but even after it drops off to its LOWEST point just at the red line its still at that point and all the way threw the rev range produced more torque than the 1.8TSi ever does at its peak let alone before and after it! This is what makes it a good one to see head to head for a more visual answer there cannot be much in it but my money is on the diesel for the in depth figures.

Way up in this thread now after making a show of himself someone tried to change the subject to 2.0 petrol v 2.0 diesel and he still hasn't commented on his very strange figures that he stated as fact. Yet here it is more or less moved over to debating a fact that's never been disputed..... :(

Jonno I would have said the same but as this subject kept coming up on the forum and torque is often used as a possible reason why the more bhp and peak torque might not be enough in the diesel. As I said above of course the diesels torque peaks early then drops off but even after it drops off to its LOWEST point just at the red line its still at that point and all the way threw the rev range produced more torque than the 1.8TSi ever does at its peak let alone before and after it! This is what makes it a good one to see head to head for a more visual answer there cannot be much in it but my money is on the diesel for the in depth figures.

Sounds like this needs to be settled the old fashioned way..... with a drag race.

Sounds like this needs to be settled the old fashioned way..... with a drag race.

We need the stig! Otherwise the driver could be blamed rather that the car for loosing :(

We need the stig! Otherwise the driver could be blamed rather that the car for loosing :(

The other thing so consider is the different gearing and relative power and torque to weight ratios. I'm not sure how this affects things in the comparison between the two.

The other thing so consider is the different gearing and relative power and torque to weight ratios. I'm not sure how this affects things in the comparison between the two.

I mentioned that above but really really didn't want to go into that too much of a pain in the hole will leave that one to be established when someone does a head to head on track some day.

I mentioned that above but really really didn't want to go into that too much of a pain in the hole will leave that one to be established when someone does a head to head on track some day.

Also a drag race is one thing but in gear acceleration is more relevant to everyday driving I would of said.

Also a drag race is one thing but in gear acceleration is more relevant to everyday driving I would of said.

Looking back to the Mk1 Fabia VRS advertising by Skoda it showed the 30-50mph acceleration it was faster than a Lotus Elise 111s and 50-70 faster than a BMW 330i. Thats something I always remembered and that was as a 130bhp stock diesel. I would think as a mere assumption that between the 1.8Tsi and 2.0 CR TDi or the PD for that matter the diesel would still have the typical usage of its greater torque in these situations. Gearing has such a massive importance here too along with the torque for the roll on tests.

Just thought I'd quote this comparison site again, as at least it's quoting figures from an independent source.

This shows the manual versions, so there's no DSG launch control to get the quicker acceleration times that people have been getting.

http://www.zeperfs.c...el2671-2674.htm

Edited 22 April, 201214 yr by Ultima

Just thought I'd quote this comparison site again, as at least it's quoting figures from an independent source.

This shows the manual versions, so there's no DSG launch control to get the quicker acceleration times that people have been getting.

http://www.zeperfs.c...el2671-2674.htm

So in the drag race the 1.8 tsi is quicker apart from to 60kmph but generally the CR quicker at the in gear acceleration. Pretty much what I would expect to be honest.

Just thought I'd quote this comparison site again, as at least it's quoting figures from an independent source.

This shows the manual versions, so there's no DSG launch control to get the quicker acceleration times that people have been getting.

http://www.zeperfs.c...el2671-2674.htm

Thats a cool link cheers But by the specs listed that's looking like a 2.0TDI PD not the CR TDi. Rev limit is correct for a PD but 500rpm lower than CR. CR is also lighter.

Thats a cool link cheers But by the specs listed that's looking like a 2.0TDI PD not the CR TDi. Rev limit is correct for a PD but 500rpm lower than CR. CR is also lighter.

Be even cooler if it were in English