1.4 TSi or 2.0 TDi DSG - which would you choose

[pipsyp]

Personally think the little 1.4 has alot of potential....quite a bit cheaper to buy than the TDi, claimed 56mpg and 116g CO2 with DSG on the Combi, 184lb/ft torque, not much less powerful than the TDi but 85kg lighter so nigh on the same power to weight ratio, quicker to 60 but a little slower top end, 7 speed box.

I think the choice between petrol and diesel has become alot more interesting and petrol would probably be my choice next time.

what would you choose?

[Andrew@DTUK]

I've not driven the 1.4 tsi, but the 2.0 184 derv is a revelation in comparison to the old 170, so I can't imagine you wouldn't be impressed by the 150

If you're not doing a lot of mileage, the the additional costs of the tdi will negate any savings

[Dempsek]

I do around 13000 miles a year and it was better for me to have a diesel.

 

I have now gone petrol with the 1.4TSI, it's quicker than my current car and will probably be just as economical with cheaper fuel.

[TheWanderer]

I know that I will be lambasted for saying it but unless you do the miles then as Andrew has said the savings you make will be negated by the increased initial costs of purchase and then the extra cost of diesel.

I have a diesel at the moment and its not given me the savings or enjoyment I was after, so am making the transition back to petrol.

So far in the year of ownership I have only covered 5600 miles and its been a disaster for me.

[Andrew@DTUK]

I know that I will be lambasted for saying it but unless you do the miles then as Andrew has said the savings you make will be negated by the increased initial costs of purchase and then the extra cost of diesel.

I have a diesel at the moment and its not given me the savings or enjoyment I was after, so am making the transition back to petrol.

So far in the year of ownership I have only covered 5600 miles and its been a disaster for me.

What kind of issues have you had?

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

[TheWanderer]

Just it drinks fuel like an alcoholic despite having a gentle foot and handles badly. When I did the test drive it handled ok, but in reality it turned out to be a really awful thing.

Iwas lucky in that last winter I had access to a awd car but in the end I just bought a piece of crap that shall remain nameless.

[Yeti_Man]

I've been saying for several years now that unless you really do the mileage, mainly consisting of long journeys, that in real world conditions, the TSi's aren't as far off the TDi's as the figures would suggest. I'd rather have the TSi for the refinement, ability to rev, and the fact that it just gets nice and warm in the cabin so much quicker in the colder months. Add to that the cheaper initial purchase price and fuel costs and I feel also that the financial side doesn't even stack up too strongly to favour the TDi. Then add the fact that despite what diesel owners say, DPF's do add an extra concern if your daily commute isn't text book... Ive driven a modern CR diesel and TSi petrol car regularly over the last three years on the same routes - the above comments describe what I've found.

[pipsyp]

Ive found historically that most TSi's get nothing like their book MPG figures; thats one of my concerns. My old man had an A3 1.4 TFSi 125 stop start S-line and that wasnt particularly great, my old Fabia did 32mpg (45 claimed) but I hear good things about the latest 140hp model with people seeing real world 50mpg out of it.

My preference has always been turbo petrol over turbo diesel but ive mainly resorted to diesel to ensure respectable economy as that's important to me with a daily driver.....just a shame the CR's are quite bland in their power delivery. Looks like the 1.4 could be all things to most men; turbo petrol power delivery and refinement, good performance but still cheap to run.

At the point now too that as much as I like the MK3 vRS and would personally like one to replace my MK2 when the time comes, the ride on sports suspension is too firm IMO and im starting to steer myself down the 1.4 TSI DSG Elegance combi route, something with a few toys thats a bit more comfortable for the family. Find my 170 CR entirely adequate but a bit dull to punt along and think the 150 TDi might be compromised to the same degree, the TSi 140 being that bit more enjoyable to drive.

Edited 10 November, 2013 by pipsyp

[Orville]

If you do low mileage and value refinement opt for the TSI. If mileage is high and you count the fuel pennies go for the TDI. If you sit somewhere in the middle test drive both and see which fells right for you. Diesels will typically cost less but petrol is generally more pleasant to drive. Just be aware that fuel prices will only get higher so the cost difference will widen in the diesels favour. I would personally choose the TSI but that is because I value refinement above economy and I drove low miles.

[TheWanderer]

If I didn't have the option of the vRS, Then the 1.4 TSi for me as I don't do the mileage to get the necessary benefits that come with the diesel engine, also the TSi is quieter and more refined at start up too.

 

Most of my journeys are short (6-8 miles) so wouldn't do the diesel engine or DPF any favours either.

[littleade]

Personally I think it's rather daft to compare the 1.4 tsi with the cr vRS. If you want to compare the cr vRS then compare it with the tsi version. Then financially the cr wins hands down because the cost to buy is only an extra circa £800, its far cheaper to run and will be worth far more at trade in than the 2.0 tsi vRS

If you wish to compare the 1.4 then shouldn't the comparison be a like for like model one e.g. Against 2 elegance models. Then it's more relevant and personally the tsi would probably edge it for me as the new 1.4 engine in the lighter mkIII would offer similar performance to the old 1.8.

Not sure what real word mpg would be in the mk III 1.4 though.

The only thing potentially swinging it towards the diesel other than high milage would be depreciation which people all to easily overlook and its the biggest cost associated with buying a new car and the oilers always loose less than their petrol counterparts, but as the cr150 is circa 1800 more the the 1.4 this may factor in the 1.4s favour.

[BA Baracus]

Personally I think it's rather daft to compare the 1.4 tsi with the cr vRS. If you want to compare the cr vRS then compare it with the tsi version. Then financially the cr wins hands down because the cost to buy is only an extra circa £800, its far cheaper to run and will be worth far more at trade in than the 2.0 tsi vRS

If you wish to compare the 1.4 then shouldn't the comparison be a like for like model one e.g. Against 2 elegance models. Then it's more relevant and personally the tsi would probably edge it for me as the new 1.4 engine in the lighter mkIII would offer similar performance to the old 1.8.

Not sure what real word mpg would be in the mk III 1.4 though.

The only thing potentially swinging it towards the diesel other than high milage would be depreciation which people all to easily overlook and its the biggest cost associated with buying a new car and the oilers always loose less than their petrol counterparts, but as the cr150 is circa 1800 more the the 1.4 this may factor in the 1.4s favour.

 

Price difference between petrol and diesel vrs estates is only £270 - gives the diesel the advantage imo.

[Dempsek]

Back to either the 1.4TSI or the 2.0TDI 150 not the VRS - where was the VRS in the original post, did I miss it?

 

I used What car's Petrol or Diesel, plugged in 11000 miles, 78% of book mpg for both cars and depreciation of 42% for the petrol and 46% for the diesel - giving the diesel the edge on resale value.

 

The result was the diesel was £258 pounds cheaper to run over three years using my local fuel rates.

 

For around £86 pounds a year and to be able to drive and not think about the DPF is a boon for me, of you compare fuel running cost between the 1.4TSI and the TDI VRS the VRS costs £532 more over three years.

 

Just plugged in 30000 miles and the VRS cost an extra £943 to run over three years compared to the 1.4TSI and the 2.0 TDI saves £313.

Edited 10 November, 2013 by Dempsek

[VRS Doug VX]

My wife has the 1.4 twin charger engine in her Fabia VRS. After about 20,000 it's now starting to do over 40mpg on longer journey's, but it takes serious effort..it's so easy to drop to the mid 30's. Her average over the last 2600 miles is 34.2mpg (gulp!).

 

My car is a VRS CR170 (Mk2 facelift). I hardly ever get under 45mpg for similar journey's. My average for the last 2438 miles is 47.3mpg i.e. much closer to the claimed mpg.

 

We are thinking of changing the Fabia for an Octavia or Yeti (our boys are getting bigger). I'm thinking of an Octavia VRS..but the petrol one...with a LPG conversion...best of both worlds!

 

IMHO the 1.4 unit would feel a bit gutless in an Octy..I find it pretty puny in the Fabia until about 3000rpm (turbo zone).

[TheWanderer]

Just a point if you have an LPG conversion, be aware that it can cause problems if you intend to use a ferry & as far as I am aware you cannot use Le Shuttle at all.

 

So if you do use a ferry/tunnel to the continent, then you may want to reconsider.

[TheWanderer]

My wife has the 1.4 twin charger engine in her Fabia VRS. After about 20,000 it's now starting to do over 40mpg on longer journey's, but it takes serious effort..it's so easy to drop to the mid 30's. Her average over the last 2600 miles is 34.2mpg (gulp!).

 

My car is a VRS CR170 (Mk2 facelift). I hardly ever get under 45mpg for similar journey's. My average for the last 2438 miles is 47.3mpg i.e. much closer to the claimed mpg.

 

We are thinking of changing the Fabia for an Octavia or Yeti (our boys are getting bigger). I'm thinking of an Octavia VRS..but the petrol one...with a LPG conversion...best of both worlds!

 

IMHO the 1.4 unit would feel a bit gutless in an Octy..I find it pretty puny in the Fabia until about 3000rpm (turbo zone).

 

No, it doesn't. It's actually quite perky, obviously it doesn't have the out & out power of the vRS but it still has some fire in its little belly.

[pipsyp]

Just looked into power to weight a bit more....quite interesting (all DSG estates).

1.4 TSi 138hp & 1207kg kerb weight = 116hp/tonne.

2.0 TDi 148hp & 1292kg kerb weight = 116hp/tonne.

Mk2 170CR DSG vRS 168hp & 1430kg kerb weight = 119hp/tonne.

Mk3 184CR DSG vRS 181hp & 1432kg kerb weight = 128hp/tonne.

Makes sense why both the 1.4 TSi and 2.0 TDi 150's perform similarly and near enough as well as a MK2 CR vRS DSG Combi.

Also have to bear in mind the 1.4 isnt exactly light on torque, outputs the same 184 lb/ft peak figure as the 180ps twincharger and new 1.8 TSi units.

Think its a move in the right direction, a 140ps lightweight car with similar go to its 170ps predecesor.

[Sheldon.Cooper]

Just looked into power to weight a bit more....quite interesting (all DSG estates).

1.4 TSi 138hp & 1207kg kerb weight = 116hp/tonne.

2.0 TDi 148hp & 1292kg kerb weight = 116hp/tonne.

Mk2 170CR DSG vRS 168hp & 1430kg kerb weight = 119hp/tonne.

Mk3 184CR DSG vRS 181hp & 1432kg kerb weight = 128hp/tonne.

Makes sense why both the 1.4 TSi and 2.0 TDi 150's perform similarly and near enough as well as a MK2 CR vRS DSG Combi.

Also have to bear in mind the 1.4 isnt exactly light on torque, outputs the same 184 lb/ft peak figure as the 180ps twincharger and new 1.8 TSi units.

Think its a move in the right direction, a 140ps lightweight car with similar go to its 170ps predecesor.

It's torque that throws you down the road.

 

184lb/ft isn't bad but 236lb/ft is better.

 

You need to try both cars back to back then decide which one is best for YOU based on YOUR driving style.

 

But having said that..... a DSG gearbox is suited to the petrol engine way more than the diesel engine....  You've got to try them, you can argue as much as you want on paper but it's a real world drive which determines which is best for any given individual.

[littleade]

Price difference between petrol and diesel vrs estates is only £270 - gives the diesel the advantage imo.

only £270 now? Sorry my mis- I don't have a brochure with the mkIII vRS prices in so thought there would be a similar gap to the mkII

test drive em all then pick the one you prefer. Certanly on paper the new 1.4 is a more complete car than the mkII 1.4 so I don't think you'll be dissappointed if you choose that one.

[Orville]

It's torque that throws you down the road.

 

184lb/ft isn't bad but 236lb/ft is better.

 

You need to try both cars back to back then decide which one is best for YOU based on YOUR driving style.

 

But having said that..... a DSG gearbox is suited to the petrol engine way more than the diesel engine....  You've got to try them, you can argue as much as you want on paper but it's a real world drive which determines which is best for any given individual.

Torque is important, but so is gearing and torque spread. The petrol's 184lb/ft available from 1500-3500rpm matched to shorter DSG gearing and peak power at 6000rpm may feel very similar to the diesels 236lb/ft from 1750-3000rpm with peak power at 4000rpm. Higher rev ranges coupled to shorter gearing can easily make up the perceived torque disadvantage. That's also why the petrol VRS feels so much faster than the diesel VRS within every gear despite having less torque (and I have driven both). Ultimately the 1.4TSI and 2.0CR 150 will probably deliver similar shove, but the 1.4 will do in in a much more refined way, albeit at some cost to fuel economy.

 

What makes the 1.4TSI slightly more attractive is the fact that it is more fuel efficient with a DSG gearbox than with manual. The diesel takes the normal route and is less efficient than it's manual counterpart, resulting in fuel consumption figures that are rather close (56.5 for TSI vs 62.8 for CR150). With petrol costing ~5% less than diesel and servicing and maintenance being less over the long-term, the 1.4TSI may well be a very effective alternative to diesel.

 

I still vote TSI in this battle. The added smoothness, lower noise and faster warm up when cold is well worth sacrificing a few mpg for me. The only real disadvantage of the TSI is depreciation if you only intend to keep the car for a few years. Diesels hold their value better because they are perceived to be much more efficient. This is usually the case, but not always so.

 

OP really needs to test drive both before making a decision.

Edited 11 November, 2013 by Orville

[Harkonnen]

I went for the 1.4 petrol because it had 140HP and it is an advantage in Winter with the heating and it is more silent than a diesel and also the costs are lower.

[Orville]

The 1.4TSI is also 80Kg lighter than the CR150 (1195 vs 1275Kg) which also helps explain why Skoda lists TSI performance as slightly better despite it's 10bhp and 70Nm torque disadvantage. 80Kg is like carrying a reasonable sized bloke under your bonnet, so the TSI will likely handle better too, being less nose heavy and better balanced.

[philhoward]

On paper, it looks like a close call.

 

For me, petrol all the way (even though I do 30k a year).  I'm not a fan of the narrow torque band, don't like the smell of diesel or the extra noise and vibration - especially when it comes to the constant stop/starting in crawling traffic...  As Dempsek says - somethings can't be quantified by paper figures alone and sometimes the extra "on paper" costs per year are worth it.  The ability to get heat within a shorter distance is a boon (even though you diesel-ers can get the heated screens  ).

 

1.4 + DSG for me...hopefully!

[Dempsek]

On paper, it looks like a close call.

 

For me, petrol all the way (even though I do 30k a year).  I'm not a fan of the narrow torque band, don't like the smell of diesel or the extra noise and vibration - especially when it comes to the constant stop/starting in crawling traffic...  As Dempsek says - somethings can't be quantified by paper figures alone and sometimes the extra "on paper" costs per year are worth it.  The ability to get heat within a shorter distance is a boon (even though you diesel-ers can get the heated screens  ).

 

1.4 + DSG for me...hopefully!

Thanks for the comment, but it was Sheldon Cooper who said the on paper comment.

 

I test drove the diesel and the TSI and I bought the TSI.

[Matt Pez]

I went for the CR150 over the TSI140 but as posted in Stokey's thread the other day, comparing his real world mpg to mine so far, I'm looking at over 10 years to pay back the extra initial cost even allowing for increased resale I think the What Car calcs are flawed as the difference over 3 yrs based on 11k miles can't be based on real world mpg, I based my calcs on 22k per year and I am saving less than £100 per year in fuel.