I just chose the TSi because I didn't do the mileage, I was concerned about potential DPF failures and having to fork out for a forced regen or replacement.

 

At around 6000 miles pa, I decided to go for the petrol version of the vRS and I absolutely love it, the punchiness of the engine and the pure slickness of the DSG gearbox out on the open road.

 

I did have tests on in the TDi and whilst impressive, I felt that it lacked that little something. I don't know what, but it lacked something that the TSi had, also at £1,30 p/l for petrol rather that the £1.38 p/l for diesel, I thought for the miles and type of driving I do (20% country, 20% mixed & 60% town), it's better in the long run for me.

Due to low mileage (around 10,000) of mainly short 10 mile or less journeys I have just changed from years of diesel to petrol.

 

Cost wise the petrol works out cheaper over the PCP term, and the 1.4TSI was a much better drive around town with the DSG than the TDI.

 

Then factor in how you are going to pay for the two cars, and if you do low mileage you have an increased chance of a DPF issue or will have to make journeys just to do a regeneration.

 

Then test drive both types and see which you like the best.

Stop perpetuating this DPF bolleaux. Has there even been a single member of these boards with a confirmed DPF (not sensor) problem on a CR engine?

I would be interested to know what the real world mpg figures are for the 1.4tsi manual so I can do a comparison with my 2.0tdi manual.

 

I would be interested to know what the real world mpg figures are for the 1.4tsi manual so I can do a comparison with my 2.0tdi manual.

 

So would I

Regards

T

Stop perpetuating this DPF bolleaux. Has there even been a single member of these boards with a confirmed DPF (not sensor) problem on a CR engine?

+1 utter bollards from my experience, 3 of my daily runners over the past 5 years have been VAG cars with DPFs, one a dreaded Golf 1.9 PD Bluemotion and none of them gave any DPF related issues over 90k miles

+1 utter bollards from my experience, 3 of my daily runners over the past 5 years have been VAG cars with DPFs, one a dreaded Golf 1.9 PD Bluemotion and none of them gave any DPF related issues over 90k miles

Which is an average of just under 20K per annum. DPF issues really do depend on driving style, distance driven and frequency of stop start driving. Yes there are lots of people who have never or will ever get an issue with a DPF but there is an equal amount of people who do.

Given that most my driving is short 3 mile commutes and I do less than 8k per year I decided on TSI this time so as to avoid any possibility of DPF issues.

Which is an average of just under 20K per annum. DPF issues really do depend on driving style, distance driven and frequency of stop start driving. Yes there are lots of people who have never or will ever get an issue with a DPF but there is an equal amount of people who do.

Given that most my driving is short 3 mile commutes and I do less than 8k per year I decided on TSI this time so as to avoid any possibility of DPF issues.

Well I've done only 10k in my Mk2 vRS CR in a year and not even one Forced regen. Fair shout if you're worried you'll experience issues but doubt muchly you would.

Yes there are lots of people who have never or will ever get an issue with a DPF but there is an equal amount of people who do.

Equal? No, there really isn't.

Given that most my driving is short 3 mile commutes and I do less than 8k per year I decided on TSI this time so as to avoid any possibility of DPF issues.

You sound like exactly the kind of driver at (supposedly) at risk. Had any problems in a CR yet?

Like I said, it's Bolleaux.

Like I said, it's Bolleaux.

Seems like its a very good vintage this year! Hope the tsi has a cam belt rather than chain drive though

Yes there are lots of people who have never or will ever get an issue with a DPF but there is an equal amount of people who do.

So 50% of people who drive diesels with DPFs have issues with them? What's your source for this information?

As ever, a highly partisan (based largely on what you are driving at the time) and entertaining petrol vs diesel thread!

Just try both, and get the one you prefer!

If you really want a TDI, then get it, dont be put off by so called DPF issues, bare in mind you only hear about the ones that go wrong, like everything in life, you don't hear about the ones that are working fine.

As ever, a highly partisan (based largely on what you are driving at the time) and entertaining petrol vs diesel thread!

Precisely, and the whole DPF drama is nothing but scaremongering. It's the same with "Octavia's catching fire" and "All the Octavia's getting nicked" when people let them warm up outside their homes. Based on no facts whatsoever.

Precisely, and the whole DPF drama is nothing but scaremongering. It's the same with "Octavia's catching fire" and "All the Octavia's getting nicked" when people let them warm up outside their homes. Based on no facts whatsoever.

DPF's and their need to 're-gen' are, ultimately, a 'fix' to reduce emissions. I'm sure they usually work fine. But they are, undeniably, another addition that could and, in some cases, does go wrong...... as per the RAC man's testimony......

Honest John's views are based on thousands of letters & emails from Telegraph readers & website browsers. He has also now proffered the view that diesel should probably be avoided unless doing high miles due to the efficiency and reliability of modern smaller capacity petrol turbos. Particularly in the UK where petrol prices are lower that diesel ones.

The tide is turning. The diesel obsession is over for many.

My wife has a Renault Clio 1.2 turbo and drives about 4500 miles per year and over the past 2½ years as averaged just over 36mpg (Renault claim 48mpg).  I travel 11K miles per year and have a vRS CR that so far as averaged just over 45mpg.  Diesel may cost more than petrol per litre but it would have to cost 1.60/litre before my fuel cost more per mile than for the Clio.  Small petrol turbo engines show well in the official tests but are useless in real world motoring - see all the publicity given to fuel consumption well below the claimed figure with the Ford 1.0 litre turbo engine.

My wife has a Renault Clio 1.2 turbo and drives about 4500 miles per year and over the past 2½ years as averaged just over 36mpg (Renault claim 48mpg).  I travel 11K miles per year and have a vRS CR that so far as averaged just over 45mpg.  Diesel may cost more than petrol per litre but it would have to cost 1.60/litre before my fuel cost more per mile than for the Clio.  Small petrol turbo engines show well in the official tests but are useless in real world motoring - see all the publicity given to fuel consumption well below the claimed figure with the Ford 1.0 litre turbo engine.  Also, no problem with my DPF.

There must be someone on this forum with a 1.4 tsi manual who can give us some real world mpg figures.........where art thou.

There must be someone on this forum with a 1.4 tsi manual who can give us some real world mpg figures.........where art thou.

A friend of mine has driven his 1.4 TSI manual since summer. He has quite an aggressive driving style and says that even with his lead foot it's hard to average worse than 45 mpg. And if you drive like a normal person, you can easily maintain 55mpg (keep in mind it's a new engine and not that "run in").

I ordered a 1.4 manual as well but have yet to receive it so can't comment on personal figures.

 

For me, it was quite an easy choice. The 1.4 felt noticably more refined, snappier and quiter that the 2.0 diesel. And I think it's an even simpler choice if you want the DSG.

I agree that you should test drive both and see for yourself, there will always be advocates and reasonings for all options.

Edited 23 December, 201312 yr by johh

My wife has a Renault Clio 1.2 turbo and drives about 4500 miles per year and over the past 2½ years as averaged just over 36mpg (Renault claim 48mpg).  I travel 11K miles per year and have a vRS CR that so far as averaged just over 45mpg.  Diesel may cost more than petrol per litre but it would have to cost 1.60/litre before my fuel cost more per mile than for the Clio.  Small petrol turbo engines show well in the official tests but are useless in real world motoring - see all the publicity given to fuel consumption well below the claimed figure with the Ford 1.0 litre turbo engine.

Couldn't agree more.

My Fabia vRS returned 32mpg, nothing like its 45mpg claim. The only time it got near 40 on a run was when being driven at around 56mph.....funny that :-)

I also had a Fabia 1.2 TSI very briefly as a courtesy car and whilst it was a corking motor and offered staggering go for a 1.2, it was only averaging about 36mpg which dropped considerably when giving it a hoof.....was probably no better of not worse on fuel than the 1.6 petrol Astra we run as a runabout at the mo.

Think it's all great and rather clever that such small capacity engines can offer the sort of go we were all experiencing in 1.8/2.0 NA family cars only a few years ago but I'd still argue their efficiency capabilities if driven to extract performance are nothing like as accomplished as a modern diesel.

Still I guess it depends what you are after in a car and agree that the TSI offers a dimension of capabilities that the diesel cannot but to suggest the TSI runs a TDi really that close in real world conditions in my opinion at least is not true, unless you drive like miss daisy of course.

A friend of mine has driven his 1.4 TSI manual since summer. He has quite an aggressive driving style and says that even with his lead foot it's hard to average worse than 45 mpg. And if you drive like a normal person, you can easily maintain 55mpg (keep in mind it's a new engine and not that "run in").

I ordered a 1.4 manual as well but have yet to receive it so can't comment on personal figures.

For me, it was quite an easy choice. The 1.4 felt noticably more refined, snappier and quiter that the 2.0 diesel. And I think it's an even simpler choice if you want the DSG.

I agree that you should test drive both and see for yourself, there will always be advocates and reasonings for all options.

A friend of mine has driven his 1.4 TSI manual since summer. He has quite an aggressive driving style and says that even with his lead foot it's hard to average worse than 45 mpg. And if you drive like a normal person, you can easily maintain 55mpg (keep in mind it's a new engine and not that "run in").

I ordered a 1.4 manual as well but have yet to receive it so can't comment on personal figures.

For me, it was quite an easy choice. The 1.4 felt noticably more refined, snappier and quiter that the 2.0 diesel. And I think it's an even simpler choice if you want the DSG.

I agree that you should test drive both and see for yourself, there will always be advocates and reasonings for all options.

55mpg sounds like the list figure unless that was extra urban only type driving? Excellent return if thats true and annoying for me as I would have opted for the petrol but nothing was available for under £350 per month on pcp in the available stocklist when I was buying.

I was only able to drive the 1.2 on a test drive but couldn't believe how quiet it was. Pick up was a bit lacking when overtaking but guess the 1.4 is way better on that score.

Im still convincing myself that the 2.0tdi was the right choice for me but I didn't have much choice with what was available at the time to ensure delivery in three weeks.

I'm quite happy with my vRS it's now got around 600 mile otc and it's returning about 29.5 on shortish trips, haven't had many longer ones as yet, I'm still a a happy with the car and wouldn't change it for the world.

My wife's Renault Megane DCi and my 320D both require the occasional regen. I think that I have had to do it twice on the BM (perhaps 3 times) in the past 3 years. The Megane light pops up every few months but clears after 5-10min motorway cruise. Neither has cost any money to fix, but it does make me wonder when one (the Megane) will go for good.

 

My wife does 4K miles per year, all short journeys around town. I do 8K miles in the BM, mostly short journeys. It is the driving style which clogs them up, but as said above DPF warnings have not cost me a penny yet.

 

At the end of the day a DPF is a filter than can and will eventually get clogged up, just like air and oil filters. They are designed to trap unwanted elements and by their nature they will degrade over time. For many people they will last the lifetime of the car but for many others they will not. VAG engines are extremely robust but by no means immune to DPF faults.

 

Moral of the story is that there is only one way to guarantee zero DFP issues, however rare and unlikely they may otherwise be. I wouldn't buy a petrol solely due to the the possibility of DPF problems, but it adds slight weight to the overall Derv vs Gas issue. For high milers it has been proven without doubt that diesel is a more efficient (economical) and robust (less prone to wear & tear over great distances) fuel. Petrol is simply a lot more refined, but is also beginning to close the efficiency gap slightly.

 

I have not driver the 1.4TSI, but I have driven Ford's Ecoboost engines which employ exactly the same concepts. Mating a small efficient petrol engine to a small efficent turbo with stop/start and sensible gearing can do wonders for economy. Ford's new petrols can now match last gen deisels for economy, and I am sure VAG are very similar.

Edited 23 December, 201312 yr by Orville

There must be someone on this forum with a 1.4 tsi manual who can give us some real world mpg figures.........where art thou.

From my past 4 fill-ups my mpg has ranged from 42 to 48. Most of my mileage comes from a 10 mile commute to work everyday with the occasional longer trip. Long motorway trips get me up to 50 mpg, at 70 to 80 mph.