With talk of a new 170 bhp OctyII TDi vRS based on the current 2.0 lump, i've been keen to see what the reviewers say about other cars using this engine. Ok, so I want to know what i'll be missing out on by going for the 140 bhp in Elegance spec.

Diesel car magazine this month test drove the new VW Jetta. They were quite impressed by it but the thing that drew my attention was the comparison between the diesel models.

The 1.9 did the job (if a bit rattly) but they were really impressed by 2.0TDi in 140 and 170 bhp form.

In the end they recommended the 140bhp version because during their testing the difference between the 140 and 170 was almost indecernable and the 140 was cheaper too with 10% better fuel economy.

Although the 170 bhp model cut over 1 second off the 140 bhp model from 0-60, I get the impression that there was very little between the 2 cars at speed.

That might not be the end of the story though. The current 1.9 Golf and OctyII have similar performance despite the OctyII being a larger heavier car. This was acheived by upping the torque on the Skoda. Maybe they will do the same with the 2.0 TDi vRS. You never know.

I'm thinking out loud here, but what about the tuning potential for the 140 & 170? If you can easily tune the 140 to 170 and the 170 doesnt tune up much higher than say 190, it may become an easy choice

Diesel car also do a tuning article in conjuction with Superchips each month. This month they took a standard 2.0TDi Audi A4. Before the remap the car was giving 156 bhp and 187bhp after the remap.

In relation to the new Passat, the Daily Telegraph review preferred the 140, describing the 170 as "raucous and peaky" compared with the 140. From what I've read on here some view the 140 as peaky so I guess they might find the 170 pretty unacceptable. Seems like an intelligent remap of the 140 could be the best way to go.

Go for the 170, much better tuning potential and the chances are it'll already have larger turbo/FMIC or larger injectors.

In relation to the new Passat, the Daily Telegraph review preferred the 140, describing the 170 as "raucous and peaky" compared with the 140. From what I've read on here some view the 140 as peaky so I guess they might find the 170 pretty unacceptable. Seems like an intelligent remap of the 140 could be the best way to go.

Everyone has been wondering what would be different in the 170 over the 140. To date as far as i know the remaps for the 140 haven't been great as they make the car more peaky. I wondered if maybe the 170 would have an uprated turbo and a re-map to match to avoid this problem. Obviously not then.

Need to be careful about mapping ECU. Pwertrain tends to be matched to transmission which means if you eeke an extra 30 odd BHP, chances are you'll strip the clutch or other such damage!

Need to be careful about mapping ECU. Pwertrain tends to be matched to transmission which means if you eeke an extra 30 odd BHP, chances are you'll strip the clutch or other such damage!

In principle i would agree with you, but designers will very rarley match a clutch for 230 lbft torque, with an engine producing 230 lbft torque. a factor of safety is always built in.

For instance many fabias on here are running in the region of 190-200hp with 315ish lbft still with the standard clutch in, and have done for many miles.

As a design engineer myself i am the first to admit this isnt the best case scenario but it works, and untill that clutch starts slipping thats 600 sheets i could do without spending