I was so sure I wanted the Octavia estate 2.0 Tdi. At the moment I drive a BMW Touring 318i, I like it, but I am fed up of having to be so careful to get around 40mpg.

I was looking at the brochure and realised that I had no idea what dpf meant. I looked it up and.....

The thing is I do not do that many miles, about 10k a year, on the one car, but I still would like a diesel.

My drive to work is a 50 mile round trip with a mix of roads, no motorway, but there is quite a long stretch, maybe 8 miles at 60mph, slowing to go through villages. I do not do it every day as I car share, so I drive it 5 times in two weeks.

The other option would be the 1.4 Tsi, but I am confused. We will be keeping the BMW, my wife will be driving it.

Any comments/advice from owners of these two engines on estates greatly welcomed.

A thanks

Dave

Despite the low ish mileage I'd say the fact your average journey is 50 miles makes the TDI the better option.

It also is a more civilised/effortless drive with the extra torque it has at low revs compared to the TSI.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you intend to purchase/finance the car and how long will you be keeping it?

If you pay via PCP or intend to sell within a few years the diesel will retain higher future value, resulting in lower monthly payments or a smaller loss at sale time. The diesel will also offer higher mpg during normal driving conditions, although the TSI offers very impressive mpg when driven carefully.

If you intend to keep it for a long time then the TSI may be a better option. It is smoother, quieter and very slightly faster. It will warm up faster from cold and the 10% it loses in average mpg will be mostly made up for by cheaper pump prices for petrol. The TSI is also lighter which should make the car feel more nimble.

I own a larger VRS TSI engine and love it. Having moved from a 320d I really appreciated the smoothness of petrol. The TSI engines also work wonderfully with DSG if that is an option you will be considering.

Ultimately you will not go wrong with either. Diesel to save a few quid or petrol for refinement.

As above it's not low miles the dpf objects to its short urban journeys so it won't cause you any issues. Best idea is to test both and see whats best for you. The diesel residuals are normally better and it will do more mpg. The petrol on the other hand will be quieter and as unleaded is cheaper that will offset some of the better mpg of the diesel. Good luck.

Thanks. I plan on keeping it for 10 years, so yes, long term. Will the 1.4 not struggle with a loaded car and therefore return very poor mpg?

Don't be fooled by its small capacity, it's turbo charged and quite a pokey little engine.

My MiL has it in an A1 and I drove it in an A3 just the other day, it's got plenty of grunt, you just have to keep it in a higher rev band if you really want to move.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. I plan on keeping it for 10 years, so yes, long term. Will the 1.4 not struggle with a loaded car and therefore return very poor mpg?

I had a 1.4TSI as a courtesy car whilst my VRS was having a leaky water pump fixed. The little 1.4 has some serious poke, feeling quicker than many 2.0l non-turbos I have driven. I doubt that anyone would find one slow.

Depreciation matters not a jot after 10 years, plus with your low to average mileage my vote goes with the TSI. Test drive both to be sure, but running costs should not be much different.

You need to get a good test drive in both preferably back to back. Love my 1.4tsi and has more than enough poke. As mentioned it is great with a dsg box and so quiet and smooth. Only getting 32mpg in these early days but a longer run will easily get in the 40s (my journeys are very short).

I drove a 1.9D Mk2 for over 6 years and was convinced I would never go back to petrol.

The Mk 3 was released in Australia with a limited range of versions that priced the diesel beyond my pocket and manual was not available for the diesel.

Test drove the 1.4tsi and bought one. It is the equivalent of a good 2.5 litre non-turbo engine but with most of its poke at the bottom end not the top and a whole lot smoother and quieter (than the diesel)

Its best torque is produced in the rev range from 1500 - 3500 rpm but does not tail off as badly as the diesel does and revs cleanly through to 6000+ rpm so it is as quick to 60 mph as the more powerful diesel. The petrol engine is probably 60-80kg lighter than the diesel so handling is a bit different as well.

No problem with fully occupied car with luggage accelerating to 70mph up a long hill (1:10) in top gear. Obviously drop a gear or two and acceleration is better still.

I get around 55mpg on a longish run on the flat land around where I live and used to get around 60-65mpg with the diesel.

I would expect the difference in fuel consumption will be more pronounced if you live in a hilly area.

With a normal 50 mile run I do not think the DPF issues will affect you.

Off the line the lighter petrol model is quicker but the more powerful diesel will have better in-gear acceleration.

If you want a manual then the petrol is easier to drive with a broader rev range (I often short-shift from 2nd to 5th), but if you get an auto I do not think there will be much between the two.

The one thing that threw me when I converted to petrol was the almost total lack of engine braking supplied by the 1.4tsi compared to the diesel.

One hill I could descend in 4th on the diesel and no braking required and yet 3rd in the petrol requires continual brake application to contain the speed.

You cannot really lose either way so it is just a matter of personal preference and financial implications.

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by Gerrycan

Thanks a lot for your replies guys, very helpful.

I will try both and see, but petrol is not looking so bad.

When I said 50 miles to work, I meant 25 miles each way. And I have to slow down due to 30 mph in villages. Is this ok for regen?

Also, what do we know about the longevity of smallish petrol on larger cars? As I said, this is a private purchase as a family car and I will be keeping it for a long time, @ 10 years.

Thanks again.

Dave

We have a 1.4 and the wife is getting just over 40mpg (7.0L/100km) in the city with the A/C on. I can usually get that number to the high 40s, even into the 50s when not stopping. This is with the manual and less than 1000mi on the clock. Your mileage will vary, but will be decent.

As for longevity, the main argument against small engines is that you have to rev the hell out of them to produce enough power to move the car, but the 1.4 is quite happy at a low rpm. I typically shift at 2-2.5k, very similar to an NA V6. In addition, the car is fairly light for its size, which also helps. Of course, you have to consider the complexity engine, but it's no worse than a diesel.

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by hobbie2k

Id suggest definitely driving both and seeing which you prefer.

My thoughts are that the 1.4 is probably a little more peppy at low/midding speeds and will be quieter/smoother than the diesel in most conditions. What the diesel lacks in initial go (IMHO its a little hampered by its v short early gearing) is made up by mid range punch once up to speed...IMHO again I think the TDI likely betters the TSI in this regard as within a limited set of RPM's does putput considerably more torque.

In terms of your annual mileage you are comfortably a candidate for diesel, DPF tech is much better/more resilient than it once was. Providing it gets taken on regular reasonable runs to operating temp and you dont disturb passive regen after regen (when the idle raises to 1k rpm and the fans come on) it'll be fine. I am also possibly being a little pessimistic but I doubt long term a TSI will match or better a TDI on combined consumption either...my 150 TDi with 18k miles is now averaging 47mpg long term and is improving with miles, regularly seeing low mid 50's on a run and that is driven fairly hard.

Ive had 4 VAG DPF cars to date and as yet not experienced a single DPF related issue (one was the legendary PD engined Golf Bluemotion that suffered terribly with DPF issues..but not in my hands!).

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by pipsyp

I've just switched from an elderly 1.9 TDI 110 to the 1.4 TSI.

 

In exactly the same usage, I'm currently getting 43mpg from the TSI where I got 52mpg from the old TDI.  However, the TSI is seriously quicker than my old diesel and a LOT smoother and quieter.  I'm very happy at the change.

 

I do drive relatively economically, generally changing up by 2-2500 rpm unless overtaking, accelerating down a slip road etc.

 

Round town the TSI does around 40 mpg where the diesel did around 50 mpg.  On my 20 mile work commute the TSI is doing around 48 mpg where the diesel did 58 mpg.  I've yet to have the chance to do a >20 mile journey to see what the difference is like on longer trips.

I made this exact comparison when I bought mine. I bought a 1yr old 1.4TSi, so already run in, and I was getting mid-50's on a motorway run and averaging nearly 50mpg overall through the summer, but now I'm getting around 50mpg on a motorway run and mid 40's average overall (may be the temperature, may be the fuel, more likely my right foot!).

 

I don't really understand JoseDB's comments about needing to keep the petrol in a higher rev band, and the diesel being more civilised due to the extra grunt low down, the current 1.4TSi is actually a bit diesel like in terms of driveability and does it's best work at the low-mid range. I drove both and thought that there wasn't much in it for pace, but I preferred the extra refinement of the petrol. I also analysed it for cost and reckoned that over 5-6yrs and 80-100k miles the diesel would be cheaper, but only by about £2000 overall, which is neither here nor there to me over that time period and number of miles.

 

I did have DPF issues on my last car (my one and only diesel), but it was a Ford with a crap system where it used an additive to artificially lower the burning temperature of the soot. Unfortunately the additive didn't burn off and left an ash deposit which clogged the filter and made replacement a standard service item at 75k miles, at a cost of £1000! I didn't change it, I sold the car and bought a petrol Octavia! I think the Octy DPF's should be better than this though.

 

Ultimately I would echo the advice of several others here and say drive them both and make your own mind up. I think they are similar enough now in terms of drive and overall cost to make it an entirely personal choice. You've made the important decision in avoiding the 1.6TDi, so you've already got it right! (puts tin hat on :p )

I don't really understand JoseDB's comments about needing to keep the petrol in a higher rev band, and the diesel being more civilised due to the extra grunt low down, the current 1.4TSi is actually a bit diesel like in terms of driveability and does it's best work at the low-mid range.

 

Having driven this engine recently on an extended test drive and the diesel (albeit more powerful one) regularly, the 1.4TSI, although being a torquey little engine, is no where near as good at the low end as the TDI. There isn't much in it I agree, but for sure here would ne less downshifting in the TDI.

Thanks again guys, very helpful. If it was not for the dpf I would definitely go with the diesel, but as it I'll try both. I guess I was looking forward to being able to drive less carefully and still get decent mpg. The 318i can do at least 45 mpg on my drive to work, but with great care. I drive a bit more enthusiastically and I get 35 mpg. My wife drives it and she is lucky to get 30! She does not drive fast but revs it quite a bit before changing gears. 

 

Somewhere I also read that if you interrupt dpf regen you get diesel in sump!!!

 

I cannot imagine arriving somewhere late (which we often do...), the kids are screaming, my wife is complaining and I'm like: " No, I cannot stop and park the car because it is regenerating!!!"

 

Thanks again

 

Dave

I have the 1.4 TSI and I like it a lot. It pulls hard if you keep the revs above 1500 and it returns about 45 mpg (6.5 l/100km). On long runs it can return above 50 mpg (5.5l/100km) if I drive around 55 mph.

 

I don’t agree that you would need to down shift more in the TSI because the engine has a lot of mid-range grunt, see figures here http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche4543-seat-leon-iii-1-4-tsi.htm (yes it’s a Seat but there was no manual 2.0 TDI in the database) for in gear acceleration times.

 

The only negative about the engine is that it’s completely dead below 1500 rpm and if you want to take of fast from really low speeds you have to be in 1^st gear.

 

Good luck with your purchase

 

Edit: Corrected link

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by Liljeberg

The TSI offers very impressive mpg when driven carefully.

The TSI engines also work wonderfully with DSG if that is an option you will be considering.

 

The 1.4 TSI is very good on fuel, I rag the **** outta mine and am still only 8mpg behind the Mk2 140PD it replaced.

 

The DSG option should stop your wife over-reving the engine so much but, nothing is certain where a woman is concerned.

 

The TSI is something like £2k cheaper new than the TDI which at 10k mile p.a. you ain't gonna get back in saved running costs.

I have the 1.4 TSI and I like it a lot. It pulls hard if you keep the revs above 1500 and it returns about 45 mpg (6.5 l/100km). On long runs it can return above 50 mpg (5.5l/100km) if I drive around 55 mph.

I don’t agree that you would need to down shift more in the TSI because the engine has a lot of mid-range grunt, see figures here http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche4543-seat-leon-iii-1-4-tsi.htm (yes it’s a Seat but there was no manual 2.0 TDI in the database) for in gear acceleration times.

The only negative about the engine is that it’s completely dead below 1500 rpm and if you want to take of fast from really low speeds you have to be in 1^st gear.

Good luck with your purchase

Edit: Corrected link

So your real world experience proves my point.

Below 1500rpm the TSI is dead, whereas I can tell you, the TDI is more than happy between 1000-1500rpm for cruising/normal acceleration and multi lane overtake situations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your real world experience proves my point.

Below 1500rpm the TSI is dead, whereas I can tell you, the TDI is more than happy between 1000-1500rpm for cruising/normal acceleration and multi lane overtake situations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have to disagree. You can’t compare rpm directly between diesel and petrol engines because they have different power bands and they also have different gear ratios to keep them in their power band. That’s why they have similar in-gear acceleration from 50-75 mph (80-120km/h) in the link I provided. This is getting a bit OT by my point is that they have similar performance, both in street racing (acceleration through the gears) and when overtaking a caravan (in-gear acceleration).

Selecting between 1.4 TSI and 2.0 TDI is difficult. What made me select 1.4 TSI over 2.0 TDI was the smoothness of the engine and the lower price.

To try & ease the OP's fears about the DPF on the diesel, I've been running diesels as our main family car since 2006 - the first was a Vauxhall Vectra 1.9Cdti (150), a non-DPF 2.0 tdi Audi A6 (PD engine?), my 2012 Mk2 Octy Blackline (2 ltr diesel with DPF) & my current Mk3 vRS Tdi.

 

My annual mileage is (if I'm lucky) 8,000 per annum (last year was just under 7k including a 2k road trip around Scotland). The car spends all week parked up on the driveway as it's not used for work, and suffers from several short, urban journeys on my days off, however it does get regular, long journeys.

 

Discounting the A6 as it did not have a DPF fitted, I've never had any issues with the DPFs fitted to either of the three cars with them (surprising given the Vectra's ability to continuously self-destruct). I think the main issue with the VAG engines used to be when they had been fitted in the later stages of the PD engined cars in order to get them through emissions regs. The newer CR engines don't seem to have any issues (bar the occasional faulty sensor).

 

As its been said, take both engines for a test drive to see which you prefer. I'd love an petrol (in theory), but I'm a tight git especially when I'm on an epic road trip and don't like stopping for fuel. I also like the effortless performance that the torque of a diesel gives. 

I have to disagree. You can’t compare rpm directly between diesel and petrol engines because they have different power bands and they also have different gear ratios to keep them in their power band. That’s why they have similar in-gear acceleration from 50-75 mph (80-120km/h) in the link I provided. This is getting a bit OT by my point is that they have similar performance, both in street racing (acceleration through the gears) and when overtaking a caravan (in-gear acceleration).

Selecting between 1.4 TSI and 2.0 TDI is difficult. What made me select 1.4 TSI over 2.0 TDI was the smoothness of the engine and the lower price.

Performance is very similar for sure, I think both cars as hatches the TDI has a better power to weight by only 1hp (118 v 117ish) but all the same whilst the power output wont make much different the difference in torque output (184 vs 236) make a fairly marked difference in how quick both cars feel and more so in terms of in-gear flexibility at the right kind of revs.

Yes sure the 184lb/ft of torque for the 1.4 is produced over a greater rev range but its still only 184lb/ft.

Also its true enough that the 1.4 relies on considerable turbocharging to make its healthy levels of power and torque so if you use it to its full potential its bound not to be particularly efficient...sure a diesel suffers also to an extent but nothing as severe.

Sorry to quote but just look at Manwithnoaims fuely...IMHO 31-32mpg combined average isnt great for a 140hp petrol car. The diesel gets nothing like its advertised combined but I get mid to high 40's even into the 50's even when driving hard....in those conditions there is likely a good 15-20 mpg difference for a similar driving style between the two and IMHO thatbcant be ignored either.

I love the fact that all the owners are essentially defending their own choices, which basically leads to a gold mine of misinformation on both sides! And my wife can't understand why I like this forum so much.

 

To throw my final two-penneth into the torque debate (I promise to speak no more after this) there is a difference between torque at the flywheel and torque at the road wheel. The acceleration of the 1.4TSi below 1500rpm is a bit of a moot point to me, as I tend to cruise around with it at ~1500rpm except at highway speeds. I don't expect acceleration below 1500rpm. If I'm driving gently I change up at 1800-2000rpm which feels quite relaxed, but it pulls fine. For some extra shove it can be held in gear until 3000-3500 where it feels pretty quick and yet it's still relaxed and a long way from the red line, where a diesel will start to feel ragged as you approach 4000rpm. Absolute rpm are not comparable.

 

This is why the top gear in the 1.4TSi is about the same ratio as 4th in the diesel. I would happily put the diesel box on the petrol engine, but then I grant you that it would not be as quick and in gear acceleration would not be as good. But it doesn't have the diesel box, so torque at the road wheel is closer than some people are making out.

 

Maths says that if you had a continuously variable gearing, for any given road speed the point of maximum torque at the road wheel is actually the point of maximum power at the flywheel. This modern notion of torque being what makes you go needs to take a long hard look at the gear box.

 

I'd also say that themanwithnoaim is no barometer of average fuel economy. Check out this link for a more rounded view:
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/skoda/octavia-2013

 

The 1.4 is not as fuel efficient as the 2.0TDi, and it's a bit less torquey, but the gap is close enough for me.

 

To misquote Jeff Lynne: "Just drive the bloody thing."

 

Sorry to quote but just look at Manwithnoaims fuely...IMHO 31-32mpg combined average isnt great for a 140hp petrol car. The diesel gets nothing like its advertised combined but I get mid to high 40's even into the 50's even when driving hard....in those conditions there is likely a good 15-20 mpg difference for a similar driving style between the two and IMHO thatbcant be ignored either.

Pipsyp, I don't think our driving styles are simular therefore, I don't think 15-20 differential consumpsion is really very accurate, 8-10 mpg might be more like it.

1.4TSI has lower peak torque yet has a far wider rev-range and gearing is shorter. The end result is that performance is pretty much identical to the TDI 150.

 

From thr brochure

TSI has 250Nm from 1500-3500 rpm and 140PS from 4500-6000rpm

TDI has 320Nm from 1750-3500 rpm and 150PS from 3500-4000rpm

 

TSI has 2000rpm vs TDI 1750rpm peak torque zone.

TSI has 1500rpm vs TDI 500rpm peak power zone.

 

0-62's and top speeds are within 1% of each other.

 

I think it comes down to refinement vs fuel economy rather than any real peformance difference. Do you want to pay ~£200 extra per year for enhanced refinement?