Hi all

 

With the differences in both the financials and the mpgs between the 1.6 TDI and the 2.0 being so slim, can someone make a case for taking the 1.6?

 

I ask this question as there is availability on the 1.6 for me much quicker than getting a 2.0 in a similar spec which would require a factory order.

 

I am currently hiring a vehicle which coincidentally is a 1.6 TDI Greenline hatch, and the 1.6 in this car seems to have plenty of power - at least certainly doesn't feel sluggish in any situation I've encountered, including overtaking.

 

Like I said, I appreciate the 2.0 has more grunt overall, but with many of the factors being negligible (at least to my eyes) why go for the 1.6??

 

Much appreciate any replies.

 

 

 

Except better MPG or LPK and less money nothign to add. If I had the money and am doing lots of driving I would go for 2.0 TDI always. If your doing short city runs than 1.6 TDI is no brainer.

If the insurence road fund duty etc are the same or simelar....

 

I would say the 2lt as it will be under less stress during the same driving conditions..

 

Just my opinion...

I went for 1.6 as I mostly drive in city and a lot. Across a year, mpg`s will add up to considerable saving in fuel costs. And road tax is just 20 a year, cheaper insurance, less engine oil. Lot of small bits of bots cheaper.

Edited 4 June, 20179 yr by Robertino

saving some money and no need for the extra power where i live and the way i drive made me choose the 1.6 over the 2.0.

really depends on the driving style and the use of the car. i usally drive alone and dont plan to have a caravan to pull so i really dont need more than 110hp.

 

Thanks for the comments so far guys. Very much food for thought.

My mk3 vRS tdi is £30 a year to tax, approximately £300 a year to insure with a fully loaded policy and I'm getting around 50-54mpg on my daily commute of 62 miles.

 

A 1.6 might save me about £5 a week in total running costs so for the sake of a fiver I'd much rather have the extra power/torque of the 2.0 over the 1.6 not to mention the better looks, seats etc.

 

James

 

 

Edited 4 June, 20179 yr by Superman001

You have not said what sort of annual mileage you will be doing in what sort of driving  environment.

I'll throw my usual 'cat' amongst your two 'pigeons' and say you should also consider the 1.4tsi especially if you are doing a lot of short journeys where it will match or better the other two.

Availability of a 1.4tsi option might currently be an issue though.

 

Or even the 1.0TSI. 

All down to what and where the cars is going to be used.

Are you buying new or second hand?

I'll be leasing new. I do around a 40 mile per day commute in the week on a mix of b roads and dual carriageway. In addition to SWMBO I only have a single five year old daughter and 2 Jack Russell terriers which need carting about so will be looking at the estate. I won't be able to choose options but like my toys, so looking at the SE-L.

 

In addition to the engine choices here, I'm also finding it hard to not look at the Superb which isn't that much of an extra stretch PCM.

2 hours ago, Superman001 said:

My mk3 vRS tdi is £30 a year to tax, approximately £300 a year to insure with a fully loaded policy and I'm getting around 50-54mpg on my daily commute of 62 miles.

 

A 1.6 might save me about £5 a week in total running costs so for the sake of a fiver I'd much rather have the extra power/torque of the 2.0 over the 1.6 not to mention the better looks, seats etc.

 

James

 

 

I'd echo these thoughts entirely, but as previously said, I'd also be looking at the 1.4 TSI. 

My last Skoda was a 1.0 60bhp in a Citigo, so I have no issue with little petrols.

8 hours ago, Didescharlie said:

My last Skoda was a 1.0 60bhp in a Citigo, so I have no issue with little petrols.

The new breed of small turbo petrol is just so much better, re flexibility/power/economy, that you should at least try one.

I happily drove various diesel for six years and swore I'd never go back to petrol until I test drove my current 1.4tsi 3 years ago and was an instant convert.

With your commute you will easily get 50 mpg with a 1.4tsi and probably better. The 1.0tsi could be better again.

The only people really buying diesel in Australia now are for large SUV and Utes.

 

I understand the call of the Superb though, and reading the Superb section the 1.4tsi (which has ACT) also is well regarded.

14 hours ago, Didescharlie said:

I'll be leasing new. I do around a 40 mile per day commute in the week on a mix of b roads and dual carriageway. In addition to SWMBO I only have a single five year old daughter and 2 Jack Russell terriers which need carting about so will be looking at the estate. I won't be able to choose options but like my toys, so looking at the SE-L.

 

In addition to the engine choices here, I'm also finding it hard to not look at the Superb which isn't that much of an extra stretch PCM.

 

 

40 miles per day x 5 working days x 46 working weeks = 9200 miles

 

Unless you are going to do vast mileages for leisure, to hit the 15k+ miles per year when diesels start to be more economic due to their higher price, why are you even considering a diesel, as EU6 diesels with their complicated emissions tend to get 25-30% less than official figures.  I would be looking at the 1.4 petrol (and if it a factory order which tends to take 3 months min) you might even get the brilliant new 1.5 tsi which arrives sometime later this year.

 

Lease rates are a bit weird, inevitably diesels can also be found at short notice (as they are left in stock, because of lack of customers), and some silly special offers to desperately shift them exist.  So if you have some odd craving for an EU6 diesel search out these offers.  If paying normal rates petrol ought to be cheaper as cars cost less new.

 

As for your original question, negligible difference in mpg of 1.6 and 2.0 diesels if driven identically, however with a smaller engine most drive it more gently so save a bit of fuel.

 

 

Remember that Road Tax rates have changed significantly also there is much histerior around diesels at the moment and this is likely to be used by government and local councils to impose new charges on diesel drivers, and these could well be blanket charges not linked to EU emission level cars - likely to claim that none of the emission test results are based on real world use.

 

As others have said new small petrols have improved dramatically in the last few years, well worth considering

3 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

 

 

40 miles per day x 5 working days x 46 working weeks = 9200 miles

 

Unless you are going to do vast mileages for leisure, to hit the 15k+ miles per year when diesels start to be more economic due to their higher price, why are you even considering a diesel, as EU6 diesels with their complicated emissions tend to get 25-30% less than official figures.  I would be looking at the 1.4 petrol (and if it a factory order which tends to take 3 months min) you might even get the brilliant new 1.5 tsi which arrives sometime later this year.

 

Lease rates are a bit weird, inevitably diesels can also be found at short notice (as they are left in stock, because of lack of customers), and some silly special offers to desperately shift them exist.  So if you have some odd craving for an EU6 diesel search out these offers.  If paying normal rates petrol ought to be cheaper as cars cost less new.

 

As for your original question, negligible difference in mpg of 1.6 and 2.0 diesels if driven identically, however with a smaller engine most drive it more gently so save a bit of fuel.

 

 

 

I would ordinarily always choose petrol over diesel, but have limited options as I cannot wait for a factory order having had my own vehicle stolen last week.

 

Having looked at leasing options, the TSI is cheaper on the equivalent Octy, whilst the reverse is true on the Superb.