1.4 TSI ACT 150 or 2.0 TDI 150 - trying to choose

[MasterMunchkin]

Hi, we are trying to decide on a Superb estate. My friend is buying. He does 20,000 mies and is a confirmed diesel buyer. But he is wondering whether a 1.4 TSI (possibly in DSG form) might be a savvier buy longterm: quieter, cheaper, etc. But the big question is how EFFICIENT is the 1.4 TSI with the two cylinder deactivation feature?

 

Any thoughts? He does quite a lot of heavy long distance hauls and thinks he may miss the 'grunt' of a diesel. I am encouraging to think 'petrol' and consider the 1.4. To make things more difficult, he lives in Brighton. Brighton has a very 'green' council which is talking about diesel vehicle bans and tax penalties...

 

THANK YOU

[Ootohere]

Is the 20,000 miles mostly business miles with just him in the car, if so there is hardly need for grunt as the 1.4TSI ACT can do double the UK NSL and keep up with traffic and return a OK MPG.

[MasterMunchkin]

Hi. Thanks for replying. It's mostly him in the car but he does load up on a load of heavy ceramics and artwork for sale several times of year, hence the need for loads of space and a reasonable amount of grunt. 

[tisca]

I have had the 1.4 act 150ps & currently have the 150ps tdi. The Diesel IMO is the better engine, especially for a Superb. I found the MPG on the Petrol 1.4tsi ACT poor & 25% below the manufacturers quoted MPG ( Even driven steadily ). After one years ownership of the 1.4 ACT in a Leon ST FR the best it ever returned on a long steady motorway run unladen & just me driving was 52 MPG. Needless to say i parted with it & got a Superb mk3 150 Diesel. Again this is my personal opinion & suggest you have a drive in both , i am however achieving over 60 MPG on steady runs in the Superb Diesel on a regular basis.

                 Hope this info is of help.

[walrus]

I have a 1.4ACT and find it spot on. However, I do around 8,000 miles a year. If I was doing 20k p.a. I reckon the diesel would be the better option for the economy. For my 20 mile round trip commute, I average about 40-45mpg, depending on traffic. Diesel would probably be 55+ in similar conditions.

 

Benefits of the petrol which swung it for me are the lower initial outlay and the quite, more refined engine. Having had diesels in the past I also appreciate not having to worry about jammed up EGR valves and forced DPF regenerations etc.

[MasterMunchkin]

Helpful. Thanks Tisca. My gut feeling is that the diesel is the better fit. 

[JCP]

Unless he wants to be able to drive or park in an incrasing number of towns and cities. Diesel for personal transport may have had its day society seems to be moving towards a position where your few MPG is not valued against public health

[CheshireBumpkin]

34 minutes ago, JCP said:

Unless he wants to be able to drive or park in an incrasing number of towns and cities. Diesel for personal transport may have had its day society seems to be moving towards a position where your few MPG is not valued against public health

 

I think that decision will depend on his likely length and type of ownership. I suspect we're unlikely to see outright bans or punitive charges on the latest diesel engines for at least the next three years.

[Gerrycan]

Out of curiosity how are the city diesel bans likely to play out in the UK?

I can understand it for older, say euro4, standard vehicles but if you invested in a later/higher standard vehicle I could understand aperson being peeved that their relatively clean diesel being banned and an old smelly petrol being let in?

I would imagine most commercial vehicles serving the shops are diesel as well.

Doing 20k miles pa would have to favour diesels unless the answers to my questions are some sort of blanket ban but the 1.4tsi should only be 5 to 7-ish mpg worse overall and the torque and performance is surprisingly good from low revs.

[inaaris]

I have driven both.

The 2.0 TDI and I currently have the 1.4 TSI 150 engine.

My vote goes for the 1.4 engine.

Economy wise I drive around 30 000 km a year and around 60% of the mileage is inside the city.

I´ve owned the car for 1 year and 4 months. And economy wise my atm average consumption is 6,85l/100km, which is really really good and I doubt that I would get the same with the TDI engine due to the fact that I drive so much in city.

Last week I made a trip to Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) with the total mileage around 3300km. The consumption for that trip was 5,3l/100km. The usual speed in highways was somewhere between 110 - 120 km/h (according to Skoda OneApp)

So the engine is really good in all aspects. Never felt that I can´t overtake anyone even with a full car.

If the engine stays the same and lasts for more than 5 years without a major hickup then I would say that´s even better than the legendary 171kw 3.0 engine that thus far is the best engine I´ve driven (concerning all aspects).

 

I hope this opinion has any use for you.

Cheers,

Indrek.

 

[IJWS15]

On 7/9/2017 at 23:00, JCP said:

Unless he wants to be able to drive or park in an incrasing number of towns and cities. Diesel for personal transport may have had its day society seems to be moving towards a position where your few MPG is not valued against public health

 

The newer diesel engines are as clean as petrol, if you look at the technical press the next generatio will e LESS polluting that petrol but the press and politicians don't care about that when there are still smoky 15 year old diesels on the road they can point at (Wait for the benzine scares after you all move to petrol).

 

The French will never drop them so neither will the EU, in or out we will mirror EU regs for cars.

 

And in a diesel I have not been restricted on the places I visit, you just need to get the sticker - which you need in a petrol car as well (Just trying to get a copy of the V5 out of the leasing company so I can get them for this car)

[skidpan]

12 hours ago, inaaris said:

I have driven both.

The 2.0 TDI and I currently have the 1.4 TSI 150 engine.

My vote goes for the 1.4 engine.

 

Me too.

 

The 2.0 TDi 150 PS (in an Octavia estate) I drove went well enough but compared to the 1.4 TSi 140 PS and 150 PS the power band is very narrow and not at all linear. Don't get me wrong, I love diesels, drove then between 1996 and 2015 and for most of that time we had 2 on the drive but since the introduction of DPF's and our reduction of annual mileage with retirement they do not make sense. But if I had to choose between a N/A petrol (like for example the 2.0 Mazda) and a turbo diesel I would still be buying diesels but with the 1.4 TSi as far as I am concerned diesels are redundant.

 

When we bought the Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS I did the sums and based on the real MPG figures on Honest John (45 mpg for the TSi, 53 mpg for the 2.0 TDi) the break even point was about 60,000 miles. The last diesel we bought (Kia Ceed SW) had a break even point of about 23,000 which made sense when we were doing 15,000 miles a year.

 

The Leon averaged 45 mpg over the 4 years we had it (exactly the HJ figure) and so far the Superb is at 44 mpg and improving. So with the better drive of the TSi and the long break even point (forgetting DPF issues) the TSi gets my vote.

 

And with the new 1.5 TSi (I understand it will be available as a 150 PS initially and a higher rated version later) I don't see me buying another diesel ever.

[RGKTSi]

On 7/9/2017 at 21:58, walrus said:

I have a 1.4ACT and find it spot on. However, I do around 8,000 miles a year. If I was doing 20k p.a. I reckon the diesel would be the better option for the economy. For my 20 mile round trip commute, I average about 40-45mpg, depending on traffic. Diesel would probably be 55+ in similar conditions.

 

Benefits of the petrol which swung it for me are the lower initial outlay and the quite, more refined engine. Having had diesels in the past I also appreciate not having to worry about jammed up EGR valves and forced DPF regenerations etc.

I haven't driven a 1.4 Superb but have driven the Octavia 3 with the same engine and driven a Superb 3 with the 150 CR TDi.    I completely agree with what walrus has said.  Lower mileage defo 1.4 petrol but 20K miles I think he has to look at the diesel.  How they will fair in 3 years time with the structure of car buying changes I have no idea.  You could easily find a number of towns and cities as long as your forearm where you can't drive it or have to pay some sort of charge. Could effect resale very easily.

Also I don't miss the EGR and DPF issues either, only owned one diesel and that didn't have a DPF. 20K miles a year the DPF issue is probably not an issue anyway.

The short term future is petrol/hybrid, Skoda are developing a Superb I believe.

 

[silver1011]

13 hours ago, IJWS15 said:

The French will never drop them so neither will the EU, in or out we will mirror EU regs for cars.

 

Umm...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/france-petrol-diesel-ban-vehicles-cars-2040-a7826831.html

[MasterMunchkin]

Thank you very much for all your collective replies. Very interesting reading. My own feeling is that petrol engines are more sensitive to harder driving and congestion while diesel is a bit more forgiving in terms of overall mpg. Less volatile. The South East of England where much of the driving will be done has more congestion/driver frustration than the rest of the country... Hard to call overall.

 

Again, thanks.

Edited 11 July, 2017 by MasterMunchkin

[Rainmaker]

13 hours ago, MasterMunchkin said:

Thank you very much for all your collective replies. Very interesting reading. My own feeling is that petrol engines are more sensitive to harder driving and congestion while diesel is a bit more forgiving in terms of overall mpg. Less volatile. The South East of England where much of the driving will be done has more congestion/driver frustration than the rest of the country... Hard to call overall.

 

Again, thanks.

 

You're not far wrong with those thoughts, but on the flip side petrol is often a better choice for congested driving as the DPF never gets chance to properly clear. The TSI petrols can be very economical indeed. I picked up my sister in law from the airport last night, a normal urban drive to the motorway and then a steady drive before coming out into Manchester airport's 10mph one way system.

 

 

Not bad for a 220ps 2.0 turbo petrol.   On the way back I managed to make a bit more 'progress' due to a lack of closed lanes etc, but still returned 44mpg all in. I've had similar and less in 2.0 TDIs over the last 10 years, so that's really quite some feat of engineering if you ask me. While you're right that petrols can be more sensitive to speed, hard driving and congestion, overall the gap has closed significantly. For example once the oil is warm it's pretty hard to get the MPG numbers down in my little TSI, and even if you full on boot it to the red line through a few gears the numbers are back up again within a mile. One thing is definitely is more sensitive to, however, is weight. I get a few more MPG when I'm out alone versus loaded with a family of 5 and stuff in the boot. Diesels don't tend to show that quite as much (though it's still a factor). 

 

For me, OP, if the 2.0 can return numbers like this I'd have no hesitation in choosing a 1.4 over the TDI, and enjoy driving it a damn site more than its alternative. 

[simhub]

39 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Not bad for a 220ps 2.0 turbo petrol.   

 

Thanks @Rainmaker, I'm looking forward to my 220 even more now!

[LakesPuma]

In the spirit of comparison this was from my 190 TDI

 

[Rainmaker]

3 minutes ago, LakesPuma said:

In the spirit of comparison this was from my 190 TDI

 

That's very impressive LP!

[Blindek]

I went from a 1.4TSI to a 190HP TDI and get better Fuel economy on the 190 tdi if i drive normal or rather Dynamic then the 1.4TSI on Eco/Normal  

 

Also had a 150HP TDI for 1 Week, drove it exactly the same as the 150 TSI and on the TSI i got 5.6 l/100km (50.6 MPG UK?) and on the TDI 4.4 (64 mpg). On a normal work drive the TSI took 6.5 l/100km and the TDI 5.4 (43 to 52). Also the TSI when Accelerating sounds a bit strained where the TDI has a nice growl since the RPM is much lower. 

Just love the VW TDI engine sound, not so much the TSI... if they stop making TDI then il just get a pure E-Drive car. The last Petrol car that i enjoyed the sound was my 2005 BMW 330Xi with a straight 6 cylinder engine :P 

 

But in the end, no one can decide for someone else what he likes, so always drive all available options and chose the one YOU like the most, after all it is YOUR money YOU spend

[RGKTSi]

2 hours ago, Blindek said:

Also the TSI when Accelerating sounds a bit strained where the TDI has a nice growl since the RPM is much lower. 

Just love the VW TDI engine sound, not so much the TSI...

You need to try a 280 TSi if you like sound, doesn't sound strained at all at any speed, even naughty side of 100mph

 

2 hours ago, Blindek said:

But in the end, no one can decide for someone else what he likes, so always drive all available options and chose the one YOU like the most, after all it is YOUR money YOU spend

 Agreed totally.  What suits one will not suit another.  May like the fuel economy of the TDi but hate the sound, like the low rev torque of a diesel but prefer the smoothness of the petrol.  Try everything then decide.  

[Blindek]

I don't need a 280TSI, where max. speed here is 130km/h... I like the TDI for the fast overtaking and 190HP is more then enough. Also don't need 4x4.

 

If i want something 250hp+ then il get a Golf R or something like that where you can feel the power or rather a true hot hatch, not a big car like the Superb where i can tell that i can get 0-130 in 8s or so and Fuel economy is nuts... for 100km (62miles) i pay 6€ with my TDI, on the 280TSI with a consumption of 9 liters + and higher fuel price i would pay 10-11€, also Tax and Insurance is much higher, for in the end i don't get so much more with that much HP in a car like the Superb. 

As i said, the Golf R or Leon Cupra with 300hp is a whole different story and there i would gladly pay for it  

 

Oh and i heard the 280HP one... still doesn't sound really good and in comparison to my old 258HP 3.0 R6 sounds like a 1.0 Renault Clio :P 

[RGKTSi]

37 minutes ago, Blindek said:

I don't need a 280TSI, where max. speed here is 130km/h... I like the TDI for the fast overtaking and 190HP is more then enough. Also don't need 4x4.

I didn't suggest you did!  merely that the 280 sounds better if the 1.4 sounded strained.  

 

41 minutes ago, Blindek said:

If i want something 250hp+ then il get a Golf R or something like that where you can feel the power or rather a true hot hatch, not a big car like the Superb where i can tell that i can get 0-130 in 8s or so and Fuel economy is nuts... for 100km (62miles) i pay 6€ with my TDI, on the 280TSI with a consumption of 9 liters + and higher fuel price i would pay 10-11€, also Tax and Insurance is much higher, for in the end i don't get so much more with that much HP in a car like the Superb. 

As i said, the Golf R or Leon Cupra with 300hp is a whole different story and there i would gladly pay for it  

Again we weren't discussing you purchasing one!  In the UK there is £2K difference between a Sportline 280 and a TDi 190.  If you purchase a 190 TDi 4 x 4 the difference is £730.  Minimal.  

You can't compare a Superb and a Golf R or Leon Cupra R or Focus RS.  It sounds to me that the costs in Slovenia for purchasing a car and the associated running costs are completetly different to the UK.

 

52 minutes ago, Blindek said:

Oh and i heard the 280HP one... still doesn't sound really good and in comparison to my old 258HP 3.0 R6 sounds like a 1.0 Renault Clio :P 

 

May not compared to a Clio V6, different car.  I still think it sounds great though.  Clio V6 doesn't sound all that if you compare if to a Ferrari F458!, sounds like a Twingo

 

At the end of the day, the Superb is a great car, whether you go saloon or combi, S, SE, SEL executive, Sportline or L & K.  You can 't go wrong.  Some will prefer diesel as you do, I prefer petrol now.  Great car either way.  Agreed?

[Blindek]

Sorry don't misunderstand me, the 280HP is a nice car, but i just don't like the 4 cylinder noise on high revs and you hear it on the 1.4 even more. The Golf R and Cupra have almost the same Motor as the 280HP Superb, just a bit more tuned and with a nice Exhaust note, witch the Superb kinda lacks.

 

Sure the Superb is a great car, that's why we all bought one  Difference 190 vs. 280 is 3000€ and then the higher fuel consumption and Insurance.

 

But everyone needs to decide for them self what they like and if they are willing to pay for it.

 

What i would say to the 1.4 150HP one is, that in the ACT mode or 2 Cylinder mode, the Motor in cold weather does rattle funny and for some people can also be annoying (for me it was...). But well, it runs on 2 Cylinders so it's logical that it makes a rattle  So Test it before buying! The ACT mode starts at roughly 1400 RPM and was the most annoying for me at around 1600-1700 RPM on low speeds around 50-60kmh / 30-35mph 

[skidpan]

4 hours ago, Blindek said:

I went from a 1.4TSI to a 190HP TDI and get better Fuel economy on the 190 tdi if i drive normal or rather Dynamic then the 1.4TSI on Eco/Normal  

 

Hardly surprising is it surely. One is a petrol and one is a diesel.

 

But in the UK the 190 PS TDI is £3000 more than the 150 PS TSi and it would take me about 90,000 miles to recoup that extra (or 10 years). Then I would have potential DPF issues and worries about diesels not being allowed into certain cites which may even get extended to other parts of the UK eventually.

 

As I have said before in the past I loved diesels, we had 6 over a 19 year period but now there are excellent petrols like the TSi I will not be buying diesel again.