Differences 110bhp v 140bhp diesel

[BillN_33]

We have a 140 and a 110 in France ........ I'm thinking about buying a used Diesel Yeti for the UK

 

I much prefer the performance of the 140 over the 110

 

Can anyone tell me if there are any mechanical differences between the 140 and the 110 apart from the gearbox and bhp difference

 

The choice of used 110's around is better than 140's and I may as well get a 110 and have it "chipped" if I cannot find a good used 140 ....... I want to spend about £10k

[kenfowler3966]

There are only really differences in the software. I believe the 170 has a larger turbo.

Many 110's will have been chipped to 150 or more without any mechanical changes.

[BillN_33]

Just now, kenfowler3966 said:

There are only really differences in the software. I believe the 170 has a larger turbo.

Many 110's will have been chipped to 150 or more without any mechanical changes.

 

I think that the 170 has bigger brakes .. which is important

 

it's the differences between the 110 and 140 that I am after

[bismuth]

The 140 has bigger brakes than the 110... At least on the front. 

[Gyp]

To agree with what's been said already, as far as I'm aware the engines are the same apart from the mapping [1] but the brakes are different.

 

I can't find the links now, but the 140 and 170 share the same front and rear calipers and rear disks with the disk diameter and caliper carrier at the front being different between the two - upgrading 140 brakes to 170 brakes is fairly easy and inexpensive. The 110 brakes are quite different and smaller at both front and rear and upgrading to 140 or 170 spec from 110 spec would be prohibitively expensive.

 

When I briefly had my 110, I prioritised the brake upgrade ahead of the power upgrade and it was the complexity and cost of doing that (and the resultant insurance costs) that lead me to sell the 110 and buy a 170 instead.

 

Whilst others disagreed with me about the efficacy of the brakes on the 110, I really wouldn't want to chip one without a brake upgrade. If you're considering buying a 110 and chipping it I'd seriously consider spending the extra to buy a 140 (or 170) in the first place.

 

[1] Revo quote the same post-mapping figures for both the 110 and 140 (=168 to 172 for either) 

[kenfowler3966]

I have had a 2010 110ps, and a 2014 Greenline before my current 150ps car. I have never had any concerns with the brakes on the earlier cars and on several occasions have stopped the car in a much shorter distance than I would have thought possible only a few cars earlier. (Superb before that was nowhere near as good?)

 

If the car is no heavier and is constrained by speed limits, better brakes in the real world will make little difference unless towing? (German autobahns excepted!)

 

If they do make a difference we should be upgrading the lower powered car for our enhanced safety?

[bismuth]

FYI, Before investing in bigger brakes, I can recommend you to change the "Brake Assist" value on "High" via  VAGCOM in the ABS/ESP module.

 

I was a bit disappointed by the "endurance" of the brakes on the 110ps, especially at the end of a loooong braking. with this value change from "average" to "high", the braking is more firm, I really like it and I'm confident that it should fit 110ps with mapping.

 

Maybe I'll have to change more often my brakepad, but i'm more confident while driving now.

 

 

(For the bigger brake of the 140 and 170ps, I think it's more about type approval with trailer, some tests required specific distance of braking with full loaded trailer after acceleration)

 

 

(sorry for my english)

Edited 8 November, 2017 by bismuth

[SuperbTWM]

Presuming you don't start driving like a lunatic once you get it remapped I can't see why bigger brakes are a necessity, there must be millions of remapped cars out there running 30-40 BHP more than stock with the original brakes.

 

[Ootohere]

Exactly, the brakes as fitted are to stop and slow the car as the weight it is from what ever speed you are slowing and braking from.

So it stops the car when you drive at 80 mph with 110 or 140 ps, and stops you from 70 or 80 or 90 mph if you have 165ps.

Obviously tracking your Yeti or doing Alpine roads could do with better brakes, but then that applies just the same with 110ps.

[BillN_33]

6 hours ago, Gyp said:

To agree with what's been said already, as far as I'm aware the engines are the same apart from the mapping [1] but the brakes are different.

 

I can't find the links now, but the 140 and 170 share the same front and rear calipers and rear disks with the disk diameter and caliper carrier at the front being different between the two - upgrading 140 brakes to 170 brakes is fairly easy and inexpensive. The 110 brakes are quite different and smaller at both front and rear and upgrading to 140 or 170 spec from 110 spec would be prohibitively expensive.

 

When I briefly had my 110, I prioritised the brake upgrade ahead of the power upgrade and it was the complexity and cost of doing that (and the resultant insurance costs) that lead me to sell the 110 and buy a 170 instead.

 

Whilst others disagreed with me about the efficacy of the brakes on the 110, I really wouldn't want to chip one without a brake upgrade. If you're considering buying a 110 and chipping it I'd seriously consider spending the extra to buy a 140 (or 170) in the first place.

 

[1] Revo quote the same post-mapping figures for both the 110 and 140 (=168 to 172 for either) 

 

so are you saying

 

a). That the brakes on all three diesel models are different

 

b). The brakes on the 140 and 170 are the same

 

OR

 

c). The brakes on the 110 and 140 are different

 

I always thought that the brakes on the 110 and 140 were the same and that the 170 have different brakes

 

 

[Gyp]

8 hours ago, BillN_33 said:

 

so are you saying

 

a). That the brakes on all three diesel models are different

 

b). The brakes on the 140 and 170 are the same

 

OR

 

c). The brakes on the 110 and 140 are different

 

I always thought that the brakes on the 110 and 140 were the same and that the 170 have different brakes

 

 

 

I need to dig out the tables to make it clear but here goes.

 

a). True. Each model has different brakes.

 

b). False. The rears on the 140 and 170 are the same. At the front, the calipers are the same but the disks and caliper mounting brackets are not. On the 170 the disks are a larger diameter and the mounting brackets position the caliper further from the hub to accommodate this.

 

c). True. Both front and rear on the 110 have smaller disks and different calipers than on the 140. Upgrading the brakes on the 110 to 140/170 spec would require as a minimum a replacement of all the disks and all the calipers and mountings. It's possible that there may be further changes (hubs?) necessary and this wouldn't be a simple (though expensive) bolt-on change.

 

As you can see, others disagree with me regarding the efficacy of the brakes on the 110. I wasn't happy with them, but others seem more than happy. I certainly wouldn't up the performance of the 110 with the stock brakes, but perhaps that's just me.

 

Having had a look today on Autotrader, there are more 140s available under £10k than there are 110s (20 140s, 13 110s, 10 170s). If I were you I'd look to simply buy a 140.

[Gyp]

Other bit worth being aware of was when I had my 110 I asked them if there would be a change to insurance cost if I upgraded the brakes to 140 or 170 spec and they said they would no longer cover me. Same with the remap.

 

I asked what the change to cost would be if I bought a 170 instead of the 110 and they said £4. 

[Gyp]

Found something... this might help

 

 

Which of course reminds me of something I'd forgotten, that the brakes are different on the back of the 110 depending on whether you go for 4x2 or 4x4.

 

Breaking the info from there into a slightly more readable form (hopefully) just for the diesels

 

110 CR TDI

Front disc = 280 x 22

Front calliper = 15" FS-III

Rear disc = 253 x 10

Rear calliper = 15" C 38

 

110 CR TDI 4x4

Front disc = 280 x 22

Front calliper = 15" FS-III

Rear disc = 272 x 10

Rear calliper = 15" Bosch BIRIII

 

140 CR TDI 4x4 (plus DSG)

Front disc = 288 x 25

Front calliper = 15" FN3

Rear disc = 286 x 12 

Rear calliper = 16" CII 41 

or (depending on build date)

Rear disc = 272 x 10 

Rear calliper = 15" Bosch BIRIII

 

170 CR TDI 4x4

Front = 312 x 25

Front calliper = 16" FN3

Rear disc = 286 x 12 

Rear calliper = 16" CII 41 

or (depending on build date)

Rear disc = 272 x 10 

Rear calliper = 15" Bosch BIRIII

[BillN_33]

2 hours ago, Gyp said:

 

I need to dig out the tables to make it clear but here goes.

 

a). True. Each model has different brakes.

 

b). False. The rears on the 140 and 170 are the same. At the front, the calipers are the same but the disks and caliper mounting brackets are not. On the 170 the disks are a larger diameter and the mounting brackets position the caliper further from the hub to accommodate this.

 

c). True. Both front and rear on the 110 have smaller disks and different calipers than on the 140. Upgrading the brakes on the 110 to 140/170 spec would require as a minimum a replacement of all the disks and all the calipers and mountings. It's possible that there may be further changes (hubs?) necessary and this wouldn't be a simple (though expensive) bolt-on change.

 

As you can see, others disagree with me regarding the efficacy of the brakes on the 110. I wasn't happy with them, but others seem more than happy. I certainly wouldn't up the performance of the 110 with the stock brakes, but perhaps that's just me.

 

Having had a look today on Autotrader, there are more 140s available under £10k than there are 110s (20 140s, 13 110s, 10 170s). If I were you I'd look to simply buy a 140.

 

Thanks - just what I needed - I'll look for a 140 or even a 170

[muddyboots]

3 hours ago, Gyp said:

Other bit worth being aware of was when I had my 110 I asked them if there would be a change to insurance cost if I upgraded the brakes to 140 or 170 spec and they said they would no longer cover me. Same with the remap.

 

I asked what the change to cost would be if I bought a 170 instead of the 110 and they said £4. 

Insurers vary - there are plenty of mainstream insurers who will cover such modifications. I've got my uprated brakes, suspension and remap all covered without an issue an with very little increase to my premium.

The comparison sites now even have boxes to tick for various modifications such as remaps.

 

 

Edited 9 November, 2017 by muddyboots

[muddyboots]

Regarding brakes...of course, the manufacturer will always fit brakes that are capable of stopping the car safely from speed.

There's a difference though between being "adequate for the job" and "having plenty in reserve".

If you like to drive with a little enthusiasm occasionally, then improved brakes make the car feel so much more reassuring to drive, especially on twisty roads with repeated bends. I imagine if anyone tows, it would be an equally noticeable improvement and provide more fade resistance.

Before I ever started with any mods on cars, I was also of the mindset "the standard brakes stop the car perfectly well, and I can brake hard enough to lock and trigger the ABS, so what's the point in upgrading". But then I gave it a go - replaced the 288mm discs on my Ibiza with 312mm (simple change, just needs larger caliper carriers) - and now it's the first thing I'd change on a car ahead of a remap, have done it on every car I've owned since (except my Yeti, which has 312mm as standard).

The 312mm upgrade is very popular across the VAG community, it's so simple too *if* you have the right hubs to start with (ie not the ones on the 110) and at least 16" size wheels. Same pads & calipers, just swap the caliper carriers and fit the larger discs. The joy of VAG sharing components across so many cars

You've also got the option of uprated pads too...I've been running EBC Yellow pads all round on mine for some time now, they provide a noticeable improvement, yet are as good from cold as the OE pads, no squeal, and much more fade resistant.