So I shouldn't Mention that the Golf GT TDI is a PD170 then not a PD 140

It can be had with either the 140 or the 170 2.0TDI in deisel form;

Volkswagen UK > Models > Golf > GT

It can be had with either the 140 or the 170 2.0TDI in deisel form;

Volkswagen UK > Models > Golf > GT

Yes but somebody was trying to prove that the fabia was quicker than the Golf 2.0 GT TDI so you should assume the PD170.

IIRC the PD140 version was the same price when i was looking at buying one a good 6 months ago and I was told that it would be discontinued by the dealer too.

EDIT: I see they have come to their senses and dropped the PD140's price against the PD170.. still doesn't mean I'd have a fabia though.

I just spent two days in a PD170 A3 - quite a pleasant engine.

Yes the original post does state that it is the TDi140 and I also quote 140bhp so its quite obvious which one I was referring to.

Having said that the TDI170 vs a remapped vRS 1.9TDI130 would be very interesting. Clearly engine longevity would be higher in the TDi170 as it was designed to run in that tune stronger conrods bigger turbo bigger intercooler etc.

I put the in gear performance stats to the test a few weeks ago against an A3 (was an 04 plate so must have been the 140bhp).

I followed him through some roadworks on a dual carriageway at 30 leptons and as they ended I pulled out and started to gently overtake. Just as I was about to pull in, he decided he didn't like being overtaken so put his foot down.

By the time I realised what was happenning and decided I was going to be childish and plant my foot he was exactly alongside me.

We were probably both doing 40-50ish leptons by this point.

I kept the foot planted until I saw an indicated 100 leptons and then backed off.

We were still exactly side by side at this point. There was so little in it you would have sworn we were in identical cars.

So I'd say that 0-100 tims for Golf 10 and Fabia 130 will be within a couple of tenths.

Yes the original post does state that it is the TDi140 and I also quote 140bhp so its quite obvious which one I was referring to.

Having said that the TDI170 vs a remapped vRS 1.9TDI130 would be very interesting. Clearly engine longevity would be higher in the TDi170 as it was designed to run in that tune stronger conrods bigger turbo bigger intercooler etc.

PD170 has a smaller turbo than the PD130 IIRC, but bigger then the PD140.

Either way once again stop with the standard vs remapped thigns.

STD vs STD or Remapped vs Remapped!

The vRS is only available in 130bhp tune for the Fabia so Im comparing a 1340bhp vs a 140bhp Golf and a remapped vRS vs a 170bhp Golf.

Are the new 2.0tdi units still Pump Duse or are they common rail?

PD at the moment I think.

VAG are developing a Common Rail for the end of this year eraly 2008.

Whats the view here of comon rail vs PD?

From my experiance the common rail is more linear while the PD is very torquey at low revs i.e. all or nothing style.

Mind you the 335d & 535d & 330d & 530d & 120d really prove that common rail is perfectly fine.

Also have any of you noticed that the 118d SE 2nd hand is cracking value and it has the same power output & Torque as the original Golf Gt TDI 115. All for £13k at Motorpoint and other car supermarkets.

How does the vRS stand up against this bad boy & how does it stand against the 120dSE?

Badge snobbery/envy might start to play a part there.

I'd rather have a Skoda than a Beamer anyday.

Well I'd say that common rail is smoother and quieter as it delivers more pilot injections (something like 5 before the main and 2 after, whereas PD can only do one before and then the main injection.

You get better output from the PD and the emissins are less too.

I mean if you had £13k to spend on a City Car the vRS or the BMW 118DSE (nearly new) or a year/18month old BMW120dSE which would be the best option?

Clearly the BMW is RWD so advantage BM but the boot is small adv vRS, Timing Chain on the BMW so adv BMW as no cambelt to change = lower servicing costs.

How the engine performs is interesting though - which is best?

I know the BMW have just launched a new 120d & new 118d which has stop start technology & the altenator & Air con disengage from the engine if not required therefore pushing the ave combined mpg to 59for the 120dSE and well over 60mpg for the 118dSE

Ive not driven the BMW 1 series but have been a passenger recently and was surprised at how good it was. I know the VAG unit well but the BMW unit appeared to be much more willing to rev & much quieter at 4000+rpm than any VAG PD TDI unit Ive driven (maybe this is purely the sound proofing or maybe the fact its from the passenger seat).

I think they both have the pros and cons, the common rail will be alot quieter but the PD would probably be better from the low down grunt point of view.

I think you get a better tourqe curve with the CR whereas the PD comes all at once and then it's gone.

The BMW engine is roumered to be very good.

Aparrantly the fit and finish of the 1 series is a bit to be desired, they used alot of plastic in the early ones and for the price, you could get an Audi, which is far superior in build quality but no CR engine., so I think it's more about paying for the badge for a 1 series than actual car.

My old chap has a focus and it's quiet when you are near full chat, unlike my Fabia.

I would have the Vrs no problems.

I wasn't impressed with the 118d. Rubbish interior (felt cheap and nasty and NOT what you'd expect for the mega ££ you pay) and the engine was feeble.

Apparently it was nice to drive (I was a passenger) just like all BMW's but it felt very doom and gloom inside and the engine had no character and no power.

I thought it was a rip off.

The 118d weighs 1320kg 5kg more than the vRS it has 140bhp & 221lbf giving a 0-60 of 8.7 and top speed of 130mph. Road tax is £115

BMW 1-Series - 118d SE 5d (07) - Technical Data - Parker's

Link below for the vRS

Skoda Fabia vRS - 1.9 TDI PD (130bhp) 5d - Technical Data - Parker's

I think looking at this performance wise there is little between the 118d & the vRS the difference I think which is significant is that the 118d combined cycle does 60mpg while the vRS does 53mpg and the relevent C02 emmissions are lower for the BMW but within the same band [however who's to say in the bands dont change in the future]

With regard to the interior I found it to be far superior to the GTI 30th Anniversary Golf super soft plastic, ipod connection, much more leg room in the front and from the passenger seat the handling felt very nice indeed.

Actually looking at the 261bhp 3.0ltr petrol this does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and limited to 155mph yet still delivers 34-36 mpg combined cycle.... thats incredible.

The vRS is only available in 130bhp tune for the Fabia so Im comparing a 1340bhp vs a 140bhp Golf and a remapped vRS vs a 170bhp Golf.

Are the new 2.0tdi units still Pump Duse or are they common rail?

Ok but all the standard dervs have the 2.0 PD140 option so why not compare the fabia which is lower weight more fairly.

Say PD100 fabia VS PD140 Golf and Fabia VRS (the most sporty one) vs Golf GT TDI PD170 (the most sporty one)

Well if we did that the Fabia in each test would be a long way behind.

However as I said at the start the 140PD TDI Golf is 96bhp/tonne and the vRS 98bhp/tonne so its a fair competition.

The weight disadvantage the Golf GT 140PD has over the vRS 130PD is 136kg so either 2 size 14+ ladies or one very porkie bloke in the passenger seat or 10% more weight.

This is all academic because engine outputs can fluctuate anyway. FYI, a PD140 Octy is level pegging with a PD130 Furby. A Golf is very similar too, but the engine characteristics are different though. TBH, I would rather the PD130 engine characteristics as it's got more grunt below 1800rpm, but then I prefer the 140's quieter running and smoother power curve.

Picking up on the 118d, when did it get 140bhp? I thought it was 120bhp or thereabouts. I did consider one (and looked at a 120d) but kit levels put me off for the price paid.

Well if we did that the Fabia in each test would be a long way behind.

However as I said at the start the 140PD TDI Golf is 96bhp/tonne and the vRS 98bhp/tonne so its a fair competition.

The weight disadvantage the Golf GT 140PD has over the vRS 130PD is 136kg so either 2 size 14+ ladies or one very porkie bloke in the passenger seat or 10% more weight.

The extra weight is because it is the next size up hence the PD170 in it!

The thing is you compare a stock car against a car of the same level.

So you see you compare the fastest against the fastest if you want a d1ck waiting competition, or an normal one against a normal one!

Stop doing a thread to make your fecking VRS look good.

Both cars are **** slow when compared to a 535d or most likely tavia's merc

Thats like comparing an XR2 fiesta to a 1.8 sierra as opposed to the cossie

Are we back to square one with this thread??

This is all academic because engine outputs can fluctuate anyway. FYI, a PD140 Octy is level pegging with a PD130 Furby. A Golf is very similar too, but the engine characteristics are different though. TBH, I would rather the PD130 engine characteristics as it's got more grunt below 1800rpm, but then I prefer the 140's quieter running and smoother power curve.

Picking up on the 118d, when did it get 140bhp? I thought it was 120bhp or thereabouts. I did consider one (and looked at a 120d) but kit levels put me off for the price paid.

the 118D has 140bhp from the 07 model and due to the new engine & stop start & disengaging altenator + air con it means ave combined MPG jumps from 53mpg to 60mpg. The 120d has the same power as before though yet MPG has improved 7mpg taking it to 59mpg so an improvement of 13%

Are we back to square one with this thread??

Yes..

It's a pointless thread so somebody can say my fabia is quicker then X!

Oh no it is not - I do not own a vRS and nor do I think it is anything more than a warm hatch.

What Im after is an official listing of 0-100mph times for all Diesel cars this is a far better stat to compare different cars as all will need min 3 gear changes (0-60 can be done with 2 changes so it really disadvantages those needing a further change).

The fastest I am aware of is the 535d M Sport which does the 0-100mph in 14.5 seconds. The next fastest I know 100% for sure about is the Golf GT 140TDI with a time of 24odd seconds. Clearly the difference between a 14 second car and a 24 seconds car is vast and it would beat it in every single way.

By getting the list (official) it clears up all arguements.

Clearly this ignores the list price but of course you could argue if you have a budget of £13k for a car you could buy the 4.9ltr V8 M5 over a ltd edition vRS or buy an older £5-7k M5 and keep the difference to pay for higher servicing & insurance costs over the vRS. Mind you Ive not seen anyone on this site take that adivce seriously they seem to see it as a pipe dream to own such cars but thats not the case its very easy to do so & as you will not want for more power you'd keep it longer thus avoiding the buying & selling costs i.e. double lot of depreciation.

Oh no it is not - I do not own a vRS and nor do I think it is anything more than a warm hatch.

Unfortunately it's blatently obvious what you think. There you go again trying to get a rise...

What Im after is an official listing of 0-100mph times for all Diesel cars this is a far better stat to compare different cars as all will need min 3 gear changes (0-60 can be done with 2 changes so it really disadvantages those needing a further change).

The fastest I am aware of is the 535d M Sport which does the 0-100mph in 14.5 seconds. The next fastest I know 100% for sure about is the Golf GT 140TDI with a time of 24odd seconds. Clearly the difference between a 14 second car and a 24 seconds car is vast and it would beat it in every single way.

By getting the list (official) it clears up all arguements.

Clearly this ignores the list price but of course you could argue if you have a budget of £13k for a car you could buy the 4.9ltr V8 M5 over a ltd edition vRS or buy an older £5-7k M5 and keep the difference to pay for higher servicing & insurance costs over the vRS. Mind you Ive not seen anyone on this site take that adivce seriously they seem to see it as a pipe dream to own such cars but thats not the case its very easy to do so & as you will not want for more power you'd keep it longer thus avoiding the buying & selling costs i.e. double lot of depreciation.

So you start a really boring thread that isn't really about a Fabia in a Fabia forum?

Your my new hero.

I disagree with you Im afraid you are trying to get a rise from me and I will refuse to do so.

Lets just talk facts nothing else no Vested interest statements.

Come on get real man