Performance stats for a remapped Audi 2.0 TDI

[waynne]

Ok then, following on from my musings I've narrowed myself down to 2 car engines. (I still really want an S3 sportback but these are too new and too expensive!)

The clincher will ultimately be the power to economy but I don't want a car to be slower than my 1.8T.

So.

Audi A3 2.0TFSi Quattro sportback
vs
Audi A3 2.0TDi Quattro sportback

On paper the 2.0 TDi is slow to 60 but will this be noticable in the real world? If I remapped the 2.0TDi would the economy still be in the 40's and would the 0-60 go below 8 seconds?

So go on then. Convince me either way.

[pgarner]

do you want a revvy engine ?

remapping yes it would stay in the 40s for most driving

[HDi fun]

A remapped 2.0 TFSi will be quicker than a remapped 2.0 TDi CR.

Your current 1.8T wouldn't stand a chance against either of them, even in both were left in standard tune.

I'd struggle here because the TFSi engines are excellent and pretty frugal as well.

[waynne]

That, HDI is precisely the dilemma I'm having. I do feel that if I had a TDI i'd need it to be remapped. I am convinced that TD engines are deliberately detuned to give the petrol models a fighting chance.

If I had the petrol TFSi I doubt I would remap it, at least not for a while.

On paper the TDI is slower that my car to 60 by about 1 second, but in reality I'm sure I'd hardly notice the difference. Plus the quattro would really help when the snow comes down and on damp roads.

The good thing is that I'm not in any hurry to buy a car. My main motivation is that mine is hitting 100k miles and I'm starting to get little niggles with it (nothing major but just the odd little thing but I take this as a sign that things are not as rosey as they once were.)

[waynne]

I'm even thinking of going tiptronic but I'm not sure the Diesel tiptronic box is as good as a Petrol.

[HDi fun]

Tuning down the diesel cars is common practice for exactly the reasons you state.

The TFSi in standard tune will lose out to a remapped TDi.

And remapping the TFSi will certainly impact the fuel consumption.

I think you need to test drive both.

[pgarner]

Originally Posted by waynne

The good thing is that I'm not in any hurry to buy a car. My main motivation is that mine is hitting 100k

its only getting run in

im looking at the TDI next plans of the 3.0d might cost more in fuelling ( no option for non quattro or haldex so if full time 4wd)

[HDi fun]

100K should trouble a well serviced car.

[waynne]

My idea is to sell it whilst it is still in good condition. I've hung on to cars in the past for too long, spending loads on them keeping them running and not having any resale value at all.

[HDi fun]

Fair enough, but resale value doesn't matter if it's cheaper to maintain and service the existing car over the cost of replacing it.

That's from me, and I'm a VERY fussy driver. I maintain my cars meticulously - (or, more correctly, I have them maintained meticulously) and I still find it more economic to do this than to replace them.

But if you want a new car then why not?

[waynne]

It's FWD that's getting me down, plus I think I'm going to be doing mega miles over the next few years so need to think about economy especailly with fuel going up to £1.30 per litre next year!

[HDi fun]

OK Waynne, that's fair enough. But derv's do attract their own costs. They can batter DMFs and the emission controls, although no longer problematical, can incur some pricey routine servicing work.

None of this will trouble you if you're buying new or nearly new from a franchised dealer (with a manufacturer supported warranty).

But if you're planning to keep the car for few or more years beyond that 3-4 year warranty period then I suggest that you do get the oil swapped more frequently than the servicing indicator lights or the schedule suggests.

(Applies to petrol cars as well, but diesel fuel, despite its lubricity, does violate engine oil very savagely because the lighter components of the fuel are not especially volatile and therefore are more likely to remain).

As I've said for ages, don't buy derv for fuel economy alone - I don't think the long term savings (TCO - total cost of ownership) are that impressive.

I'm not saying that derv cars will cost more to run overall, just that the similarities outweigh the differences.

But if you like the drive, as I do, then why not?

A remapped A3 2.0 TDI CR will give you more torque at 2000rpm than an XK8 can muster at 4000rpm. And it will feel that way in general driving. Muscular and effortless.

[waynne]

I hadn't considered service charges. Time to do some more research.

[pgarner]

thought yours was the quattro ?

i dont think VAG is that bad for the petrol /diesel servicing. just watch the turbo if you go for the 140 models, there has been some issues with them spewing guts when mapped while others are fine. there doesnt seem to be as much trouble with the 170 models.

[HDi fun]

Waynne - be careful to consider more than just the franchised dealers' advertised servicing schedule and pricing programmes.

This is fine over the first 3-4 years with a makers warranty in place. The dealers know that they're absolved of pretty much any responsibility after the expiry of such a programme and that the cars are unlikely to go wrong in such early days. Such schemes are very attractive to fleet buyers and the dealers/agents will offer attractive packages.

In fairness, petrol models will, likewise, benefit massively from more frequent (servicing) than 40,000 mile intervals which are sometimes offered now.

If you're planning to keep the car a while then look at the total cost of ownership (based upon your personal anticipated usage carefully) and don't buy derv for fuel economy alone.

By all means buy one for the drive if you like it - there's something invigorating about that 1800rpm massive slam which you can use in everyday driving.

[waynne]

I went to an Audi dealership today and have arranged a test drive of a 2.0TDI Quattro manual and a 2.0TFSI quattro stronic for a back to back comparison.

The salesman said the 170 Diesels do not like short journeys and the particulate filters get clogged up if it doesn't get to go on a run. There is no STRonic option on the TDI quattro. ;(

[HDi fun]

Originally Posted by waynne

I went to an Audi dealership today and have arranged a test drive of a 2.0TDI Quattro manual and a 2.0TFSI quattro stronic for a back to back comparison.

The salesman said the 170 Diesels do not like short journeys and the particulate filters get clogged up if it doesn't get to go on a run. There is no STRonic option on the TDI quattro. ;(

DPFs, as I've said for ages, are still not ideal and will clog if the car is used for short nothing other than stop/start driving.

[jarrus]

Get the diesel Waynne and join us on the dark side.....

[turbonutter69]

Originally Posted by waynne

I went to an Audi dealership today and have arranged a test drive of a 2.0TDI Quattro manual and a 2.0TFSI quattro stronic for a back to back comparison.

The salesman said the 170 Diesels do not like short journeys and the particulate filters get clogged up if it doesn't get to go on a run. There is no STRonic option on the TDI quattro. ;(

What was needed to get a test drive?
I've been thinking of test driving a few new cars recently.

[HDi fun]

Originally Posted by turbonutter69

What was needed to get a test drive?
I've been thinking of test driving a few new cars recently.

Just behave and sound plausible when you tip up.

[jarrus]

Sounds about right,

I test drove a Mazda 6 that my mate was looking to buy, and it was actually a good car

had a 2.0l Turbo Diesel of PSA design very smooth and got a lick on

[HDi fun]

They're good engines, as are all the PSA diesels.

Mazda is an under-rated maker in my opinion, the cars are superbly built and superbly drivable.

Go and play around with a 1996-98 323 hatch, even the modest 1.6 (obviously petrol, forget diesels of that vintage - they're rubbish) went extremely well and see just how good a mid size hatch could be even back then.

[turbonutter69]

Originally Posted by HDi fun

They're good engines, as are all the PSA diesels.

Mazda is an under-rated maker in my opinion, the cars are superbly built and superbly drivable.

Go and play around with a 1996-98 323 hatch, even the modest 1.6 (obviously petrol, forget diesels of that vintage - they're rubbish) went extremely well and see just how good a mid size hatch could be even back then.

Remember the 4x4 Turbo version?
Awesome little car and rare as.

[waynne]

I told the salesman what we were after but that we couldn't decide between diesel and petrol. At the end he asked what the next step was and I said we'd really need to drive both to compare them.

It helped I think that we were fished from off the forecourt and pulled in rather than just turning up asking for a test drive.

We sat inside a really nice s3 which was sadly well out of my price range!

We'll just wait now till they get the two car specs in that I want to try. I'll keep you posted.

[Aerial Andy944]

Waynne I have the Golf GT TDI170 and its very good but not at all involving. Option 1 - If you like to drop a cog and floor the throttle then petrol turbo is for you. Option 2 - If you want a mile muncher where you never need to change gear then TDI is great. Option 3 - do like me and get a older TDI for each day and a classic sports car for the weekend My Golf is coming upto 23k miles on a 56 plate and the value is less then half its original cost at £11k. BTW the DPF filter DOES clog up quickly if not taken on long runs, ask how I know