Recommend a diesel

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:20am

130bhp 1.9TDI is a weapon don't forget.:D

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:35am

A4 1.9TDI (130ps). 0-60 in 9.6s
Passat 1.9TDI (130ps). 0-60 in 9.6s
Mazda 6 2.0d (143ps.. there is also a 136ps). 0-60 in 9.2s (10.1 for 136ps)
Mondeo. Very complicated, so I'll just focus on 130ps 2.0TDCi which does 0-60 in ~9.5s, or the 2.2 155ps which does 0-60 in 8.4s.
Alfa 1.6 2.4JTD. Several versions, but in summary if it's Multijet it's 175bhp and 0-60 in 8.0s; otherwise it's between 136 and 150bhp and 0-60 in 9.1 or 9.2s.

Based on that I'd go for 156 Multijet 1st, and 2.2 Modeo 2nd.

PaulKK · 07-03-2008 12:44am

cashmni1 wrote: »

VW cars overrated but engiines are great alright. TDI is out on its own, but the rest of the car isn't a patch on a Mondeo or a 406 for steering, brakes and suspension.

I'm sorry but what exactly is wrong with VWs brakes? My passat has excellent brakes, far superior to any other cars i have driven, granted I have not driven the Mondeo or 406, which I'm sure are fine also. Most models have got pretty big disc brakes allround ffs. I've seen 08 cars of different makes with drums on the back.

It seems to me that along with all the Alfa bashers etc there is just a core group of VW haters which pop up in every second thread with the same old lines of being "overratted" and "not reliable".

To the OP:
I can recommend the passat, as after owning mine for a year and doing 25k miles in it so far, it has never let me down, nothing has gone wrong, and I get 50MPG. Quiet, smooth and refined on the motorway, plenty of punch for overtaking, and mine is the "crappy" old 90ps. Its not a rocketship but it does the job. If you want more power you could always get a 110ps or a 130ps. I prefer it to my fathers A4.

Eoin · 07-03-2008 12:48am

At the risk of upsetting the anti-BMW crowd, I'll suggest a BMW 320d. You'll get a 2000 - 2001 model for 12K. That has the 136bhp engine - sounds rougher than the later 150bhp one, but still a very nice drive.

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:51am

Just after reading what Fiat/Alfa mean by multijet. From the Alfa website:

during each engine cycle the number of injections is increased compared to the two injections normally used. The same amount of diesel is burnt, but it is delivered in several parts, with a more gradual combustion.

Some manufacturers have chosen not to even have 2 injections, never mind multiple, for the strain and wear it puts on the injectors.

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:53am

eoin_s wrote: »

At the risk of upsetting the anti-BMW crowd, I'll suggest a BMW 320d. You'll get a 2000 - 2001 model for 12K. That has the 136bhp engine - sounds rougher than the later 150bhp one, but still a very nice drive.

Was gonna suggest the 330d, but they seem to be just out of range pricewise.

Was reluctant to suggest a 320d after reading on another thread about how they all seem to eat turbos and fuel pumps, up till 2004 or so.

Eoin · 07-03-2008 12:56am

JHMEG wrote: »

Was gonna suggest the 330d, but they seem to be just out of range pricewise.

It'll certainly be older and have more mileage than other cars in the same range, but it's still in range. Edit - sorry, just saw you said 330d. Yeah, that would be a nice one, seem quite rare though.

JHMEG wrote: »

Was reluctant to suggest a 320d after reading on another thread about how they all seem to eat turbos and fuel pumps, up till 2004 or so.

The early 150bhp engines were prone to this, the earlier 136bhp ones didn't have the same amount of problems.

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:59am

eoin_s wrote: »

The early 150bhp engines were prone to this, the earlier 136bhp ones didn't have the same amount of problems.

You've managed to persuade me that it's a bad choice: overpriced, old, noisy, underperforming, slow, and possibly problematic!

PaulKK · 07-03-2008 1:12am

eoin_s wrote: »

At the risk of upsetting the anti-BMW crowd, I'll suggest a BMW 320d. You'll get a 2000 - 2001 model for 12K. That has the 136bhp engine - sounds rougher than the later 150bhp one, but still a very nice drive.

+1. Drove a couple E46s in petrol and diesel varities they are a lovely machine

colm_mcm · 07-03-2008 1:21am

GERMAN ROCKS wrote: »

no fortunately im not. but i genuinly think these 3 look much better than any any avensis or 6 or accord but that just MY OPINION

but the OP is looking for reliability.

Biro · 07-03-2008 1:37am

JHMEG wrote: »

A4 1.9TDI (130ps). 0-60 in 9.6s
Passat 1.9TDI (130ps). 0-60 in 9.6s
Mazda 6 2.0d (143ps.. there is also a 136ps). 0-60 in 9.2s (10.1 for 136ps)
Mondeo. Very complicated, so I'll just focus on 130ps 2.0TDCi which does 0-60 in ~9.5s, or the 2.2 155ps which does 0-60 in 8.4s.
Alfa 1.6 2.4JTD. Several versions, but in summary if it's Multijet it's 175bhp and 0-60 in 8.0s; otherwise it's between 136 and 150bhp and 0-60 in 9.1 or 9.2s.

Based on that I'd go for 156 Multijet 1st, and 2.2 Focus 2nd.

You won't get the A4 or Passat with the 130bhp diesel to 60 in less than 10 seconds. That 9.6s figure is definately over estimated.

Eoin · 07-03-2008 1:56am

JHMEG wrote: »

You've managed to persuade me that it's a bad choice: overpriced, old, noisy, underperforming, slow, and possibly problematic!

I certainly wouldn't consider it underperforming or slow. Yes, the 136bhp is noisier than a petrol equivalent, but the driving characteristics more than make up for it for me. The 150bhp is quite a bit more refined and was used in the 320cd, but early iterations had problems. 8 years is old enough I suppose, but I think the car has aged well.

You've made your feelings for BMW (and diesel) cars abundantly clear in numerous other threads, so I don't think anything I say will make any difference.

Ferris · 07-03-2008 9:14am

eoin_s wrote: »

The early 150bhp engines were prone to this, the earlier 136bhp ones didn't have the same amount of problems.

+1 the lower output engine is extremely reliable and easy on diesel. Only available in the saloon and estate. There was also a 115hp 318d available but its still the 2.0L engine. Same 115hp engine was used in the Rover 75.

RedRag · 07-03-2008 10:43am

A lot to think about there, thanks for your opions. Paul KK is steering me towards a Passat though.

HashSlinging · 07-03-2008 10:56am

http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/SEAT/Altea/1.9-TDi/802890/

if you could bargain the person down, this is a seriously good car and safer than the passat.

Eoin · 07-03-2008 11:41am

Ferris wrote: »

115hp engine was used in the Rover 75.

And one of the Landrovers I think.

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 12:18pm

eoin_s wrote: »

You've made your feelings for BMW (and diesel) cars abundantly clear in numerous other threads, so I don't think anything I say will make any difference.

As I said I was going to suggest a 330d or a 320d, but what you said about the 320d made all the difference. Who wants an old, slow, noisy yoke with high miles? Despite my "feelings" about BMW and diesel I was going to recommend one until you put me off it. The 156JTD or Mondeo 2.2 TD are much better buys.

cashmni1 · 07-03-2008 12:29pm

PaulKK wrote: »

I'm sorry but what exactly is wrong with VWs brakes? My passat has excellent brakes, far superior to any other cars i have driven, granted I have not driven the Mondeo or 406, which I'm sure are fine also. Most models have got pretty big disc brakes allround ffs. I've seen 08 cars of different makes with drums on the back.

It seems to me that along with all the Alfa bashers etc there is just a core group of VW haters which pop up in every second thread with the same old lines of being "overratted" and "not reliable".

To the OP:
I can recommend the passat, as after owning mine for a year and doing 25k miles in it so far, it has never let me down, nothing has gone wrong, and I get 50MPG. Quiet, smooth and refined on the motorway, plenty of punch for overtaking, and mine is the "crappy" old 90ps. Its not a rocketship but it does the job. If you want more power you could always get a 110ps or a 130ps. I prefer it to my fathers A4.

The VW brakes are not bad but there are better systems in operation....may I present the Peugeot 406/7. Have a look at the rear brakes on a diesel 406 or 407 the next time you see one. Then compare to a VW.
Anyway I am not bashing the VW. I own a lovely Passat 130 sport 6 speed (04) that I imported last year. The car I had before that was a 406 HDI STDT (01). The 406 was superior in a lot of ways to the Passat.
Brakes, suspension, steering and driving position. All of which make for a good driving experience (to me). The engine however is a different box of frogs. The HDI wouldn't hold the coat of the TDI performance wise. Granted.
The 406 gave me one problem (fuel feeder(lifter) pump failed @ 130k miles). The other maintenence was rear passenger bushings which had to be replaced, (normal enough ware and tear) at about 90k. Other that that I really loved the peugeot.
The Passat I have has a front baring that needs replacing (only 66k on the clock), its eating the inside drivers tyre (tracking and alingment done) and I just cannot get the driving position correct. I find myself constantly re-adjusting the seat and I am never satisfied with the way it handles the bumps (although the sport is 10mm lower than normal), but still.
Different people want different things from cars.
I want a 407 with a TDI engine, and maybe tonights lotto numbers......??

worded · 07-03-2008 12:37pm

prospect wrote: »

Well, if reliability is your main concern, I would steer away from VW & Audi.

http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/Toyota/Avensis/2.0-D/958626/

http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/Mazda/Mazda6/2.0-TDI/951939/

Do you really think reliability is an issue with Audi and VW? Ive a a4 tdi

prospect · 07-03-2008 12:47pm

worded wrote: »

Do you really think reliability is an issue with Audi and VW? Ive a a4 tdi

Not saying that at all.
IMO, VW & Audi are average for reliability.

If the OP's main concern is reliability, then he/she should be aiming for above average. And to be fair, Honda, Mazda & Toyota have that sown up.

JHMEG · 07-03-2008 1:07pm

prospect wrote: »

And to be fair, Honda, Mazda & Toyota have that sown up.

And Citroen!!

Check this page out... Toyota at 9 and Citroen at 10!!

prospect · 07-03-2008 1:29pm

JHMEG wrote: »

And Citroen!!

Check this page out... Toyota at 9 and Citroen at 10!!

I'd well believe it, unlike others here, I can see these things for waht they are. Alot of people still judge marques based on their reputation in the early 80's.

Also, it is worth mentioning that that website also takes costs of repairs, & amount of time to repair into account. So it is not strictly a measure of reliability, but a measure of 'ease of ownership', for want of a better term.

groupb · 07-03-2008 2:24pm

It's a similar model to JD power.

prospect · 07-03-2008 2:50pm

groupb wrote: »

It's a similar model to JD power.

Isn't the JD Power survey more of a satisfaction survey. I don't really pay attention to satisfaction surveys as they are too subjective.

The reliability index relies soley on figures:
Number of break downs per 100 cars in a year
Number of hours required to fix issues
Cost of fix
Type of problem

Etc.

Where the reliability index is misleading is:
If a Toyota and a Merc both have the same problem, the same amount of times, but the Toyota is cheaper to fix, then it places higher on the chart, even though it is not necessarily more reliable.

groupb · 07-03-2008 3:33pm

You sound like you know more about it than me.
Either way , my experience with VAG cars suggests that they should be near the bottom of any list.

Eoin · 07-03-2008 5:44pm

JHMEG wrote: »

As I said I was going to suggest a 330d or a 320d, but what you said about the 320d made all the difference. Who wants an old, slow, noisy yoke with high miles? Despite my "feelings" about BMW and diesel I was going to recommend one until you put me off it. The 156JTD or Mondeo 2.2 TD are much better buys.

You said it was slow, I don't find it slow at all. The 136bhp engine isn't as refined as the 150bhp one and obviously doesn't sound as nice as the petrol one, but that's a far cry from saying it should be out plowing a field.

Recommend a diesel

Comments