Audi s4 tdi?

Biro

E92 wrote: »

No. See my link. FIAT did the R&D on the system for it to work in cars, and Bosch acquired the design, and the rest, as they say, is history:).

But isn't that like saying BMW didn't invent the twin sequential idea then? They just applied it to a diesel... you're very quick to praise BMW for ideas that they copied and quicker to knock other manufacturers for theirs!
The fact remains that Fiat first used common rail as we know it in road cars. BMW and the rest followed Fiat! BMW efficient dynamics are combinations of other manufacturers ideas, VW had stop-start in a Jetta back in the 80's, sequential turbo charging is far from new...

Biro

m_stan wrote: »

+that.

Any comment that includes the words 'Practically all x drivers try to y' is moronic unless you've surveyed the whole driving population, which I doubt somehow.

I certainly don't try to prove anything in my a4 1.9 130bhp. By the way, whatever about others comments on power/torque/refinement etc, I really enjoy driving mine and the balance between power and fuel economy is fantastic and a real condsideration now with fuel at or above 1.25 a litre.

Another VAG tdi driver mentioning "power" when referring to the 1.9.
So you reckon the power and fuel economy is "fantastic", what have you compared it to? Have you owned all of the other manufacturer's offerings? You're quick to point out parts of my post where I may generalise, but you've just made a statement there that suggests your tdi is about the best there is, without comparing it to other products.
Maybe ye're all happy living in the ignorance of the 1.9 tdi world, and that's fine. I hate the constant talking up of medocrity though, this is a motors forum, and we (the car enthusiasts) are wiser than that.

groupb

The afforementioned 1.9tdi's nearest compeditors in terms of refinement , are found at your local john deere dealer. I drove a PSA diesel straight after hopping out of a passat and the difference was unbelieveable. So much so that my father in law would'nt believe that it (a picasso 1.6) was a diesel.

m_stan

Biro wrote: »

Another VAG tdi driver mentioning "power" when referring to the 1.9.
So you reckon the power and fuel economy is "fantastic", what have you compared it to? Have you owned all of the other manufacturer's offerings? You're quick to point out parts of my post where I may generalise, but you've just made a statement there that suggests your tdi is about the best there is, without comparing it to other products.
Maybe ye're all happy living in the ignorance of the 1.9 tdi world, and that's fine. I hate the constant talking up of medocrity though, this is a motors forum, and we (the car enthusiasts) are wiser than that.

It has power doesnt it ? As in more than zero, as in some ? I didnt say it was a ferarri or an f16 nor did I suggest I was comparing it to anything else - merely said it was fantastic to me.

I like it. Thats all I said. I enjoy driving it and for me the balance of power and economy suits me. I'm an enthusiast too. Your view isn't the be-all and end-all, nor is mine. My opinion is mine and now you have it with zero generalisations.

Over and out. Not getting into a pointless waste of time debate.

MarkN

That 3.0TDI engine has a lot of grunt. If it was one of them under the bonnet I don't think an FTO unless heavily modified would cause it too much hassle.

tossy

Os some straighteners lads.

A comparison in terms of performance between the current 335D and A5 3.0tdi,not talking in terms of design or looks,im a VAG fan but i think the current 3series coupe looks beautiful and would have it over the A5

BMW 335d (twin turbo) 0-60 6.1 secs

A5 3.0 tdi (only one turbo and a big heavy power draining quattro) 0-60 5.9 secs

Other manufactures do have have low cc big hp diesel engines now,but the 130/150 bhp diesel vag engine is ancient at this stage and was a "performce" diesel when there was no such thing!

Also what about the big vag diesel engnies? like the 5.0 V10,class leading? le mans? anyone?

You do encounter alot of GT TDI and TDI passat/A4 owners on the road who think their cars are weapons but sadly are not,these tend ot be more rep/country boy types as any serious vag head will know the limits of their car and/or have their car tuned right(not a tuning box) and it might very well be a weapon.

i will say this though no matter how trivial it is,taking the orignal s4 TDI as an example and presuming its remapped professionally then from a standing start to lets say 25 or 30 mph there is very little in terms of hatchbacks or midrange saloons that will kepp with it,hence the surge of acceleratino from the S4 TDI mentioned,alas for TDIs the run out of steam very quickly because when your man in the S4 is reaching the redling in 2nd gear the petrol car along side him is only topping out in first or half way through second this is the tihng most TDI weapon drivers dont realise.

E92

Of course the A5 3.0 TDI is faster than a MIVEC FTO. It's got an engine that's 50% bigger and has 40 extra bhp for a start.

TDI is so class leading that FIAT actually had a TDI engine a whole 3 years before this "revolutionary" technology came along from VAG:rolleyes:.

That's right, the Fiat Croma in 1986 was the world's first turbo diesel with direct injection, not Audi's TDI which came along a whole 3 years later in 1989.

TDI is so wonderful that Audi had to get all the rules changed in Le Mans before they'd even race with a diesel. If Audi had balls and were as confident about TDI as they appear they'd have just raced the car and left the rules alone.

For all their talk, their TFSI petrol engines in their S models which unlike the R10's TDI engine have to last the lifetime of a car are still achieving a higher power output per litre.

I love the comparison between the A5 and the 335d for 0-100.

Why use a manual gearbox for the A5, when you know that the 335d is so torquey that BMW doesn't have a manual gearbox that can deal with it?

Unfortunately I can't find anywhere that can confirm the performance of the slush box 3.0 A5:D, but it's hardly going to be better for 0-100 than the 335d.

@Biro: You're right about the sequential turbo thing. Was in various Japanese performance cars which run on proper fuel i.e. petrol ages ago(over 15 years ago, RX-7 has 'em for instance). But BMW were still the world's first car maker to do it for diesel engines, an innovation in it's own right arguably;)!

The Golf TDI 150 was I will admit the first of hot diesel hatch(if you accept that there is such a thing as a diesel hot hatch, which I don't), but hot hatches and diesels are 2 words that should never be in the same sentence. Hot hatches should have a revvy screaming 4 banger petrol, not a clattery rattly diesel IMO!

I know I'm being a bit harsh on VAG and they're not as bad as I'm saying I am, but the amount of sh1te about that fscking TDI engine means I have to install a bit of reality back into this forum.

FOGOFUNK

E92 wrote: »

Of course the A5 3.0 TDI is faster than a MIVEC FTO. It's got an engine that's 50% bigger and has 40 extra bhp for a start.

TDI is so class leading that FIAT actually had a TDI engine a whole year before this "revolutionary" technology came along from VAG:rolleyes:.

That's right, the Fiat Croma in 1986 was the world's first turbo diesel with direct injection, not Audi's TDI which came along a whole 3 years later in 1989.

TDI is so wonderful that Audi had to get all the rules changed in Le Mans before they'd even race with a diesel. If Audi had balls and were as confident about TDI as they appear they'd have just raced the car and left the rules alone.

For all their talk, their TFSI petrol engines in their S models which unlike the R10's TDI engine have to last the lifetime of a car are still achieving a higher power output per litre.

I love the comparison between the A5 and the 335d for 0-100.

Why use a manual gearbox for the A5, when you know that the 335d is so torquey that BMW doesn't have a manual gearbox that can deal with it?

Unfortunately I can't find anywhere that can confirm the performance of the slush box 3.0 A5:D, but it's hardly going to be better for 0-100 than the 335d.

@Biro: You're right about the sequential turbo thing. Was in various Japanese performance cars which run on proper fuel i.e. petrol ages ago(over 15 years ago, RX-7 has 'em for instance). But BMW were still the world's first car maker to do it for diesel engines, an innovation in it's own right arguably;)!

The Golf TDI 150 was I will admit the first of hot diesel hatch(if you accept that there is such a thing as a diesel hot hatch, which I don't), but hot hatches and diesels are 2 words that should never be in the same sentence. Hot hatches should have a revvy screaming 4 banger petrol, not a clattery rattly diesel IMO!

I know I'm being a bit harsh on VAG and they're not as bad as I'm saying I am, but the amount of sh1te about that fscking TDI engine means I have to install a bit of reality back into this forum.

Thank you so much for your reality check, we all needed it.

Why is there so much argument over the power ratings of these diesel cars?

Nobody in this thread has yet claimed their diesel to be a performance car, and VAG owners are getting shot down left right and centre.

Why not take the same outlook on petrol engines?

Why not compare BMW's petrol enines to Hondas?

Vanos engines to Vtec?

The engine in the 320i to the engine in the S2000?

If someone buys a 320i is it automatically bad buy because it has a worse BHP to displacement rating?


The fact is, the TDi engines are efficient and reliable and provide a lot more torque than 1.4 and 1.6 which is why they are often viewed as being a lot more powerful.

This doesnt make them a bad engine.

MarkN

Perhaps that 0-60 for the A5 is true but I dunno how it could be almost as quick as a 335i to 60 when it has nearly 70bhp less. That aside, the comparison to the 335d is ridiculous. It has nearly 290bhp and more torque than an M5 and as quick as the A5 feels, it is no match for the 335d.

E92

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Why is there so much argument over the power ratings of these diesel cars?

Because a 1.9 TDI is so powerful that not even a 3.0 petrol can keep up apparently:rolleyes:.

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Nobody in this thread has yet claimed their diesel to be a performance car, and VAG owners are getting shot down left right and centre.

Because of the superior performance and the fact that they go like rockets compared to other similar cars and even those with bigger, more powerful engines.:rolleyes:

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Why not take the same outlook on petrol engines?

Why not?

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Why not compare BMW's petrol enines to Hondas?

Why not? Both companies have an enviable reputation when it comes to engine development(for both petrol and diesel).

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Vanos engines to Vtec?

That's simple. VANOS is the same as the VT part of VTEC. Though they have been using the more advanced Double VANOS for 10 years at this stage.

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

The engine in the 320i to the engine in the S2000?

One's a family saloon. The other's an out an out sports car. A very fair comparison, that.:rolleyes: Why not say Z4 vs S2000?(I'd actually take the Honda over the Zed believe it or not)

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

If someone buys a 320i is it automatically bad buy because it has a worse BHP to displacement rating?

It is a bad buy because a 320d is better in every conceivable way apart from being a bit noisier and not being able to rev as high. And with the new VRT rules, it won't be a whole pie dearer than the 320i either.

BMW 4 cylinder engines are nothing to write home about by and large. 318is owners are going to kill me for saying that though lol:D! No BMW enthusiast talks about 'em bar the oil burners, and of course, the E30 M3 had a few 4 cylinder options available too. It's the 6 cylinder petrol engines that are amazing(and I presume the larger engines are better still), and are the ones worth talking about. BMW 6 cylinder engines have an enviable reputation, and always have for over 40 years.

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

The fact is, the TDi engines are efficient and reliable and provide a lot more torque than 1.4 and 1.6.

Every other diesel does that too, but is far quieter in the process. And reliability? Pass the Brandy there Cyril! You're really trying to take me for a fool telling me that VAG engines are reliable! They were bulletproof back in the 80s and early 90s, but you, like VAGs marketing men, are living in the past.

TheBazman

MarkN wrote: »

Perhaps that 0-60 for the A5 is true but I dunno how it could be almost as quick as a 335i to 60 when it has nearly 70bhp less. That aside, the comparison to the 335d is ridiculous. It has nearly 290bhp and more torque than an M5 and as quick as the A5 feels, it is no match for the 335d.

I think the manafacturer quoted 0-60 time for the 3.0 A5 is fractionally quicker than the 335d but in the reality I would imagine they are fairly similar. However I'd be pretty confident that beyond 60 the difference would be very noticeable.

I drove an M5 in the UK for a few hours and they are insanely quick, however I have just got a 535d and the torque as you say is immense. It doesnt feel too far off the M5 when overtaking etc

newmills

Lads i drive a 2002 audi a4 tdi 130. My wife drives a 2007 bmw 520d touring. From a standing start the audi really leaves the bmw sitting and it's only when the speedo starts to read over 110mph does the bmw get along side the audi and start to pull away. I know this as my brother in law and I tried them from a standing start on a slip road on an english motorway late one night last year. We then swapped cars and repeated the run with the same results. Both are good cars and averaged over 45mpg (not that night!!) for the entire journey.

TheBazman

newmills wrote: »

Lads i drive a 2002 audi a4 tdi 130. My wife drives a 2007 bmw 520d touring. From a standing start the audi really leaves the bmw sitting and it's only when the speedo starts to read over 110mph does the bmw get along side the audi and start to pull away. I know this as my brother in law and I tried them from a standing start on a slip road on an english motorway late one night last year. We then swapped cars and repeated the run with the same results. Both are good cars and averaged over 45mpg (not that night!!) for the entire journey.

I find that hard to believe. My last motor was an 06 520d which I think have around 163bhp. You have obviously done some research but still.... to say that the audi really leaves the bmw sitting....I'm not sure

astraboy

E92 wrote: »

They're gonna be copying BMW with the twin sequential turbo idea soon though.

The new Cayenne diesel will be a 3.2 twin sequential turbo V6 apparently(designed by VAG).

And there's a new twin sequential 2.0 diesel on the way too.

Gotta pull you on this one. Plenty of cars have had twin sequential turbos before BMW, the old Toyota Supra and nissan Skyline GTR as far as I can remember, but I'm sure there are others. Not putting in doubt the technical profeciency of the 3L twin turbo unit in the BMW 335 etc, just don't think BMW were the first?

My apologies just read this:

E92 wrote: »

@Biro: You're right about the sequential turbo thing. Was in various Japanese performance cars which run on proper fuel i.e. petrol ages ago(over 15 years ago, RX-7 has 'em for instance). But BMW were still the world's first car maker to do it for diesel engines, an innovation in it's own right arguably!

Indeed the 1st people to do so with diseal is an innovation.

tossy

this thread is gas! oopps sorry i mean diesel!

BMW have made soem fine oil burners but the 2.0 diesel in the 320/520 is a mare of an engine,i would put it on a par with the old 110 bhp TDI engine.

My old 100pd golf remapped to 130 could easily and regularly put shame to my mates 320d.

The 0-60 figures i quoted for the a5/335 debate i got form searching many sites the figures quoted do vary for both but it always in or around the figures quoted,lets say im wrong and the are the same or the A5 is 1 sec slower?? still it has one less turbo and a heavy 4wd drive system!!! as for the gear box nonsense? this is an engine debate,i think i qualified my statement before hand disconting looks drivability etc - i will be the first to agree the 335d is far superior car!

The TDI is not as reliable as those of old due mainly to the swap over to the PD eingine,the have become a more highline strung engine requiring plenty of TLC.

Whats even more funnier than the VAG "how dare you slag a VAG car brigade" are the non vag "i refuse ot admit VAG make a good diesel engine brigade" its almost akin to ABU!

Like i said before there are plenty of manufacturers making low CC high bhp engines nowadays but none are proven! willa 2011 opel astra diesel/alfa diesel etc with 200 thousand kms on the clock be as reliable as lets say a current day A4 or passat with similar mileage?

Cionád

tossy wrote: »

Whats even more funnier than the VAG "how dare you slag a VAG car brigade" are the non vag "i refuse ot admit VAG make a good diesel engine brigade" its almost akin to ABU!

LOL +1

MarkN

tossy wrote: »

lets say im wrong and the are the same or the A5 is 1 sec slower?? still it has one less turbo and a heavy 4wd drive system!!! ?

I've owned a Quattro Audi, I've spent a bit of time with two 3.0TDI A5s and
I own a 335 albeit a petrol one so I think I'm less biased than some but the twin turbo argument is not really the point. The main benefit of two turbos is reduced turbo lag more than anything, simply having two turbos does not make a car suddenly a great deal faster.

JHMEG

tossy wrote: »

willa 2011 opel astra diesel/alfa diesel etc with 200 thousand kms on the clock be as reliable as lets say a current day A4 or passat with similar mileage?

I would have thought more so. Neither Passat nor A4 are bastions of reliability.

I also don't see why BMW should be getting any kudos for putting 2 turbos on a diesel. Turbos started life on diesel engines, and GE don't get kudos for being first with a turbo on a petrol engine, or GM for for being first with automotive turbos. None of the above overcame any hurdles or invented anything.

Fiat's variable valve timing is like Da Vinci's helicopter design. Neither worked in reality.

MarkN wrote: »

The main benefit of two turbos is reduced turbo lag more than anything, simply having two turbos does not make a car suddenly a great deal faster.

Sequential turbos, yes. Cars with parallel twin turbos generally tend to be beasts, ie the turbos are there for pure power. Eg Skyline. Altho a few beasts like the Supra have been sequential.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

I also don't see why BMW should be getting any kudos for putting 2 turbos on a diesel.

They shouldn't, and they don't. Twin turbo diesels were around several years ago.

BMW were the first with twin sequential turbos in a diesel 4 years ago, and that's what they should be getting credit for, and deservadly so.

Going back to the FIAT diesel argument, the current FIAT diesels have a very good reputation for reliability, so I'm sure they would easily eclipse VAG on that front. GM have been usding FIAT diesels for a good few years now, and I've yet to hear or see anything negative about their reliability.

tossy

Mark i hear what you are saying but i was merely comparing 2 engines and there respective "pulling" power and how a single turbo engine with some lag can pull itself,the car and associated baggage to 60 quicker than the larger twin turbo engine - the plain facts dont lie.

May i hear these horror stories in relation to he reliability or lack of vag diesels engines? i know i see TDI passats golfs and A4s on the hard shoulder bonnet up everyday but i dont know why?

We all hear horror stories in relation to other brands which in truth are rarely backed up by hard facts!

"my mates dad's bosses wifes sister bought a TDI passat once and the gearbox fell out after a year" so the must be crap,steer clear of them!


What you don't hear is that this individual thought the clutch was a foot rest and never used it!!!


Or

"my brothers girlfriends sister bought a TDI golf and the turbo blew up after a few months" maybe said TDI golf was remapped by johny down the road who read on the internet how to do it,or maybe it had one of those ghastly tunning boxes installed!!

I'm a VAG nut self confessed(not blind ot other makes though and there plus points) and i know many many people with TDI cars both enthusuasts and non enthusiasts alike and ive never heard of any major reliabilit issues with VAG TDI engines apart from maybe a clutch slipping after a remap or a MAF sensor failing due to a crap air filter.

for every second horror story of reliability i can tell you a stroy of how rock solid the TDI engine can be!

Like my mates 90bhp golf with circa 200,000 miles on the clock and still runs like new(this car was never serviced when it was meant to be sometimes going 20k without one)

Or

A guy i know with a 130pd golf with a little work done on it since new and now pushing out 221bhp and more torque than you need,with over 120k on the clock and not a drop of oil burnt!!

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

BMW were the first with twin sequential turbos in a diesel 4 years ago, and that's what they should be getting credit for, and deservadly so.

For what? They broke no new ground. Who was first to put a 6 speed gearbox on a diesel... who cares, they broke no new ground either.

groupb

tossy wrote: »

Mark i hear what you are saying but i was merely comparing 2 engines and there respective "pulling" power and how a single turbo engine with some lag can pull itself,the car and associated baggage to 60 quicker than the larger twin turbo engine - the plain facts dont lie.

May i hear these horror stories in relation to he reliability or lack of vag diesels engines? i know i see TDI passats golfs and A4s on the hard shoulder bonnet up everyday but i dont know why?

We all hear horror stories in relation to other brands which in truth are rarely backed up by hard facts!

"my mates dad's bosses wifes sister bought a TDI passat once and the gearbox fell out after a year" so the must be crap,steer clear of them!


What you don't hear is that this individual thought the clutch was a foot rest and never used it!!!


Or

"my brothers girlfriends sister bought a TDI golf and the turbo blew up after a few months" maybe said TDI golf was remapped by johny down the road who read on the internet how to do it,or maybe it had one of those ghastly tunning boxes installed!!

I'm a VAG nut self confessed(not blind ot other makes though and there plus points) and i know many many people with TDI cars both enthusuasts and non enthusiasts alike and ive never heard of any major reliabilit issues with VAG TDI engines apart from maybe a clutch slipping after a remap or a MAF sensor failing due to a crap air filter.

for every second horror story of reliability i can tell you a stroy of how rock solid the TDI engine can be!

Like my mates 90bhp golf with circa 200,000 miles on the clock and still runs like new(this car was never serviced when it was meant to be sometimes going 20k without one)

Or

A guy i know with a 130pd golf with a little work done on it since new and now pushing out 221bhp and more torque than you need,with over 120k on the clock and not a drop of oil burnt!!

I think its the fact that vag fans think that they are the most reliable cars which drives car enthuasists mad as this is clearly not the case. I've had an Audi and a vw as company cars and I could say hand on heart they were the worst cars I've ever had the missfortune to drive.

PaulKK

groupb wrote: »

I think its the fact that vag fans think that they are the most reliable cars which drives car enthuasists mad as this is clearly not the case.

I don't tend to see people on here saying that their VW/Audi is the most reliable on the road, in fact, i'm sure 99.9% of people on here will suggest a toyota or something if you want pure reliability.

What most people will say is something like
"I love my A4/Passat/Bora/Golf, reliable, plenty of power and great fuel consumption!"

VW and Audi tend to be average for reliability, which these days, means its reliable. To be honest I can say I've never seen one broken down at the side of the road.

And since when does the average motorist need 150bhp+? The obsession with power that some people have on here is unbelievable!!

From another thread:

groupb wrote: »

Or you could swap it for a 1.9 diesel and you would't hear the wind noise above the din coming from under the bonnet.

Can't hear mine when cruising on the motorway buddy, get your facts right, its nearly silent when cruising.

groupb wrote: »

I've had an Audi and a vw as company cars and I could say hand on heart they were the worst cars I've ever had the missfortune to drive.

This maybe so, in YOUR opinion. I've driven cars I didnt like too, doesn't cause me to come on here consistently whinging about any particular brand.

There are many, many satisfied VW/Audi customers in the world that would beg to differ with your apparant superior car knowledge.

To be honest I see you posting in many threads with your frankly rediculous comments about VW, and I'm sure we'd all be much happier if you kept them to yourself if you have nothing useful to say.

By the way, I drive a 90bhp 1.9TDI passat. And I love it

HashSlinging

E92 have you ever kissed a BMW..

-Chris-

Just another point to note (and I'm saying this as a pro-VAG person rather than an anti-everythingbutVAG person), the diesel engine everyone's largely familiar with here is the 1.9TDi rather than the newer 2.0TDi engines.

I can't say how the newest 2.0TDis stack up against HDI, TDCI etc. etc., but I can say there's a world of difference between them and the 1.9TDi. The only reason the 1.9 still exists here is due to our prehistoric VRT legislation. I'd say after July you'll see very few 1.9TDis sold anymore.

E92

AudiChris wrote: »

I can't say how the newest 2.0TDis stack up against HDI, TDCI etc. etc., but I can say there's a world of difference between them and the 1.9TDi.

The 2.0 TDI PD is still noisy. Quieter than the 1.9, no doubt about that, but that wasn't difficult. The antiquated 1.9 TDI was quiet in it's day(and in fairness at speed under a light load it's not noisy), but that engine first came out in 1993! Dunno about the new common rail one though.

AudiChris wrote: »

The only reason the 1.9 still exists here is due to our prehistoric VRT legislation.

It exists in loads of other countries, where theres no VRT penalties for engine size too. And VAG just gave the 1.9 a new lease of life. The Golf, Passat, Superb, A3 all have an eco version on the way and what engine do they use? None other than an engine first seen in the Audi 80 all the way back in 1993, a whole 15 years ago! Ok, they have Pumpe Duese in it these days, but it's the same basic engine really apart from that.

These eco versions all get into lower VRT bands than the non eco versions with the newer 2.0 TDI.

AudiChris wrote: »

The only reason the 1.9 sold so well here is due to our prehistoric VRT legislation.

I think this is what you should have really said:)!

And it will continue to be extremely popular, because of what I said above.

tossy wrote:

My old 100pd golf remapped to 130 could easily and regularly put shame to my mates 320d.

320ds had 136 bhp initially, then 150 in 02, then 163 when the E90 3 series came out in 05, and they have 177 bhp for this model year.

So which 320d was it:)? I'd expect a 136 bhp one to lose in that situation allright.

HashSlinging

I wouldnt say vw will ever ditch the 1.9 Diesel, I dont know why they should, its a fantastic engine, BMW have their twin turbo 3.0's but they've also had issues with blown turbos on their older generation of cars.

Also VW have only some aspects of common rail implemented on their diesel engines, so I wouldnt go pontificating on about that, besides other manufactures have bought the 2.0Tdi engine and the DSG gearbox for their cars, so it must be good.

E92

HashSlinging wrote: »

other manufactures have bought the DSG gearbox for their cars

VAG didn't come up with DSG. BorgWarner created the design and VAG produce it under licence from them.

HashSlinging wrote: »

other manufactures have bought the 2.0Tdi engine

Morgen buy V8 engines from BMW. Noble buy V6 engines from Ford. Ariel buy i-VTEC engines from Honda. Lotus buy the VVTL-i engine from the Celica off Toyota. What's your point about the 2.0 TDI?

HashSlinging wrote: »

E92 have you ever kissed a BMW..

What I do, have done and will do in the future is quite frankly none of your business.

newmills

I know 3 lads who drove bmw 320d saloons. The turbo went on 2 of them at 60,000 and the 3rd one went at 66,000. One of them went back to bmw and asked for a goodwill gesture towards the repair. They paid 1600 and he paid 400 for the new turbo and fitting. The bmw mechanic told him it was a fairly common fault of blown turbos on the 320d's and always around 60,000 miles. The other 2 lads had good warranties and just gave their cars back and went for different models. I still think bmw make good engines but likewise Audi, Honda, Fiat etc. Horses for Courses

optiplexgx270

newmills wrote: »

I know 3 lads who drove bmw 320d saloons. The turbo went on 2 of them at 60,000 and the 3rd one went at 66,000. One of them went back to bmw and asked for a goodwill gesture towards the repair. They paid 1600 and he paid 400 for the new turbo and fitting. The bmw mechanic told him it was a fairly common fault of blown turbos on the 320d's and always around 60,000 miles. The other 2 lads had good warranties and just gave their cars back and went for different models. I still think bmw make good engines but likewise Audi, Honda, Fiat etc. Horses for Courses

That was a known problem in 00-01 (i think years might be off think it was the pre 150bhp unit) 320d's. but was fixed and isnt a problem any more.