Audi 2.0l tdi, 120bhp

VolvoMan

You'll be able to buy it in a few years time as a new generation SEAT Exeo, probably with the next generation diesel engines and a lot more equipment as well.

pburns

I just don't get why anyone would spend A4 money - a German executive saloon no less - and then skimp on putting a half decent engine in it. Actually I do know - they want to impress the neighbours and don't give a damn how the car drives. In comparison (AFAIK) the BMW 318d is 150bhp, the 320d 170ish.

Yeah it's better than a 90bhp 1.9TDI but that's like saying a kick in the arse is better than a knee in the nuts...

VolvoMan

pburns wrote: »

I just don't get why anyone would spend A4 money - a German executive saloon no less - and then skimp on putting a half decent engine in it. Actually I do know - they want to impress the neighbours and don't give a damn how the car drives. In comparison (AFAIK) the BMW 318d is 150bhp, the 320d 170ish.

Yeah it's better than a 90bhp 1.9TDI but that's like saying a kick in the arse is better than a knee in the nuts...

I have a feeling you're preaching to the converted here.

copacetic

pburns wrote: »

I just don't get why anyone would spend A4 money - a German executive saloon no less - and then skimp on putting a half decent engine in it. Actually I do know - they want to impress the neighbours and don't give a damn how the car drives. In comparison (AFAIK) the BMW 318d is 150bhp, the 320d 170ish.

Yeah it's better than a 90bhp 1.9TDI but that's like saying a kick in the arse is better than a knee in the nuts...

I'd agree with this, why on earth go for the 120? even the 140 is underpowered, the 170 should be the miniumum imo. Or save up a bit more and get the 211 2.0T.

0-62 in 11s is dog slow, no matter what torques you've got.

Kiera20

Thanks guys for all the replies. pburns I indicated from the get go that I didn't know a lot about the A4 or it's engines which was the whole reason for posting - to look for peoples opinions and the reason I'm interested in the A4 has absolutely nothing to do with trying to impress the neighbours.

teednab-el

Biro wrote: »

Doesn't matter. There's feck all between them,

I disagree. They would clock approx. the same top speed but the 1.9 would leave it for dead from 0 to 100km. There is a meaning to engine liters and sizes. There are not just digits.

teednab-el

copacetic wrote: »

I'd agree with this, why on earth go for the 120? even the 140 is underpowered, the 170 should be the miniumum imo. Or save up a bit more and get the 211 2.0T.

0-62 in 11s is dog slow, no matter what torques you've got.

Ye guys are very fussy. Most cars both petrol and diesel bought in Ireland are less than 140bhp, so what are you on about?

HashSlinging

The 120bhp has "around" the same amount of torque (per foot lb) as the 140bhp, in real terms its not going to be that noticeable on the road.

copacetic

teednab-el wrote: »

I disagree. They would clock approx. the same top speed but the 1.9 would leave it for dead from 0 to 100km. There is a meaning to engine liters and sizes. There are not just digits.

is this a joke or are you actually saying that .1l less engine capacity makes a car much faster?

VolvoMan

teednab-el wrote: »

Ye guys are very fussy. Most cars both petrol and diesel bought in Ireland are less than 140bhp, so what are you on about?

OK then. All cars VW Group cars badged TDI are absolute weapons, are you happy now?:D

EPM

teednab-el wrote: »

I disagree. They would clock approx. the same top speed but the 1.9 would leave it for dead from 0 to 100km. There is a meaning to engine liters and sizes. There are not just digits.

That's probably just the 1.9's all or nothing power delivery

teednab-el

copacetic wrote: »

is this a joke or are you actually saying that .1l less engine capacity makes a car much faster?

In this case we are talking about 0.3l of a difference.

teednab-el

VolvoMan wrote: »

OK then. All cars VW Group cars badged TDI are absolute weapons, are you happy now?:D

A diesel weapon for me is the Golf GT TDI.

EPM

teednab-el wrote: »

In this case we are talking about 0.3l of a difference.

The 120 brake is a 2 litre

teednab-el

EPM wrote: »

The 120 brake is a 2 litre

I know that, sorry I was going back to an earlier post where someone was saying that there was no difference between 1.6d (110hp)volvo and 1.9tdi audi(115hp).

bazz26

teednab-el wrote: »

I disagree. They would clock approx. the same top speed but the 1.9 would leave it for dead from 0 to 100km. There is a meaning to engine liters and sizes. There are not just digits.

teednab-el wrote: »

I know that, sorry I was going back to an earlier post where someone was saying that there was no difference between 1.6d (110hp)volvo and 1.9tdi audi(115hp).

Not a huge difference in the real world anyway:

2005 - 2008 A4 1.9 TDi (115bhp)
0 - 60: 10.8 sec,
top speed: 124 mph

2004 - 2009 Volvo S40 1.6d (110bhp)
0 - 60: 11.6 sec
top speed: 118 mph

Source: www.parkers.co.uk

Anyway this has gone OT.

teednab-el

bazz26 wrote: »

Not a huge difference in the real world anyway:

2005 - 2008 A4 1.9 TDi (115bhp)
0 - 60: 10.8 sec,
top speed: 124 mph

2004 - 2009 Volvo S40 1.6d (110bhp)
0 - 60: 11.6 sec
top speed: 118 mph

Source: www.parkers.co.uk

Anyway this has gone OT.

Note the 2000 model will do it in 10 secs. www.parkers.co.uk. Thats almost 2 secs. Bit of a difference there dude. The 1.9 will do 124mph more comfortly than what the 1.6d will do at 118mph.

Yeah your right lets get back on topic.

bazz26

teednab-el wrote: »

note the 2000 model will do it in 10 secs. Thats almost 2 secs. Bit of a difference there dude.

Yeah your right lets get back on topic.

The 2000 A4 model is a lighter car though, I'm sure a 2000 S40 would be that bit quicker too.

teednab-el

bazz26 wrote: »

The 2000 A4 model is a lighter car though, I'm sure a 2000 S40 would be that bit quicker too.

But there was no 1.6l diesel made for the 2000 version S40 am I correct?

Anyway, I dont want be banned from here so Im going back to the OP now, I honestly think the audi 2.0l (120BHP) car is a good buy.

VolvoMan

teednab-el wrote: »

But there was no 1.6l diesel made for the 2000 version S40 am I correct?

You are, although there was a 1.9 litre diesel available.