1.2 TSI vs. 1.6TDI - cost of running

Jesus.

MuppetCheck wrote: »

They are stronger in the middle range which is about as far as most cars are pushed therefore they seems nippier.

That's where torque comes in. I've seen people say that torque figures don't mean sh*t. But surely a car with more torque would perform better than a car with the same bhp but less torque?

I don't know anything about the technical nature of such things, all I know is the feel I get from a car. Good torque to me is the "pull" you get when you're cruising along the motorway and then hit the throttle to overtake. It feels effortless. In petrol cars I've driven, it feels like a lot more work when you do this, like you have to squeeze the sh*t out of them. BTW, I've only ever owned bog-standard average cars so I'm not talking about fast motors here.

I much prefer a diesel out on the Motorway to be honest.

vectra

MuppetCheck wrote: »

They are stronger in the middle range which is about as far as most cars are pushed therefore they seems nippier.

But this is then countered by lag below 2k revs and a lack of high end power compared to an equivalent petrol. In most it's all over by 4-4.5k revs whereas the petrol is only getting going then.

Definately all over if you get caught doing 4.5k on the motorway :P

Bye bye licence

corkgsxr

Problem is Ireland thinks 1.4 is a decent size petrol. And they are fairly gutless. And then compare that to a 2 litre diesel. Sur of course its going to have more go

Zubeneschamali

Jesus. wrote: »

But surely a car with more torque would perform better than a car with the same bhp but less torque?

All else being equal, yes. For the Golf you have:

1.2TSI 105bhp @5000 rpm, 175Nm @1550 rpm
1.6TDi 105bhp @3000 rpm, 250Nm @1500 rpm.

If you keep both engines between 1500-3000 rpm, the diesel will always have more power available and be quicker. If you don't mind dropping two gears and revving to the limiter, the petrol will keep up, but driven that way, it will drink petrol.

So for these two engines, I would say the diesel will be quicker in ordinary driving, it will feel more powerful unless you drive around in 2nd gear, and it will give much better mileage.

Of course, for all I know, the petrol might be much more fun to drive. All the reviews I've seen have said Fiat's little petrol turbo gets half the official mileage, but is an absolute hoot. The OP should really test drive them and see.

Jesus.

corkgsxr wrote: »

Problem is Ireland thinks 1.4 is a decent size petrol. And they are fairly gutless. And then compare that to a 2 litre diesel. Sur of course its going to have more go

But in my experience, the same size diesels are quicker!

corkgsxr

Jesus. wrote: »

But in my experience, the same size diesels are quicker!

Id disagree. Match them maybe but not faster

visual

Jesus. wrote: »

But in my experience, the same size diesels are quicker!

I notice this too.
Had a 120hp 1.9 laguna and when I looked up the spec it was faster 0-60 and higher top speed than its petrol counter part.
Also gave great mpg 48 at 120kph
Lowest I got was city rush hour 36mpg

If I drove like a granny 50+ was easily possible.

visual

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

All else being equal, yes. For the Golf you have:

1.2TSI 105bhp @5000 rpm, 175Nm @1550 rpm
1.6TDi 105bhp @3000 rpm, 250Nm @1500 rpm.

If you keep both engines between 1500-3000 rpm, the diesel will always have more power available and be quicker. If you don't mind dropping two gears and revving to the limiter, the petrol will keep up, but driven that way, it will drink petrol.

So for these two engines, I would say the diesel will be quicker in ordinary driving, it will feel more powerful unless you drive around in 2nd gear, and it will give much better mileage.

Of course, for all I know, the petrol might be much more fun to drive. All the reviews I've seen have said Fiat's little petrol turbo gets half the official mileage, but is an absolute hoot. The OP should really test drive them and see.

Quick web search
According to parkers the petrol is over 1sec slower 0 to 60 and has lower top speed.
Also sites have said the petrol is in mid 30s in real world and unable to live up to VW claimed 49mpg.

Stallingrad

My Passat 1.4 TSi gets 7l/100.
My previous Focus 2.0TDci was 6.7l/100.

Must say I am much happier with the refinement of the petrol over the slightly better economy and performance of the diesel.

Jesus.

corkgsxr wrote: »

Id disagree. Match them maybe but not faster

As a bloke said above, its probably just that they seem faster because the acceleration is much smoother whereas with the petrol, you have to tear the bollix out of it.

If you took the fact that the petrol guzzles fuel when you wring its neck out of the equation and focused entirely on performance, it would probably be about the same speed as the diesel. The petrol's tend to be NA whereas the diesels are turboed.

Zubeneschamali

visual wrote: »

According to parkers the petrol is over 1sec slower 0 to 60 and has lower top speed.

I think you may be looking at the 83 bhp model, the 105 is .5 second quicker to 100 km/hr with the same top speed.

Leonard Hofstadter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

All else being equal, yes. For the Golf you have:

1.2TSI 105bhp @5000 rpm, 175Nm @1550 rpm
1.6TDi 105bhp @3000 rpm, 250Nm @1500 rpm.

If you keep both engines between 1500-3000 rpm, the diesel will always have more power available and be quicker. If you don't mind dropping two gears and revving to the limiter, the petrol will keep up, but driven that way, it will drink petrol.

So for these two engines, I would say the diesel will be quicker in ordinary driving, it will feel more powerful unless you drive around in 2nd gear, and it will give much better mileage.

Of course, for all I know, the petrol might be much more fun to drive. All the reviews I've seen have said Fiat's little petrol turbo gets half the official mileage, but is an absolute hoot. The OP should really test drive them and see.

In a car the size of a Golf, a petrol could well be quicker than a diesel with the same power, the lighter weight of a petrol engine could be enough to make a difference.

The precise technical specs are the following:

petrol: 103 bhp (105 PS) @ 5000 rpm
129 lb ft @ 1550 - 4100 rpm

diesel: 103 bhp @ 3000 - 4000 rpm
184 lb ft @ 1500 - 2750 rpm

As it turns out, the petrol is quicker - the petrol does 0-100 in 10.2 seconds, compared to the diesel's 10.7. It weighs 85 kg less than the diesel, too.

I don't know what the 1.6 TDI 105 is like in a Golf, but it certainly struggles in a Passat - torque or not it is seriously short of oomph even at low revs (where it's supposed to be producing all of its 184 lb ft of torque), and there's no point whatsoever in going beyond 3000 rpm.

One thing I do know is that in reality, neither of the cars will achieve their quoted mpg figures.

Does anyone seriously believe that in the real world, a 1.2 TSI Golf will do 58 mpg? Because I don't. I'd say 45 mpg tops in reality. And as for the diesel, and its supposed 74 mpg, I don't believe that either. Maybe 55 mpg or even close to 60 mpg, but definitely no more. I recently drove a 1.6 TDI Passat that supposedly does 66 mpg, and the best I could manage was 50. Since the Golf is lighter (and probably somewhat less underpowered), I will give it the benefit of the doubt by saying up to 60, but frankly I'd be amazed if a 1.6 TDI Golf could do more than 60 mpg unless it's driven by a nun.