# Petrol or diesel



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

After looking at the choices available and the prices i cant decide which is better for me!
I do 52 miles a day for work and a diesel seems a good choice however 18k gets me a 13 plate roadster with 100
Miles on the clock.
If i stick to a tdi its a 60 plate with around 30k.
Anyone got any thoughts or real world driving in the 1.8 petrol or a tdi?
My route is a steady 50 for 26 miles.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, It looks as if you do the miles, although another diesel prob could be the DPF, unless you can keep the speed/revs up for long periods. Petrol would always be my choice.
Hoggy.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## the minty1 (Mar 27, 2011)

The new 211bhp petrol gets good mileage at 50mph it would do low to mid 40s. Diesels Im sure would do better, but still its not too shabby. Petrol

Oops just noticed its the 1.8 your talking about. I am guessing more mpg, slightly less poke


----------



## gvij (Jan 27, 2011)

Id say its 35 vs 48 mpg so do the sums on that. The diesel isn't very sporting though but not a bad machine.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

My racing days are over im afraid so economy is king.
Im going from a a clio diesel 65 mpg which costs about 120 a month in fuel.
So im looking at a 50 % increase in fuel bills.
I wonder whats the top figure on the 1.8 petrol and the tdi real world?
I am very light footed these days.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks to all of you for the advice im leaning towards a tdi just to keep the running costs down.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, Light footed means diesel DPF may block up & require replacing early in it's life, another expense to add to the cost of a diesel & DPF must be in place for future MOTs.
Hoggy.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

I do sometimes blast home on the m6 maybe twice a week so im not driving miss daisy just yet lol.
And now you have warned me about dpf i could avoid low revs all the time.
Its just down to value for money really and monthly running costs i think im getting tight in my old age of 46!
It would be an extra 60 quid a month on fuel over the tdi.
But on the other hand its a newer car with a warranty,


----------



## 90TJM (Sep 30, 2013)

I have a 1.8 coupe but only done 700 miles at present.I travel 18miles each way to work and get 40mpg on DIS if I take it easy.
I expect MPG will improve with use and warmer weather.As I only do about 10K a year plus extra cost of diesel the petrol was a cheaper option for me.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks 90 tjm so i recon its about 10 mpg less then the tdi.


----------



## Ridgmont61 (Dec 6, 2011)

With my tdi I can get up to 50mpg, but I have to admit that it is not the most inspiring drive. When pushed moderately hard on country roads 40ish mpg is more normal.

Test drive both and do the numbers. (I always use the official combined mpg - 10% which seems to match my real world driving).

It comes down to how much are you prepared to pay for a sweeter drive.

Bear in mind that the tdi will be Quattro which can be useful in winter.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

So you do around 15k a year on work mileage,even at a difference of 10 mpg that equates to approx £450 a year difference, petrol to derv.
So around a month or so's depreciation, not even worth considering in the overall scale of things IMO.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

In reality i do about 12 k a year due to taking company cars once in a while.
Ive done about 27k in my clio since feb2011.
Its a tough choice at least ive got until april/ may to decide and read the forums.
Also i think some good deals are coming as the mk3 is out soon.
Mmm decisions decisions.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

I had a choice and went for a another TDI engined car because they are smooth have lots of low down torque if i had hers remapped it would supprise a lot of people trust me it pulls hard from low revs - diesels have mega torque and are refined you will never convert some petrol heads and i am not interested in trying.

I would never buy a petrol car again i like the torque with no fuss- but hey thats me again I strongly advise try before you buy you are driving the thing.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

I totally agree tt220 my clio is the first diesel ive owned and its great,
1.5 tdi and it pulls way better then my 2l petrol did.
Diesels have come along way in 10 years,


----------



## phil3012 (Jul 25, 2008)

At that sort of speed you should get around 50 mpg, maybe a tad more.

DPF shouldn't cause any issues, older VAG cars with the PD engines had issues but the regeneration on the TT works very well. I've not heard of anyone ever having an issue with the CR engine on the TT and I believe it's only an issue if the car chugs round town all day, whereas a steady 50 is enough to burn the particulates off.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

50 mpg would be ideal for me.
Its just a shame the tdi costs so much more used then the petrol.


----------



## neil_audiTT (Sep 1, 2010)

A man, who buys a diesel TT - Keeps the keys for it in his vagina.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Slidebed said:


> 50 mpg would be ideal for me.
> Its just a shame the tdi costs so much more used then the petrol.


There is a message there - the TDi holds it's value much better. Another reason it costs more is it's quattro and that's a big positive. I ran a CBBB engined TDi for almost 100,000 miles in 2 years and the honest to goodness fuel economy was quite poor 42-48MPG. It was only after I had the car remapped and the DPF deleted that the economy really got better. The facelift cars with the CBBC engine are better (they changed something on the DPF regeneration system) and many people do report 50MPG but I reckon if you drive it as you would want to, you won't easily see 50MPG.

Have you asked about PCPing a new TDi rather than looking at a used one? There were some very good deals available in December and the excellent residuals mean the payments are usually a bit less than the equivalently priced petrol.

Definitely make sure you get a car with xenons - the difference is light is staggering!


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

The fact that you're considering a 1.8 means that you don't need quattro, in which case the TDi is over-specified. The 1.8 is significantly cheaper to buy than the TDi which is going to offset the better TDi economy to some extent. The other advantage of the 1.8 is that it's got a much lighter engine so the handling is better - and of course petrol engines always sound much better than oil-burners.

I bought a TDi because I want quattro, so I was comparing the TDi with the 2.0 TFSi. But if I hadn't needed quattro I would have bought the 1.8. Its fuel costs are not that far behind the TDi (when you take into account the extra cost of diesel) and it's going to be a better drive.


----------



## dg_1983 (Jul 14, 2006)

You are looking to purchase a TT, a Mk2 TT rather than a MK1, fairly new, and low mileage.

This tells me that you ain't exactly in the "budget" section of the car market.

Get the 211bhp petrol, remap it and never look back.

It might make a little more "sense" to buy the diesel - but god - you only live once.

**Warning - This is how I ended up with a TTS - but my god is it fun (well worth the extra £50 a month or whatever it is over the diesel)


----------



## Ridgmont61 (Dec 6, 2011)

dg_1983 said:


> You are looking to purchase a TT, a Mk2 TT rather than a MK1, fairly new, and low mileage.
> 
> This tells me that you ain't exactly in the "budget" section of the car market.
> 
> ...


Now what kind of convincing argument is that?........... - a damned good one!


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

dg_1983 said:


> You are looking to purchase a TT, a Mk2 TT rather than a MK1, fairly new, and low mileage.
> 
> This tells me that you ain't exactly in the "budget" section of the car market.
> 
> ...


Of course. If you're not bothered about doubling your fuel costs and halving your tank range then a TTS makes a lot of sense.

The problem is that the price of fuel is only going in one direction - as is VED. And the trade-in value of cars that cost a lot to tax and run is also only going in one direction.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks for all the advice everyone.
Ive got until the end of April to decide what to get.
A good case can be made for all of them really so il keep reading the forums.
I was set for a tdi until i saw a 13 plate 1.8 petrol for 18k
Which is my very upper end but for the sake of £1500 sounds tempting.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I worked out some figures out for my last car comparing a petrol and diesel model with equivalent specs and similar performance. Buying from new and using list prices, standard interest rates, the difference in resale values after 3 years (which was insignificant), manufacturer's fuel economy figures (optimistic I know) and the current fuel prices - I worked out that you would have to do *21,000 miles per year for 3 years just to break even on the additional costs of buying a diesel.*

As said above unless you want quattro then go for the 1.8 TFSI.


----------



## garytheobald (Nov 2, 2009)

Slidebed said:


> Thanks for all the advice everyone.
> Ive got until the end of April to decide what to get.
> A good case can be made for all of them really so il keep reading the forums.
> I was set for a tdi until i saw a 13 plate 1.8 petrol for 18k
> Which is my very upper end but for the sake of £1500 sounds tempting.


what spec and mileage was the 13 plate? Im looking at the minute and they all seem to be 20k plus?


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

It was a 1.8 roadster in white 3 k on the clock price was 18 something.
On saturday i found a pre reg 13 plate 100 miles same as above for 18k but its gone.
Also a sepang blue roadster 12 plate 10k i think on the clock for 15500 at a dealer down south.
There are deals around its just finding them is the hard bit.


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

ZephyR2 said:


> I worked out some figures out for my last car comparing a petrol and diesel model with equivalent specs and similar performance. Buying from new and using list prices, standard interest rates, the difference in resale values after 3 years (which was insignificant), manufacturer's fuel economy figures (optimistic I know) and the current fuel prices - I worked out that you would have to do *21,000 miles per year for 3 years just to break even on the additional costs of buying a diesel.*
> 
> As said above unless you want quattro then go for the 1.8 TFSI.


Not at all surprised I remember reading a similar article 2 or 3 years ago and the break even was as you say 63k miles regardless of time taken to achieve them.

I do like diesels and they have come on a very long way but if you don't do the miles it's not really the right choice.


----------



## jokskilove (Sep 10, 2013)

The best numbers reported on http://www.spritmonitor.de is 46 mpg for a 1.8 tfsi (over 30k miles) - 6 users reporting more than 40 mpg.

What I've done in the past is to compare my fuel consumption figures for a certain car with the numbers there and figure out how I rank compared to them - then project that onto my future car. Should give you a good indication  You'll have to do a little conversion to translate L/100km to mpg, but this page was very helpful - http://mpg.webix.co.uk/


----------



## phil3012 (Jul 25, 2008)

The best way is to do the sums yourself.

I saw similar articles to mentioned a few years ago and the analysis was flawed in some of them as it all depends on the model being compared. Depreciation is a large factor.

I'm on my second TDi, having owned one for over 5 years, coming from a Mk 2 Leon Cupra (2.0 TFSi with K04 turbo, so somewhere inbetween a TT petrol and TTS in engine specs). Fuel consumption felt like it halved (at the pumps), like for like journeys went from 32 mpg to 50 mpg.

Doing the sums over a TFSi TT saved something like £500 a year in fuel, but also take into account (over a 2.0 TT):

Cheaper road tax
Tyres last for ages (35K on my first TT and still had 3mm left when I changed them)
Servicing every 19K (not sure what the petrol is like these days to be fair)
Low depreciation

All these factors made my first TT a fairly cheap car to run.

Comparing the 1.8 TT vs the TDi isn't a like or like comparison 0-62 and top speed figures are only part of the story performance wise, you need to look at torque as well. Plus factor quattro into the equation.

If you purely base the 1.8 vs TDi choice on price alone, it will take a long time to take up the £4230 price tag difference. Even if you factor in quattro is worth about £1500, the extra its still a big gap. You need to ask yourself is the extra worth the performance?, but remember you will get more back at resale.

Compare the TDi with the newer 211 TFSi engine and you get great performance but at the cost of fuel consumption. Although the MPG figures quoted for the 211 are pretty respectable.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

ZephyR2 said:


> I worked out that you would have to do *21,000 miles per year for 3 years just to break even on the additional costs of buying a diesel.*


The diesel is only more expensive if you compare it with the 1.8, which has a lower specification (no Quattro for a start) and lower performance (as I've pointed out before, 0-60 times don't tell the real story). If you compare it with a similarly spec'ed 2.0 TFSi (which is fairer) it's about £500 cheaper.

But for someone who's not interested in Quattro the 1.8 makes a lot of sense. It's got good fuel consumption, decent performance and probably the best handling of all the TTs - probably the best ride too, unless you spec mag ride.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked out that you would have to do *21,000 miles per year for 3 years just to break even on the additional costs of buying a diesel.*
> ...


My figures were derived for my previous car the Scirocco. Since there are no comparable diesel and petrol models in the TT range we can't make any similar cost comparisons for the TT.
Its not really fair to compare the diesel to the 2.0 TFSI as there is far greater performance available to the 2.0 petrol and in the car world every ounce of additional performance comes at a premium price. Look at the price hikes between the 2.0 TFSI and the TTS and the TTRS - almost all due to the delivery of extra power.
All you say about the 1.8 is probably true but in the last few weeks on cold wet roads with summer tyres I'm starting to wish I had quattro.


----------



## FunkyMunky (Jul 6, 2011)

I do similar miles to you and went for petrol - to me you're not doing the miles each year to justify a diesel.

My 2.0TFSi 200ps comfortably does 35-37mpg on my commute if I go with the flow of the traffic. I had an A3 TDI 170 (borrowed in between selling one car and buying the TT) and on the same commute it was doing 10mpg more - same driving style, same traffic conditions etc. 1/3 country B roads, the rest bar a few miles dual carriageway.

That might help with judging economy and number crunching. Drive a petrol and see if you like it - on paper comparisons is one thing but I'm a firm believer in getting behind the wheel and seeing whether you like the power delivery and the engine itself.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

ZephyR2 said:


> Its not really fair to compare the diesel to the 2.0 TFSI as there is far greater performance available to the 2.0 petrol


The 2.0 TFSi certainly looks much faster on paper, but I've always been very dubious about 0-60 times and top speeds. They simply don't reflect how people drive on the road. The power delivery of the diesel means that it's more powerful at lower revs - which is what you tend to use most of the time. To get the TFSi to deliver its optimum performance you need to rev it much harder.


----------



## Senna916 (Dec 20, 2013)

Diesel definitely sensible for day to day city & suburban use, better mpg, plenty torque etc etc. Had a 335d BMW for three months, fast frugal etc but first thing in the morning & on a decent B road it sounded horrible & had no spark :lol: :lol: 
Also I hate the smell of diesel, down to personal choice I suppose. Never hear of people called diesel-heads do you?


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

We had a loan TFSI today while hers was in for a inspection i found you had to drop it down a few gears from 50-60 mph for it to pull however when you did and let it rev it did fly to be fair and the car did feel slightly lighter than ours to drive. This is very much personal taste but i prefer smooth lazy low down torque of the TDI and the feel of quattro i think its more refined when on the move and again if choose to have it mapped it would be different again, By the way we only had it this TFSI morning and the fuel guage dropped alot quicker than her my oil burner with the same sort of driving - fact.

Like its been said drive them all before you make your informed choice we did.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked out that you would have to do *21,000 miles per year for 3 years just to break even on the additional costs of buying a diesel.*
> ...


Not this shit again.

"My TDI will beat a TTRS to 30mph" bull. Yadda yadda yadda.

It's quite simple.

If costs to run are similar, it's gotta be a TFSI all day everyday.

Diesels are just so boring and dreary to drive. I'd rather have herpes than own a diesel.

Asking petrol or diesel is like saying, a holiday to the Caribbean, or a holiday to Afghanistan.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > Its not really fair to compare the diesel to the 2.0 TFSI as there is far greater performance available to the 2.0 petrol
> ...


You keep telling yourself that.

The 2.0tfsi isn't a v-tech Honda NA unit, so delusional


----------



## Senna916 (Dec 20, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ZephyR2 said:
> ...


+1 ALL DAY LONG :lol: :lol:


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

The big issue seems to be the price for me my first choice was the tdi due to the miles i do 280 a week .
However i can get a 13 plate 1.8 for around 18k.
Ive just found a 2.0 tfsi black edition roadster on a 12 plate for £17995 from a main dealer .
Or another 12 plate 10k on the clock for 18500.
It seems the tdi is 3 to 4 k more! :-|


----------



## Titan (Mar 5, 2009)

Can see the reason for getting the petrol over diesel,for the mileage that I do in the year it would be the best choice.

But here in Ireland the difference in the Tax Rates between the Tdi and and Tfsi is pretty big.

The Tdi is €280,Tfsi costs €570 and the Rs is €1200... :evil:

Plus the Quattro in the Tdi would be a great help out here in the sticks where the roads don't get salted too often


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Where is this thread going?

Its pointless asking this question due to the split in thought process between petrolheads and oil burner owners.

The bottom line is simple, you state you only do 12k a year, so any saving in fuel cost is absolutely minor in relation to the overall ownership package, so park that issue.

What do you want, 2wd or 4wd, performance or economy? Its a simple as that, the only BS here is about fuel saving costs, and at your mileage its a non issue.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Good post I agree with the above.

Why not just buy a 4wd 2.0tfsi?

Or just get a TTS


----------



## burTTy (Mar 11, 2012)

I've just bought a Tdi Quattro S-tronic I've had it just over a week now I have to say I'm very impressed with the overall performance it's certainly no slouch, having owned a petrol version of the same car admittedly the petrol was quicker off the mark but mid range I don't think there's much in it what I do know is 15mpg difference which is best part of a 30% betterment
I don't regret buying diesel..go for it!


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

SuperRS said:


> Asking petrol or diesel is like saying, a holiday to the Caribbean, or a holiday to Afghanistan.


You're liable to get shot in either location. A slightly more accurate analogy would be to say that it's like comparing apples and pears - they appeal to different people. I can see why a diesel wouldn't appeal to boy racers because the engine tops out at 4,500 rpm and sounds a bit gruff, but it's a different type of performance, SuperaRSe. It's called discreet. When you grow up you may understand. :wink:


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

CWM3 said:


> The bottom line is simple, you state you only do 12k a year, so any saving in fuel cost is absolutely minor in relation to the overall ownership package, so park that issue.


So basically you don't mind if, for example, your fuel costs go up by 20%? When the price of litre goes from 130p to 150p (which it will) it doesn't bother you? You just say to yourself that the costs of running the car are so great that it doesn't matter. Strange logic. The price of fuel is only going in one direction.

BTW, the main cost of running a car is depreciation and AutoExpress picked the TT TDi S-Tronic as having the lowest depreciation in the coupe class, so it saves on depreciation too.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

We don't drive everywhere flat out and race from every set of traffic lights we find enjoyment in simply driving the car getting the right spec car with the right wheels in the colour you want etc is surely part of the overall ownership enjoyment.

From a standing her TDI feels quick enough for me, midd range is great & mpg great - go drive them all spend your money on what you will enjoy - life's to short.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Asking petrol or diesel is like saying, a holiday to the Caribbean, or a holiday to Afghanistan.
> ...


A 2.0tdi has no performance. It's slow. I've shared the in-gear performance of the TDI vs the rest of the TT range and it's firmly rooted at the bottom of the pile.

As for getting shot, you need to brush up on your general knowledge. Some of the safest countries in the world are in the Caribbean.

What that has to do with my analogy of fun, sun and tropics in the Caribbean vs Taliban, suicide bombs and being surrounded by sand in Afghanistan, I do not know.

Ones shit, and the others not. A bit like when talking performance figures of the TDI vs the TFSI.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

This quote has been posted on this forum ................................... :lol:

Yup, will make a stock RS feel like a TDi in comparison.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

TT20TDI said:


> We don't drive everywhere flat out and race from every set of traffic lights we find enjoyment in simply driving the car getting the right spec car with the right wheels in the colour you want etc is surely part of the overall ownership enjoyment.
> 
> From a standing her TDI feels quick enough for me, midd range is great & mpg great - go drive them all spend your money on what you will enjoy - life's to short.


You hit the nail on the head.

LIFE IS SHORT!!!!!!!

Too short to be a boring old fart driving a TDI.

Get some fire in your belly, regain that sparkle you had in your eye as a young man. Your wife will thank you for it.

We are here for a good time, not a long time. Make the most of it!


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## riano (Jul 2, 2013)

After my last mercedes with a petrol engine I swore I'd never own a petrol car again. I detest having to rev the engine hard to get power/torque and the lack of mpg that comes with it.

People complain about the TDI,but its a great compromise between performance and economy, and hook up a DTUK tuning box and you can get 210-220 bhp which will more than match the TFSI without having the rev the nuts off it.

Also people who moan about the diesel being so understeery due to the extra weight.....its about a 30kg difference, I'm sure some heavier forumers weight more than 30kg more than some of the lighter ones so I think this argument is a bit redundant :lol:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Considering the TFSI has peak torque from like 2500rpm I don't know why TDI owners keep spouting this shite of "having to rev the nuts off them".

Hell my last 2.0tfsi had 360bhp and 340lbft of torque from the 2k region. Somehow I don't think I needed to rev the shit out of it to make progress


----------



## phil3012 (Jul 25, 2008)

I went from a 240 PS Petrol Leon Cupra, to my first TT TDi and although I miss the performance from time to time, found that quite often I couldn't use it and things are just getting worse as the years go on.

My car spends a lot of its time chugging up and down the motorway, usually on quite busy roads. Which I may as well do at 50 mpg than 30.

Also it started to become annoying that if I wanted to use the car to say do Leeds to Birmingham (240 miles) in a day and Leeds to Manchester the next day (100 miles), I'd need to fill up in-between, which by time I'd gone out of my way to find a Shell garage, added another 30 mins onto my return journey.

A wasted half an hour, whereas at least now I can fill up when convenient and have much more choice.

Different cars suit different peoples circumstances better. I'd love an RS but not really practical at the moment.


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

So many different opinions and views all valid and interesting reading!
Well ive worked out it horses for courses really..
Im one of these people who likes to pay up front and keep my monthly outgoings low so the diesel makes sense from that point of view.
But i will drive both starting with the 1.8 petrol today then try try a diesel near the nearer the time to buy.
Ive never owned a four wheel drive so im looking forward to trying that although ive managed without it up to now.
I think for me it will come done to the best overall deal i can get at the time maybe i can find someone desperate to sell and get a bargain! Im going to sell mine soon and hire a fiesta or similar just to have the cash in my pocket and bargaining power.
Only 4 paydays left until i can get my TT cant wait!im sure il be happy with any of them there all great.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Hope you've managed to find some useful information in this thread in between all the internal wranglings that have been posted as well. Most people prefer the car they already have (which is why they bought it) and will argue in favour of it and it can be hard to get an impartial piece of advice.
Ultimately you've got to decide, taking all factors in to account, however I wouldn't let you're decision be based solely on the best deal you can get. You should be looking for the best deal on the motor that you really want. You're going to have too live with that car for the next few years.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> So basically you don't mind if, for example, your fuel costs go up by 20%? When the price of litre goes from 130p to 150p (which it will) it doesn't bother you? You just say to yourself that the costs of running the car are so great that it doesn't matter. Strange logic. The price of fuel is only going in one direction.
> 
> BTW, the main cost of running a car is depreciation and AutoExpress picked the TT TDi S-Tronic as having the lowest depreciation in the coupe class, so it saves on depreciation too.


PR, you've hit the nail on he head buddy, I don't give a monkeys that I pay 20% more for better performance, better handling, and a better driving experience, thats what my 20% plus greater depreciation gives me. No one likes high fuel prices, but they are here to stay, hate to be laying in my box, wishing i had spent another few hundred quid, getting the better driving experience.

If I did have to worry about it, then I would go get a oil burner I guess, but the wife has got a 3 litre high power oil burner sitting on he drive, and I only use it when I goto the dump, it just leaves me cold.

TBH mate, if every time i jumped in the car, fuel economy was on my mind, I would cycle more often, thats the cheapest way after walking to get around.

You pays your money and makes your choice, simple as that.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Dont jump to the conclusion that owning a TDI is just about MPG i would guess for many it isn't and i am one off them, If i want a RS i will buy one cash on monday.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

TT20TDI said:


> Dont jump to the conclusion that owning a TDI is just about MPG i would guess for many it isn't and i am one off them, If i want a RS i will buy one cash on monday.


Please educate me then, as to why you choose a diesel TT sports coupe over a TTS or RS, as I am obviously missing the point somewhere.


----------



## MJ05LLY (May 23, 2011)

I test drove a manual TDi and TTS
I really enjoyed the drive of the TDi but its abit clouding as the early torque gave the impression the car was quicker than it was, where was the TTS was just constant power but didn't seem to have that initial rush of torque all at once like the TDi

TDi was great if you didn't want to take the car higher than 4k as its torque was gone and it was flat. If you like a spirited drive then there is no comparison a petrol engine all day for me. The last thing that put me off a TDi was the fact I hardly do any miles so it just did not have that payback for me.

Fuel prices are what they are. I didn't buy a TT to sit there and think about them. They will only ever go up so may aswell get value for money in smiles with your fuel.

Just my 2p worth.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

TT20TDI said:


> Dont jump to the conclusion that owning a TDI is just about MPG i would guess for many it isn't and i am one off them, If i want a RS i will buy one cash on monday.


So why do you own a boring TDI and a taxi driver/hearse Audi a4 then money bags. Both cars are boring as sin. Why not use the money to put some excitement on your drive.

You can't take that cash with you if you die of a stroke or get mowed down as you walk the pavement so what's the point?


----------



## Slidebed (Dec 3, 2013)

Well just back from my test drive it the tsi 1.8 and it was great! It cornered well and quick enough from me.
Its must have been a very basic model cloth seats not half and half ect so its s line for me.
I will find a diesel to test and then decide which way to go.
Ive enjoyed reading all the comments and agree with all of them it just depends on what your prepared to pay for your kicks.
Im lucky enough to drive top end cars everyday as i work for a Mclaren dealer but when its my own money my sensible head must have a say and its says il be happy with either car coming from a clio diesel worth 5 k to a TT roadster worth about 17k
I totally agree with the you only live once attitude and try to live it to the full which means if i want big holidays every year and a few quid in my pocket i need to get the best deal at the time so limiting depreciation.I've done it a few times over the years scouring the net everyday cash in pocket just waiting for the right car at the right price.on 2 occasions ive got my money back when ive sold it after 2 or 3 years.its just a case of being flexible and patient.


----------



## tortoise99 (Dec 26, 2005)

CWM3 said:


> TT20TDI said:
> 
> 
> > Dont jump to the conclusion that owning a TDI is just about MPG i would guess for many it isn't and i am one off them, If i want a RS i will buy one cash on monday.
> ...


CWM3, I imagine he's not one of those morons that spends all their spare cash on a car?


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

No one said he should....

Having a fun car need not be expensive. And lookin at what he owns, he's spent considerably coin on two expensive but boring cars anyway.


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

Great to see you back on form.

Disappointed you haven't mentioned the V6 yet.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

moro anis said:


> Great to see you back on form.
> 
> Disappointed you haven't mentioned the V6 yet.


Haha I've been behaving myself, but then when a certain delusional TDI owners starts spouting his TDI fastest to 30mph rubbish, and this "have to rev the nuts off the TFSI" shite I couldn't help myself.

The funniest thing is, if these TDI owners posted this stuff on somewhere like piston heads they would get absolutely roasted.

Diesels owners are well known to think their cars are faster than they actually are just because of a bit of low down torque. All the ingear times etc prove different.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

tortoise99 said:


> CWM3 said:
> 
> 
> > TT20TDI said:
> ...


Hmmmm strange comment tortoise, there is an awfully huge number of car fanatics out there who spend all their spare cash pursuing their hobby and enjoying every minute of it, personally I call them petrolheads not morons, perhaps we have just unlocked the difference between a petrol and a diesel owner.


----------



## MrDrums (Jan 2, 2014)

Diesel or Petrol. Pick a car, buy it, enjoy it, sell it & then start again.

Why the hate on both sides, both petrol and diesel both have their pros and cons, to each their own.

At the end of the day you are buying a TT. Could be worse, you could be buying a prius, now that's something to get your head around.

Enjoy the car fella, whatever you end up buying.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

MrDrums said:


> Why the hate on both sides, both petrol and diesel both have their pros and cons, to each their own.


Unfortunately some posters just cannot be polite, or simply not contribute. And the moderators tolerate appalling behaviour so the forum continues to be a horrible place to spend any time at all.

I suppose if you consider the general consensus of opinion that most Audi driver's are cocks you can see that coming out on these very forums.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

SuperRS said:


> Considering the TFSI has peak torque from like 2500rpm I don't know why TDI owners keep spouting this shite of "having to rev the nuts off them".
> 
> Hell my last 2.0tfsi had 360bhp and 340lbft of torque from the 2k region. Somehow I don't think I needed to rev the shit out of it to make progress


I don't believe your figures. One of the problems with turbo-charging the shit out of little 4-pots is that you lose power low down the range - hence all the comments you'll find on this forum about the TTS being slow off the mark relative to lower spec models. As I've explained before this doesn't really spoil its 0-62mph figures because these figures are taken by using pretty brutal driving techniques - which people wouldn't use in normal driving.

You see, your 360hp TFSi would never leave a TDi behind on a public road - no way. Unless you decided to completely ignore all the speed limits. These highly tuned engines only go faster when used on a race track - and the reason for this is that, on a race track, you can keep the engine "on the boil". The trouble with road driving is that you can't do this. You spend a lot of your time accelerating from relatively low speeds, which is where the TDi excels.

It's basically down to what I tried to explain to you before about "how fast a car is" being dependent on how much ground it covers in a period of time - not it's final velocity after that period of time. That's what matters on the road. I'm afraid that the bottom line is that, when it comes to getting from A to B on a road, how quickly you get there depends on how much you're prepared to ignore the speed limits. A TTRS won't beat a TT TDi - or a Mini Cooper for that matter.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

My god you ignorant. Look, a TDI will never beat a 2.0tfsi with ingear acceleration or launching off the lights. You obviously have never driven a fast 2.0tfsi with all your bullshit about keeping the "turbo on boil". wtf that's only applicable to 900hp 2 litre monsters. Hell my 650-700hp TTRS has max boost in the 3k region, so it pretty much drives like a standard car around town.

I've already proved that with figures, the TDI is considerably slower, yet you choose to ignore the facts.

And here are some dyno sheets of the 2.0tfsi as fitted to the TTS.

Some modded, some stock vs modded.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> I don't believe your figures. One of the problems with turbo-charging the shit out of little 4-pots is that you lose power low down the range - hence all the comments you'll find on this forum about the TTS being slow off the mark relative to lower spec models. As I've explained before this doesn't really spoil its 0-62mph figures because these figures are taken by using pretty brutal driving techniques - which people wouldn't use in normal driving.


Sorry PR, but this does not stack up in the real world my friend, having owned both a 2.0 TFSI TT and a TTS, I can vouch that without using 'brutal techniques', the TTS is quicker from a standing start to any number you can aim a 2.0 at.

This whole fog around a TTS having a massive hole in its power delivery is largely perpetuated, in many cases, by people who have never driven/lived with one, and then posting on forums, where more gullible people read it and re transmit it etc etc.

Sure dump your foot down in 6th gear at 1500 rpm, it will feel sluggish, learn how to drive properly and its a non issue day in, day out.

Every major manufacturer is going to 3 and 4 pot small capacity turbo and twin turbo engines, and the above is just not fact around losing power low down.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Geezus we've had some BS threads on this board but this takes the cake! I get knobheads in diesels on my back bumper all the while tailgating to the point of being dangerous. At the lights I'll blat away to the prevailing limit opening up a huge gap and cruise at that speed, hoping to get them off my arse more than anything but also to try and get it through their thick heads that they've no chance whatsoever. There's no way they can ever catch up without exceeding the limit but of course they do, flogging the bollocks of the oil burner until they'e on your back bumper again, convinced they're keeping up.

Get a diesel if it makes sense to you for whatever reason,nothing wrong with that, but please stop this delusional bullshit or get together, put your money where your mouth is and post the results here.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Remapped Audi TT 2.0 TDI dyno sheet.

Nothing until 2500rpm, then a massive shove in the back, and then the power drops off the cliff.

So the 2.0tfsi makes the same sorta torque a few hundred rpm later but it holds power so so much better and yet pale rider believes a TDI is quicker. LMAO


----------



## OllieTT (Aug 22, 2013)

Yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad so there 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

I could very well be wrong, and I'm sure someone will jump all over me if I am, but that last power curve shows the TDI making maximum torque at 2500rpm and maximum power at 4500rpm, after which power drops from 220bhp to about 205bhp, so hardly off a cliff.

The problem with TDI and 0-60 times is the short rev range means you always need an extra gear change. A 211PS TDi will always be slower than a 211PS petrol car in any 0-60 or 0-100 race because it needs more gear changes. And there is really very little that can ever be done about that, even with S-tronic.

That said, I reckon I prefer the shove from a torquey TDi engine over a buzzy petrol one.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

It's the initial shove which makes TDI owners think their car is a lot quicker than it actually is.

The 2.0tfsi gives a low down shove, but unlike the TDI you then have a nice wave of torque you can ride throughout the rev range.

Or coming on and off the accelerator gives a nice shove everytime. When driving enthusiastically the GF would always complain on neck ache after 5 mins, I thought she was a softie, but then when my mate took me out in his once I can understand it now. A TDI can't do that lol


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

So let's compare these dynos.

At 2500rpm the diesel has peak torque of 320lbft and 150bhp. At that same RPM the TFSI has 280lbft and 130bhp.

At 3000rpm the diesel has 300lbft torque with 180bhp. The TFSI has 360lbft and 220bhp.

So at 3000rpm the petrol has already overcome the diesel. Let's carry on.

At 4000rpm the diesel has 270lbft and 210bhp. The petrol at 4k is still about 360lbft and 280bhp.

At 4500rpm the TDI has 255lbft of torque and 220bhp. It's lost 70lbft of torque over 2000rpm

The petrol at 4.5k is surprise surprise still at 360lbft or torque and 350bhp. So whilst the diesel has steadily dropped off torque since hitting its 2500rpm peak, the 2.0tfsi has held its torque for 1500rpm. Infact it's not until 5000rpm that the petrol starts to lose torque. But at that changeover point the petrol then enjoys a steady and constant 350bhp to the redline.

And you diesel owners think you have a quick car. Lmao.


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

wja96 said:


> MrDrums said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hate on both sides, both petrol and diesel both have their pros and cons, to each their own.
> ...


Well said


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

igotone said:


> Geezus we've had some BS threads on this board but this takes the cake! I get knobheads in diesels on my back bumper all the while tailgating to the point of being dangerous. At the lights I'll blat away to the prevailing limit opening up a huge gap and cruise at that speed


The only place that you'll open up a "huge gap" from a Tdi is on the motorway - say, after an enforced limit. The trouble is that this "huge gap" is mainly down to the fact that you got on the throttle first - it often fools "knobheads" into thinking their car is faster than it is.

Basically, even if the time difference between two cars remains the same (i.e. they're accelerating at exactly the same rate) the _distance _ between the two cars increases in proportion to their speed. You think you're leaving them behind but you're not. It's simple physics. As soon as you slow down at the next holdup they'll be back on your back bumper.

If anyone seriously thinks that a TTRS is a quicker way of getting from A to B than a TT TDi, then they need their head examining. It's quicker on a track - NOT on the road.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

I've got enough videos on my phone to suggest otherwise :lol:


----------



## Bouncedout (Jun 2, 2013)

Oh come on PR you're making this up. 

In my world, if I accelerate flat out and my car pulls away from another car that is also accelerating flat out then my car is faster than the other car. According to you this will only happen if I get on the throttle faster than the chap in the other car. Do you really believe that?

Getting on the throttle first obviously determines who gets the best start but that is all.

What if me and the other chap get on the throttle at exactly the same time?

What if the chap in the other car gets on the throttle first and I then pass him 2 seconds later and continue to pull away. Is his car still as fast as mine or is there some other reason why it happened?

I'm not slagging off any kind of TT but a dose of reality is needed


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Especially when one car does 0-100mph in 5.x secs and the TDI takes 13-14 secs. In my world, that's being left behind.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> The only place that you'll open up a "huge gap" from a Tdi is on the motorway - say, after an enforced limit. The trouble is that this "huge gap" is mainly down to the fact that you got on the throttle first - it often fools "knobheads" into thinking their car is faster than it is.


No - the result would be exactly the same, minus the length of a TT in the gap opened up, if we started side by side and both got on the throttle at the same time.


> Basically, even if the time difference between two cars remains the same (i.e. they're accelerating at exactly the same rate) the _distance _ between the two cars increases in proportion to their speed. You think you're leaving them behind but you're not.


This is hard work. Read what I wrote - I've accelerated to 30 mph and I'm cruising at that speed. Given that you'll still be accelerating to 30mph after I've reached 30 mph, then the gap will be closing somewhat. Once you reach 30 mph and assuming we'r'e both being good lads and not exceeding the limit there will be a quite considerable gap which will never get any less unless you speed up or I slow down.



> It's simple physics. As soon as you slow down at the next holdup they'll be back on your back bumper


Ah gotcha! So if I slow down, you catch up. Even I can grasp those physics. :lol:


> If anyone seriously thinks that a TTRS is a quicker way of getting from A to B than a TT TDi, then they need their head examining. It's quicker on a track - NOT on the road.


There's only one person here who needs their head examined, get real - it's quicker anywhere !


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

3 words: Smiles. Per. Gallon.

Driving within the law (which of course we all do :roll: ) A super car will do a short journey in 29 minutes, a Prius will do it in 30. But are we going to sit here and say that a TDi is as fast as an RS because of our 70mph speed limit? We might as well all hang up our boots and go and buy a nissan leaf.

It'll all be irrelevant in a couple of years when we have 70mph average speed checks on all motorways & A roads :twisted:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

jjosh said:


> It'll all be irrelevant in a couple of years when we have 70mph average speed checks on all motorways & A roads :twisted:


They are actually considering raising the motorway limit to 80 mph.


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Would be a good start. I used to live in Germany, on the unrestricted sections of the Autobahns it was fantastic, very safe yet quick driving. Certainly much better lane discipline than we have here. You won't be a middle lane hogger for long when you have cars doing 150mph+ regularly coming up behind you! I've been doing a fair few motorway miles this month and the ignorance of many road users is quite staggering.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Average speed costs too much to implement and is too effective which therefore doesn't make any real revenue and why we will never see it used wide scale other than for roadworks


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

jjosh said:


> Would be a good start. I used to live in Germany, on the unrestricted sections of the Autobahns it was fantastic, very safe yet quick driving. Certainly much better lane discipline than we have here. You won't be a middle lane hogger for long when you have cars doing 150mph+ regularly coming up behind you! I've been doing a fair few motorway miles this month and the ignorance of many road users is quite staggering.


I'd dearly love to see the speed limit on motorways raised considerably, but you put your finger on the problem - our lane discipline in the UK is crap, we have too many seriously dangerous drivers, even at 70 mph, which is why the gov't are dragging their feet over raising the limit to 80 mph. The recent lane discipline laws are an attempt to address the issue before raising the limit, but I think we're pretty much a hopeless case - too many ingrained bad habits.


----------



## riano (Jul 2, 2013)

Any idea why Audi don't put the 3 litre Biturbo TDI 313 PS engine in the TT? It'd be faster than a TTS yet still do over 40mpg, surely that would be the best compromise all round?


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

igotone said:


> jjosh said:
> 
> 
> > Would be a good start. I used to live in Germany, on the unrestricted sections of the Autobahns it was fantastic, very safe yet quick driving. Certainly much better lane discipline than we have here. You won't be a middle lane hogger for long when you have cars doing 150mph+ regularly coming up behind you! I've been doing a fair few motorway miles this month and the ignorance of many road users is quite staggering.
> ...


Best one was on the M6 toll, completely empty with a car doing 65 in the middle lane, I indicated right, without moving right, hoping they'd realise they should be on the inside lane. They moved over and as soon as I'd passed they indicated and moved back to the middle lane!

I can only assume this driver felt they needed at least a lane either side of them to keep clear of the grassy mound and central reservation!?! God help us. :?


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

riano said:


> Any idea why Audi don't put the 3 litre Biturbo TDI 313 PS engine in the TT? It'd be faster than a TTS yet still do over 40mpg, surely that would be the best compromise all round?


+1

Could space be an issue?


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

riano said:


> Any idea why Audi don't put the 3 litre Biturbo TDI 313 PS engine in the TT? It'd be faster than a TTS yet still do over 40mpg, surely that would be the best compromise all round?


LOL- the one out of the SQ5 V6 Turbo you mean? I dunno but I'm guessing it's a heavy lump you wouldn't want up front in a TT. Audi know their customer base and not everyone wants a diesel of any description. :wink:


----------



## 90TJM (Sep 30, 2013)

I live near the M4 and outside peak times lane 1 is often empty but its hard to do more than 60 in lane 3.Lane hogging has got worse in recent years maybe cruise control and fuel costs are a factor.


----------



## riano (Jul 2, 2013)

Its the engine available in the current A6. My dad got one a few months ago and its an absolute beast of an engine, drags the A6 from 0-60 in 5.2 so sub 5 in a TT. I'd definitely buy one if it existed!


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

igotone said:


> riano said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea why Audi don't put the 3 litre Biturbo TDI 313 PS engine in the TT? It'd be faster than a TTS yet still do over 40mpg, surely that would be the best compromise all round?
> ...


It's gonna be the same engine as in the SQ5 V6 twin turbo. If I was after a SUV I'd go for it - the SQ5 is good for 0-60 in 5 secs apparently and it's a big wagon. I could be tempted perhaps, but not in a sports car.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

igotone said:


> LOL- the one out of the SQ5 V6 Turbo you mean? I dunno but I'm guessing it's a heavy lump you wouldn't want up front in a TT. Audi know their customer base and not everyone wants a diesel of any description. :wink:


I think Audi do know their customer base. 42% of TTs sold last year were diesel and Audi's decision to put a Diesel engine in the TT is widely credited with reinvigorating sales in the coupe sector. I think it's fair to say not everyone wants a diesel, but clearly a lot of people do.

Now, I can sort of understand SuperRS as he patently has deep-seated problems playing nicely with others that don't bode well for him in the real world, but the rest of us really ought to grow up and move on.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

wja96 said:


> Now, I can sort of understand SuperRS as he patently has deep-seated problems playing nicely with others that don't bode well for him in the real world, but the rest of us really ought to grow up and move on.


Erm .. I'm all growed up thank you very much, and I really don't have any problems with people choosing a diesel, it's their choice and good luck to them. What I do object to is this inverse snobbery exhibited by many TT diesel drivers, where they assert their diesel is as quick as a TTS or TTRS, and they made the better choice - in many cases while fitting TTS or TTRS Body kits of course.

I really don't give a toss what people choose to drive, but I don't see any reason not to challenge the plainly ludicrous assertions of Pale Rider.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

I find it funny these TDI v petrol.

My son has a TDI and he does around 500 miles a week 90% on A roads or motorways. IMO his TDI is perfect for him, he drives a S-Line with load of extras and sticks his cruise control on a lot. 60-65 mph around 58 mpg, 70+ mpg= 50-52 mpg. 
Is it as fast as mine, no, does it sound great,no, does it look just as good, yes, does it do amazing mpg, yes. Perfect for him and so is my petrol for my needs.

Nothing wrong with TDI and nothing wrong with petrol. Why is it so hard for some to see and if Audi say 42% of sales of TT are diesel then I sure can see why they make them. No point in them just making RS's as there are only 900 in the UK. The TT would not last long with 900 sales.

Any chance we could all get along no matter what model we drive? Don't we all drive a TT, each to there own flavour.

Don't even read SuperRS's posts unless you have a TTS chipped or a RS.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Nyxx said:


> I find it funny these TDI v petrol.
> 
> My son has a TDI and he does around 500 miles a week 90% on A roads or motorways. IMO his TDI is perfect for him, he drives a S-Line with load of extras and sticks his cruise control on a lot. 60-65 mph around 58 mpg, 70+ mpg= 50-52 mpg.
> Is it as fast as mine, no, does it sound great,no, does it look just as good, yes, does it do amazing mpg, yes. Perfect for him and so is my petrol for my needs.
> ...


Couldn't agree more with that actually.


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

I've read all this and enjoyed it but kept fairly quiet. The only thing I'll say is having a TTS I've never noticed this turbo myth either.

Whether it was a characteristic of earlier models I don't know but mine's f quick in either D, S or M and not much has beaten it unless it either had more grunt, a braver driver and or perhaps better handling - an M3 V8 Competition springs to mind. I've even kept up with different Exiges, ok they may make an initial gap but it only increases slightly if at all.


----------



## BarrieB (Aug 24, 2011)

Let's hope that Audi don't offer an electric or hybrid version at some stage, otherwise the squabbling and puerile comments will take on an added dimension.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

moro anis said:


> ......... I've even kept up with different Exiges, ok they may make an initial gap but it only increases slightly if at all.


LOL Must have been a diesel :lol:


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

moro anis said:


> I've read all this and enjoyed it but kept fairly quiet.


Honestly? You enjoy reading people bickering about NOTHING?



moro anis said:


> The only thing I'll say is having a TTS I've never noticed this turbo myth either.
> 
> Whether it was a characteristic of earlier models I don't know but mine's f quick in either D, s or M


Try the manual gearbox car. All the big-turbo 2.0l VAG petrol engines (Golf R, Cupra R, S3) have fairly epic turbo lag. The answer (obviously) is to drive it properly and drop it down 1 or 2 gears before accelerating. If you're lazy (which let's face it, most folks are) and you don't drop a gear then you can find yourself waiting a moment or two before the turbo spools up and you get thrown forward by the big oomph. I quite liked it actually.

The S-tronic obviously doesn't have that problem because it downshifts appropriately for you.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

igotone said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The only place that you'll open up a "huge gap" from a Tdi is on the motorway - say, after an enforced limit. The trouble is that this "huge gap" is mainly down to the fact that you got on the throttle first - it often fools "knobheads" into thinking their car is faster than it is.
> ...


Imagine you have two cars - one following the other, say, 20 feet behind at 10mph. They both have identical acceleration characteristics and they both hit the throttle at the same time. They carry on accelerating until they reach 70mph. At this point the trailing car is now 140 feet behind. Elementary Newtonian physics.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

igotone said:


> Erm .. I'm all growed up thank you very much, and I really don't have any problems with people choosing a diesel, it's their choice and good luck to them. What I do object to is this inverse snobbery exhibited by many TT diesel drivers, where they assert their diesel is as quick as a TTS or TTRS, and they made the better choice - in many cases while fitting TTS or TTRS Body kits of course.
> 
> I really don't give a toss what people choose to drive, but I don't see any reason not to challenge the plainly ludicrous assertions of Pale Rider.


I haven't said that a TDi is as "quick as a TTS or TTRS". You simply haven't understood the point I'm making because you have a shaky grasp of physics. And I have no idea what you're calling "inverse snobbery".

My argument is that a) the TDi has more low down power than a TTS which means it's quicker off the mark and b) that it's no slower than a TTS for road purposes because - in most cases - the speed that you can go at on the road is limited by either speed limits or safety considerations. You may disagree with these statements but they're reasonably accurate.

Diesels have a different power delivery from petrol engines - as anyone who has driven one knows - and it works better in the road environment where there's a lot of acceleration from low rpm. Like I have pointed out, it's the shape of the acceleration graph - not the time to 60mph that's important on the road. On a track the petrol engine will win, of course, but that's not the point.

I worked out a long time ago that more than about 200bhp in a road car is fairly useless - you won't get anywhere any quicker.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

EDIT:
never mind


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> My argument is that a) the TDi has more low down power than a TTS which means it's quicker off the mark and b) that it's no slower than a TTS for road purposes because - in most cases - the speed that you can go at on the road is limited by either speed limits or safety considerations. You may disagree with these statements but they're reasonably accurate.


Audi's own figures refute your claims...

0-62 times respectively...

TT 2.0 TDI 7.5 seconds.

TT 2.0 TFSI 6.2 seconds (Quattro 5.7 secs)

TTS 5.2 seconds.

S-tronic versions will be a bit quicker in each case.

Anyway, happy new year to you, I have better things to do than argue the blindingly obvious. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

Nyxx said:


> EDIT:
> never mind


 :lol:


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

ZephyR2 said:


> moro anis said:
> 
> 
> > ......... I've even kept up with different Exiges, ok they may make an initial gap but it only increases slightly if at all.
> ...


 :lol:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

wja96 said:


> moro anis said:
> 
> 
> > I've read all this and enjoyed it but kept fairly quiet.
> ...


Near peak torque in the 2000rpm range is epic lag..... Right :roll:

If the 2.0tfsi has turbo lag, do does the 2.0tdi, has it has no power at all until 2500rpm


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

It's not really the bickering about nothing but the fact that several people tend to get involved and put their viewpoint that makes it interesting. [smiley=argue.gif]

Personally I don't mind whatever anyone drives. It's their choice and their opinion of what floats their boat.

I can say this because a TTS is faster than a diesel, better than a V6 and doesn't having the willy waving stigma of all those inadequate RS drivers as many keep saying (or versions thereof depending on what you own).
[smiley=gossip.gif] :lol:


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

Pale Rider said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...


Your elementary physics is incorrect.

Both cars start with the same initial velocity and accelerate at the same rate until they reach the same final velocity.

In the equation V = u +at

V is final velocity
u is initial velocity
a is acceleration
t is time

We are given that V, u and a are the same for each car, therefore t must be the same also.

Using the equation S = ut + 0.5*at^2

S is distance
u is initial velocity
a is acceleration
t is time

u, a and t are the same value for each car,

Hence S must be the same for each car.

Therefore when both cars reach 70mph they have each travelled the same distance and so following car is still 20 feet behind the first car.

However if both cars started accelerating *at the same point on the road* then the first car would start accelerating 1.3636 seconds before the second car which remains travelling at 10mph for that time.
The gap built up during that 1.3636 seconds would then still exist when both cars reach 70mph.


----------



## OllieTT (Aug 22, 2013)

All this dick waving is going to have someone's eye out.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerB (Dec 16, 2012)

The simple answer with no dickwaving ... is that petrol is more volatile than diesel, and thus is easier to convert to mechanical energy ,both torque and sustained power especially with aspirated breathing.

Both can be made to be torquey at low revs, but diesels will never sustain high revs where performance envelopes really count owing to the combustion pressures required by diesel.

Diesel for fuel economy ... Petrol for performance all week long.


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

RogerB said:


> Diesel for fuel economy ... Petrol for performance all week long.


Well said


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

brittan said:


> However if both cars started accelerating *at the same point on the road* then the first car would start accelerating 1.3636 seconds before the second car which remains travelling at 10mph for that time.
> The gap built up during that 1.3636 seconds would then still exist when both cars reach 70mph.


Yes. I was losing the will to live because I couldn't get my point across and I expressed myself badly. What I meant was "at the same point in the road" - not "at the same time".

The post was in response to igotone's statement that he knew his RS was faster than a diesel because when he accelerated they got left behind leaving a "huge gap". Basically the "huge gap" is caused by the time delay for the following car to hit the throttle and the gap will be directly proportional to the speed of the cars - as the time delay remains constant. That's why the TDi "caught up" when he slowed down.

No doubt the RS is way quicker than the TDi off the mark, but the fact that the gap between you and the car behind increases when you hit the throttle doesn't necessarily prove this.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

SuperRS said:


> Near peak torque in the 2000rpm range is epic lag..... Right :roll:
> 
> If the 2.0tfsi has turbo lag, do does the 2.0tdi, has it has no power at all until 2500rpm


I haven't noticed this. I think you need to drive the cars rather than study the power curves SuperRS.

What I don't understand though is, if you set such great store by the driving experience, why have you got a TT? Don't get me wrong, I think the TT is a great car, but I don't think it's a fun car to drive (and I've driven the petrol versions too). It's a re-bodied Golf - that's all - with the engine over the front axle.

If you want a bit of fun, why haven't you got a new Porsche Cayman/Boxster S. This is a pure sports car which is in a different league to the TTRS.


----------



## Ridgmont61 (Dec 6, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Near peak torque in the 2000rpm range is epic lag..... Right :roll:
> ...


Well that is fighting talk!

Step back the touch paper has been lit.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Near peak torque in the 2000rpm range is epic lag..... Right :roll:
> ...


I think you need to drive a TTS/TTRS instead of talking shit. I've driven diesels, it's nothing then wallop huge lump of torque and then the power drops off a cliff. Diesels always feel faster than they are.

Remapped 2.0tfsi, 3rd gear, 30mph, floor the throttle and it would destroy rs4's everytime. So much for "lag".

A boxster or cayman isn't a pure sportcar. A exige, caterham, GT3 RS, those are pure sports cars.

And no wonder you don't find it fun to drive, as you own a crappy TDI and you haven't owned a TTS or TTRS. Derived from a golf chassis it may be, but it's wider and and has better weight distro and the fact the TT racecars have won so many races maybe it's a good chassis once the Audi softness has been removed from the setup 

Why did I buy a TTRS? I think the answer is in my signature. 650-700hp small 4wd coupe. Need I say more?


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Diesels have come a long way since the eighties.
Performance has improved significantly and Diesel engines are found in some race cars ie Le Mans.
My smoker is quite fast from low revs to redline, it's quite relentless.
If I'm light footed I see low 40s and with a heavy foot, high 30s
Steve


----------



## Ovt (Oct 19, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> Diesels always feel faster than they are.


Well, I own a Honda Prelude 2.2 VTi-S and a TT TDi...

Petrol vs Diesel... Two completely different philosophies !

On a day to day basis, driving a Diesel is much more comfortable (for me and plenty of people). Due to the high torque at low RPM you don't need to constantly change gear in order to have some power available to you... You say a diesel feels faster than it is. Yes, and? Isn't this about feelings and sensations? That big burst of power you don't get it with the petrol.

On the other hand, the Prelude... Oh the prelude. It is just the opposite.... You reach max RPM and the beast is still pushing ! Pure nerve.... Is it comfortable to drive it to commute to work every day? No way... You need to change gears constantly, otherwise you could put the pedal to the metal but nothing would happen for a bunch of seconds. It is a car designed to deliver its best at high RPM, hence, high fuel consumption. Do you enjoy driving it for fun during the weekend? Hell yes... Do I enjoy driving the TT? of course I do too !! Plenty of thrust available (we are not in a damn circuit), if you want to drive at let's say 240kmh you can do it... Nice mileage and it covers the necessities it was meant to.

A TTRS, if you are going to comply with all the legal limits (which in Spain are very restrictive, sadly) I think it is a waste of performances. If you tell me that you are driving in a circuit from time to time... Am really glad you can afford it and enjoy it. But don't simply disrespect people who one a TDi because it has a completely different purpose...


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm loving this thread - for the bickering obviously :twisted:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

You can't compare your turbocharged Diesel engine to a small capacity naturally aspirated petrol engine.

Ever driven a diesel with no turbo? I have, my god it's like a automotive worst nightmare.

I was cruising around in my massive turbo TTRS today, 30mph in 5th and 6th gear. That's like 1100rpm. I would put my foot down, and oh my god the car would respond straight away. Maybe my TTRS is Infact a diesel :lol:


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Racing glow plugs can easily give another 50- 60 BHP and another 60-70 lb of torque from tick over if fitted and set up correctly on a dyno by someone who knows what they are doing.

I am going to bed.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Yawn ! [smiley=zzz.gif] 
I wonder if there's anything better on the other channel :roll:


----------



## Ovt (Oct 19, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> Ever driven a diesel with no turbo? I have, my god it's like a automotive worst nightmare.


It isn't a nightmare... It is like being punished and bullied in the medieval era, with blood and weird utensils involved.


----------



## phil3012 (Jul 25, 2008)

Ovt said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Ever driven a diesel with no turbo? I have, my god it's like a automotive worst nightmare.
> ...


Remember the days when you had to pre warm the glow plugs as well before starting the engine?, I'm going back to the mid 90's!


----------



## Ovt (Oct 19, 2013)

Had to do it until not that long ago with my clio, haha


----------



## OnTheMike (Jul 22, 2013)

You still have to in my dads 2011 Nissan Qashqai!


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

SuperRS said:


> Why did I buy a TTRS? I think the answer is in my signature. 650-700hp small 4wd coupe. Need I say more?


Absolutely pointless for road use. Even with 4wd you can't get the power down so the traction control will be turning it off most of the time - that's if there is any power low down, which is doubtful.

The trouble is, SpuerRS, the TTRS doesn't even have any pose factor. It just looks like any other TT, which are ten a penny. The new Porsche actually has real visual impact.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

I have given up on the diesel/petrol debate on this one, its getting no where fast.

But I feel the need to comment on the perceived, chronic, epic, hold your breath and count to 10 turbo lag on the TTS/S3/Golf R etc etc.
Its just not the issue some folks feel it is, even in manual gearbox form, I am struggling to feel this issue when driving my car, and really cannot see the issue that is reported. 
Tried hard last night to prove to myself where the issue is, I tried all gear ratios, different rpm settings, and all I can come up with is that under 2K in the wrong gear ie 4,5,6, it feels stodgy, but once it hits 2K, that needle spins up fast and smooth, and torque is produced and that car shifts pretty quick.
It produces its power very differently to my old M3 and current 911, big capacity NA engines, I suggest it is very similar in performance to an E46 M3, you don't get the same aural experience, but in gear the TTS is probably quicker, but at the end of the day, its not an issue unless you bumble around the 1500rpm mark in a high gear and dump the throttle, and expect scolded cat performance, but once the 2k mark is hit its seamless to around 6k, not sure how many folks who perceive the issue have lived with these engines for any length of time, but I am struggling to see the negativity around them.

For me, epic turbo lag, was of the kind you used to get in the likes of a 2002 Turbo, now that is all or nothing.


----------



## Bouncedout (Jun 2, 2013)

Come on PR

Where does the issue of visual impact come into a discussion about the merits of petrol v diesel.

I think you should reply to the post from Brittan. :lol:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Why did I buy a TTRS? I think the answer is in my signature. 650-700hp small 4wd coupe. Need I say more?
> ...


I'm sorry, but I don't base my car purchases on visual impact or wanting to look special/flash. I am a real car enthusiast, you are not, therefore you will never understand. And for the record, I use all of those 650+ pretty much everytime I drive the car. I like going fast and you can go fast, without going to jail.

Can I put all that power down in the winter when it's cold and wet, no I can't not at sensible speeds, but that makes it even more entertaining. And for when it's not wet and cold, the car just grips and propels itself forward like nothing else. A TTRS that's been timed to do the 100-200kmh dash faster than a aventador, mclaren F1, and pagani zonda F1.

A TT that will give a GSXR 750cc superbike a hiding, all whilst being inconspicuous and returning 40mpg cruising on the motorway.

The only drawback to all of this is, that amusement parks now bore me, and that TDI's still beat me :roll:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Audi TT TDI 0-100mph in 19.5 secs. Yeah, your TDI's are so fast :lol: :lol: :lol:

1/8th of a mile in 10.2 seconds :lol: :lol: :lol:

So in 10.2 seconds some of the TTRS on this forum will have basically travelled twice the distance of the TDI.

But the TDI has all that torque and the petrols so much lag.

God these TDI's are slow. And the owners delusional


----------



## MrDrums (Jan 2, 2014)

Following UK speed limits. Put a TTS/RS against a TDI on a 400 mile round trip journey. Who would win? Clear winner for obvious reasons.

Put a TTS/RS on a drag strip/track in the UK, clear winner for obvious reasons.

I'm more likely not to do the latter, therefore I'm buying a TDI.



SuperRS said:


> Audi TT TDI 0-100mph in 19.5 secs. Yeah, your TDI's are so fast :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> 1/8th of a mile in 10.2 seconds :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> ...


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

Question:

Mr SuperRS. Out of interest, what's the 0-100mph in your's as you say it'll beat a bike. My R1 was 5 secs and in 1st gear. Worked out about 750bhp per tonne.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

MrDrums said:


> Following UK speed limits. Put a TTS/RS against a TDI on a 400 mile round trip journey. Who would win? Clear winner for obvious reasons.
> 
> Put a TTS/RS on a drag strip/track in the UK, clear winner for obvious reasons.
> 
> ...


Why not buy a Prius then or a big Mercedes diesel with a massive fuel tank which will beat the TT at such a mundane task.

If your driving is all about mpg and less trips to the petrol station then yeah knock your socks off and get a TDI lol


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

moro anis said:


> Question:
> 
> Mr SuperRS. Out of interest, what's the 0-100mph in your's as you say it'll beat a bike. My R1 was 5 secs and in 1st gear. Worked out about 750bhp per tonne.


6.1 secs [smiley=bigcry.gif]

The 1000cc bikes are still slightly out of reach

Any 100-200km/h data on your r1?


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Whats the 0-30 times for the TDI and the TTRS I am just trying to work out how much time i would save nipping to my local shops two miles away for me pension.


----------



## MrDrums (Jan 2, 2014)

SuperRS said:


> MrDrums said:
> 
> 
> > Following UK speed limits. Put a TTS/RS against a TDI on a 400 mile round trip journey. Who would win? Clear winner for obvious reasons.
> ...


Bit of a silly comparison, I could ask you why you aren't driving a tin can with 700bhp strapped in to it..

For the money you paid for your TTRS, it's quite obvious you could have bought something quicker but I can only hope you also have a liking for the styling of the car. This is why I chose a TT TDI rather than buying a prius. A diesel that can do 0-60 in 7-8 seconds and still look as sharp as the TT, i'm happy with that.

Coming from a Megane 265t, Focus RS, Audi TT 2.0 TFSI, it will be nice to have a balance between some form of power and some extra pennies in my pocket to lose on Arsenal most weeks.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

But arsenal are winning these days?


----------



## MrDrums (Jan 2, 2014)

Precisely. Win win situation.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

SuperRS said:


> moro anis said:
> 
> 
> > Question:
> ...


Not an R1, but a road test on my Fireblade, its the standing 1/4 to aim for

Honda CBR1000RR
Curb Weight: 447 lbs. 
Horsepower: 149.64 @ 10,700 rpm 
Torque: 76.62 lb-ft @ 9600 rpm 
Quarter Mile: 9.68 @ 138.8 mph 
Outright Top Speed: 183 mph
Racetrack Top Speed: 155.59 mph
Superpole Best Time: 1:56.09

I now realise why those TDis are so quick, they have more power than my Blade


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

CWM3 said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > moro anis said:
> ...


For all you non-bikers, the hp is BHP at the wheel


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

TT20TDI said:


> Whats the 0-30 times for the TDI and the TTRS I am just trying to work out how much time i would save nipping to my local shops two miles away for me pension.


 :lol:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

CWM3 said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > moro anis said:
> ...


Fast 1/4 mile time but the terminal speed isn't massively quicker than what my TTRS would do, which suggest as the speeds get higher the little TT would start to reel the bike back in.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

SuperRS

Matey at 183mph my body ain't that streamlined. I am starting to glow like a shuttle on re entry.

I have had 198 on the clocks, so that means it was somewhere around its true speed of 180ish, so seems to be 
a reasonably fair road test stat sheet.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Brave man doing them speeds on a bike!


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Fastest i've been on a bike was an indicated 159mph on my a CBR600RR ( on a track of course ) I can recall its very hard to change direction even on a sweeping bend at that speed i only had it a year & sold because i didnt like the feel & sound of the inline 4 and for the power delivery you had to drop it three gears & rev the nuts of it, My NC30 ( UK spec ) is quicker in the twisty stuff we can all go fast in a straight line thats the easy bit twistys is were its at.

Having my soup now.


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

SuperRS said:


> moro anis said:
> 
> 
> > Question:
> ...


Sorry no but the standing 1/4 was 10.1 and 141.75 mph and just recalculated the BHP/tonne and it was nearer 850 than 750. Quick enough though and on private roads, tracks etc it just pulled as hard all the way up to an indicated 170mph then the wind would try and rip your helmet off! Addictive as I'm sure your's is.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

My last bike 2007 was a ZX10, that did 110 in 1st and pulled to the limiter...think it was 180 as well as it pulled to 110.

But that was for the track, a 600 is just as fast on normal roads, corners just as fast as a 1000.

What's the gearing like on 2013 GSX/R1/ZX10/Fireblades?


----------



## OnTheMike (Jul 22, 2013)

My r6r was fast enough for me! Had to rev the bollox off it but my god it went and cornered like a demon. Red line was about 17.5k, outrageous fun!


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Nyxx said:


> My last bike 2007 was a ZX10, that did 110 in 1st and pulled to the limiter...think it was 180 as well as it pulled to 110.
> 
> But that was for the track, a 600 is just as fast on normal roads, corners just as fast as a 1000.
> 
> What's the gearing like on 2013 GSX/R1/ZX10/Fireblades?


Same on the Blade, pulls over the ton in 1st, compared to the other 1Ks, the Blade has got a wide wodge of torque, so it just keeps pulling like a train, without doubt, its the easiest 1K out to ride fast, its not the top of the tree in any department, but put the lot together and its a really good package, with the benefit of feeling more like a 600 than a litre.

I ride it daily all year round, and it handles just about anything you throw at it.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Here we go the CBR has gone the NC30 is for life.


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

TT20TDI said:


> Here we go the CBR has gone the NC30 is for life.


Spot on :wink:


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

[/quote]

Not an R1, but a road test on my Fireblade, its the standing 1/4 to aim for

Honda CBR1000RR
Curb Weight: 447 lbs. 
Horsepower: 149.64 @ 10,700 rpm 
Torque: 76.62 lb-ft @ 9600 rpm 
Quarter Mile: 9.68 @ 138.8 mph 
Outright Top Speed: 183 mph
Racetrack Top Speed: 155.59 mph
Superpole Best Time: 1:56.09

I now realise why those TDis are so quick, they have more power than my Blade [/quote]

Fast 1/4 mile time but the terminal speed isn't massively quicker than what my TTRS would do, which suggest as the speeds get higher the little TT would start to reel the bike back in.[/quote]

Yes, your aerodynamics take over and I imagine it's easier for you to hang on too.


----------

