# Mapped TDI 0-60 & 0-100



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Anybody got any real figures for a 2010 > mapped mK2 tt tdi 0 - 60 & 0 - 100


----------



## Blanchie (Jun 2, 2009)

thats brave on here at the moment! [smiley=hanged.gif] 
prepare for much TDi slagging lol

seriously though, mine was pulling early 6's to 60, if i could get the second to third gear change right lol
** bracing for the Tdi greaf ** hahahahah :roll:


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

I would imagine a remapped S Tronic car would be 6secs and 15secs to 100. Manual, low-mid 6 with 100 in 16secs.


----------



## alanlew (Jan 25, 2013)

I dont see why it should be brave, a TT is a TT whether its a petrol or diesel


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

I vbox'd my Shark tuned TDi and the results weren't as amazing as you might think. One-up (I weigh 110kg) I recorded 6.9 secs 0-100km/h for the car standard (rolling road tested at 178bhp and 380Nm torque (so well up on spec) and 212bhp and 500Nm torque after the map and the car then did 0-100km/h in 6.5 secs, so it's a very small improvement on paper.

The FEEL of the car though was transformed as instead of getting a lump of torque and then nothing, you got most of the torque all the way to the increased 5500rpm redline. Everyone who sat in the passenger seat felt the car was crazy-fast when it really wasn't. It's just their butt-dyno was lying to them.

If you want a pub-pissing-contest car, don't get a TDi. If, on the other hand, you want a very sensible ownership proposition that fools you into thinking you're going faster than you are, get a mapped TDi.


----------



## alanlew (Jan 25, 2013)

.


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

Blanchie said:


> thats brave on here at the moment! [smiley=hanged.gif]
> prepare for much TDi slagging lol
> 
> seriously though, mine was pulling early 6's to 60, if i could get the second to third gear change right lol
> ** bracing for the Tdi greaf ** hahahahah :roll:


Lol.

Judging by other posts similar to this I would expect 0-60 in about 3 seconds  
0-100 quicker than a TTRS :twisted:


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Let's play nice here - I might be wrong here but sub 7 seconds 0-60 isn't that bad is it for an oil burner, can someone explain torque to me & what effect it has.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

whats a butt dyno ?


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

The FEEL of the car though was transformed as instead of getting a lump of torque and then nothing, you got most of the torque all the way to the increased 5500rpm redline. Everyone who sat in the passenger seat felt the car was crazy-fast when it really wasn't. It's just their butt-dyno was lying to them.

What i dont understand is if you can feel accelaration and you get the feeling its fast why isnit. Cos lets say you jump in a 1.0l petrol corsa and you feels its slow - its totaly flat.

I dont think 6.5 sec to 60 is slow but it is compared to proper sports cars - but its not a sports car get my drift so in my opinion its a very good figure for a oil burner taking into account the mpg you get.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

TT20TDI said:


> whats a butt dyno ?


Just what I was thinking. I think he means that the TDi "feels" quick because it gets off the line very quickly - electric cars feel even quicker, but that the TDi "actually" isn't very quick because the 0-60 times are pretty feeble, even when chipped. Of course 0-60 times are not the full story. Sometimes the "butt dyno" tells you something more relevant.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> TT20TDI said:
> 
> 
> > whats a butt dyno ?
> ...


There isn't one accelerative performance metric where the TDi beats or even equals the equivalent 2.0 petrol car if you let the petrol driver change gear. There just isn't. That lovely shove in the back you feel is just a feeling. VAGs engineers did it on purpose to make the cars feel fast. In fact, so pronounced was the effect on the PD engines that people who loved the linearity of petrol engines complained and VW spread the torque more evenly over the rev range on the CR engines.

Now, if you hold both cars in the same gear then quite often the TDi will accelerate faster because of the extra torque and the longer gearing on the TDi but if you have S-tronic the benefit is negated. I don't know if you remember but when Skoda launched the Fabia vRS it was hailed as a Porsche-beater because it would accelerate faster in 6th gear between 50 and 70mph. Sure it would. But in any other gear/speed combination the Porsche made mincemeat of the vRS. As you would expect from a car that did 0-60 in 5 seconds vs. a car that did 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. That torque-thrust makes the Fabia feel like you're strapped into a rocket. Yet, surprisingly, it's no faster than the equivalent Passat or Mondeo. It's hardly surprising that everyone who used to run a Corsa, Citroen Saxo or Peugeot 106 is now chavving up the Fabia. It FEELS super-quick. But it's quite harmless really. Even with a remap.

Believe me - if there was anywhere the TDi TT beat the petrol I'd be shouting about it.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

I think i am getting the picture a petrol beats a oil burner - but i think its closer than what people would like to admit for a similar output petrol engine.

So whats the 0-60 for the 2.0ltr 208 bhp standard petrol engine as we have deduced a mapped TDI with do 0-60 in around 6.5 seconds.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

There isn't one accelerative performance metric where the TDi beats or even equals the equivalent 2.0 petrol car if you let the petrol driver change gear. There just isn't. That lovely shove in the back you feel is just a feeling. VAGs engineers did it on purpose to make the cars feel fast. In fact, so pronounced was the effect on the PD engines that people who loved the linearity of petrol engines complained and VW spread the torque more evenly over the rev range on the CR engines.

This has me stumped the more i think about it to move forward rapidly you need thrust / torque whats so different about the way a petrol moves forward, this shove you feel isnt real ? thats how you move forward with thrust - a rocked takes of with thrust please explain the feeling that isnt a feeling.


----------



## Suzuka (Oct 15, 2012)

I saw a tdi out drag a tts the other day. Seriously quick 0-60!  couldn't resist!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

wja96 said:


> There isn't one accelerative performance metric where the TDi beats or even equals the equivalent 2.0 petrol car if you let the petrol driver change gear. There just isn't. That lovely shove in the back you feel is just a feeling.


Two points:

1) One of my contentions is that the TDi is quicker off the mark, so show me the 0-10, 0-20mph figures that show the TFSi is quicker - that the "feeling is just a feeling". I'm not interested in 0-60 figures.

2) My other contention is that the TDi delivers its performance at lower revs (in a less conspicuous way) and is therefore quicker in road driving than the figures would indicate. To get the TFSi to deliver full performance you'd have to drive in a way that would attract a lot of attention.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TT20TDI said:


> Let's play nice here - I might be wrong here but sub 7 seconds 0-60 isn't that bad is it for an oil burner, can someone explain torque to me & what effect it has.


Imagine sitting in a rowing boat on a lake, stationary in still water, with no currents or other considerations. The sole power source is you. You dip the oars into the water and heave back on the oars which are being offered huge resistance by the still water and the fact the boat isn't moving. This generates huge torque which allows you to get the boat moving quickly with each pull on the oars. As the speed of the boat picks up though, the resistance offered by the water to the oars becomes far less and you have to work much harder and row faster to generate sufficient power to keep the boat accelerating due to the reduced torque.

Torque is something you definitely feel from the drivers seat and you know when you've got it and when you haven't.

I agree sub 7 seconds is pretty good for a diesel when you consider a lot of 2 litre petrol hot hatches are around the 6.5 secs mark.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TT20TDI said:


> Let's play nice here - I might be wrong here but sub 7 seconds 0-60 isn't that bad is it for an oil burner, can someone explain torque to me & what effect it has.


Imagine sitting in a rowing boat on a lake, stationary in still water, with no currents or other considerations. The sole power source is you. You dip the oars into the water and heave back on the oars which are being offered huge resistance by the still water and the fact the boat isn't moving. This generates huge torque which allows you to get the boat moving quickly with each pull on the oars. As the speed of the boat picks up though, the resistance offered by the water to the oars becomes far less and you have to work much harder and row faster to generate sufficient power to keep the boat accelerating due to the reduced torque.

Torque is something you definitely feel from the drivers seat and you know when you've got it and when you haven't.

I agree sub 7 seconds is pretty good for a diesel when you consider a lot of 2 litre petrol hot hatches are around the 6.5 secs mark.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

My Son has a 60 plate 2.0L TDI, I have a 60 plate 2.0L FWD petrol.

I've driven both, we have both had a play and we both agree that one is faster than the other. But really is it about that, my son what's MPG and would not have my car, I don't need MPG and would not have a TDI. How much faster is the FWD over the TDI, off the line 4WD is great, but it's just not so fast, is it slow? no, is it easy to overtake, well you have to me giving it sum. 170 BHP in a light body and 4WD is not to be sniffed at, it's a great car but 170 BHP v 211BHP (when on a rolling road they seem to have 220-230BHP). So it's not hard to see why.

The TDI is a great TT and it does have it's place in the range, sum 42% of TT sales. 50+MPG if you do the miles is a winner.

If your talking about map's on a TDI what about a map on a 211?......Horses for coursers.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

I think you're all slightly missing the point. Say you had a long journey to make and you had the option of a TDi or TTS (or even a TFSi) - and you didn't have to pay for the fuel, which would you take? You'd take the petrol version because it sounds better and is more fun to drive (although if fun is the main requirement, I'm not sure that the TT would be the best option anyway). But you wouldn't take it because you'd get there any quicker because you probably wouldn't, for the simple reason that there's a limit to how much power you can use on the road and the TDi has more than enough.

You have to bear in mind that 0-60 figures are not a good indicator of how fast a car is on the road, where a lot of time is spent in stop start driving and speed limits. In these conditions, where you can't keep the high revving petrol engine at its power peak, it doesn't deliver its full performance - unlike on a track. You also can't get the full performance out of the TDi but, because it works at lower rpm, you get a greater percentage of the TDi's performance for obvious reasons. It's also more discreet because it delivers its maximum power without any fuss - in the petrol versions it's pretty obvious that you're trying by the engine note.

I'd be interested to see the 0-10mph, 0-20mph, etc, times for the TDi and TFSi. I'd say that the TDi is quicker off the mark, which is why it "feels" faster off the mark - maybe because it is. How fast a car really is is determined by the distance travelled in a given time - not by the final velocity after a given time. They're different things. I'm dead certain that my TDi S-Tronic is MUCH better at getting the jump on other cars at the lights than my SLK V6 was - which had considerably more power and considerably better 0-60 figures.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Whats the 0-60 on a out the box 211 bhp anybody know.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TT20TDI said:


> Whats the 0-60 on a out the box 211 bhp anybody know.


I think Audi claim 6.2 secs 0-60 for a 211 hp manual 2.00 TFSI. An s-tronic version will be bit quicker around 6 secs or high 5s.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

It's 
2.0L FWD
Acceleration 0-62 mph 6.2 Seconds

2.0L
S-Tronic/Quattro
Acceleration 0-62 mph 5.7 Seconds

TTS
Acceleration 0-62 mph 5.3 Seconds

TTRS+ S-Tronic
Acceleration 0-62 mph 4.1 Seconds

2.0L Manual TDI
Acceleration 0-62 mph 7.6 Seconds

2.0L TDI
S-Tronic/Quattro
Acceleration 0-62 mph 7.5 Seconds

1.8L manual
Acceleration 0-62 mph 7.3 Seconds

1.8L S-Tronic/Quattro
Acceleration 0-62 mph 7.2 Seconds

All info comes from here. http://configurator.audi.co.uk/entry?.h ... uk%3Agb-en
Then look on the last page under "your Audi" and under tech data.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

So that puts a mapped oil burner right amongst the rest of em if left they are left standard of course - I think on balance with modern diesels we can see the gap is getting closer to the petrol performace but smashes it with MPG, lower road tax & insurance and low noise, I can see it overtaking in the future.

TDI's im in.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

Nyxx said:


> It's
> 1.8L S-Tronic/Quattro
> Acceleration 0-62 mph 7.2 Seconds


The 1.8 doesn't come in quattro.

It always makes me laugh how much people read into these figures.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> The 1.8 doesn't come in quattro.


The Audi site has a glitch then.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

Nyxx said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The 1.8 doesn't come in quattro.
> ...


No glitsch. It says front wheel drive.

The interesting thing about those Audi figures is that the 2.0 TFSi S-Tronic Quattro is 0.5 sec faster 0-62 than the non-Quattro manual version. Since the TDi Quattro figures for S-Tronic and manual differ by only 0.1 sec it would seem that the FWD 2.0 TFSi has trouble getting its power down - or the figures are just showing up random sample variations. Individual cars do vary quite considerably apparently.

It's also interesting that the addition of S-Tronic to the TDi seems to cause slightly higher fuel consumption (it goes up a tax band), which is not what I would have thought would happen. Certainly Porsche claim that the PDK gearbox improves the fuel consumption of the Boxster/Cayman by more than 10% over the manual. I suspect another case of test sample variation somewhere.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Yes it is interesting the TDI times are within .1 of a second must be the way the power is delivered. It is also surprising the s-Tronic does less mpg, I would have thought the perfect gear changers would give it better mpg.

2.0L cannot get of the line so fast with it's extra power and needs Quattro to get that first push so loseing .5 is no surprise at all, but still once it grips it's capable of 62 in 6.2, well over a second faster than the TDI in a very short period of time, well 6s :roll: . But since it seems Audi under played it's BHP, as many have reported 220-230 on a rolling road, then with 40-60 bhp more the figures speak for them-self. That's why the 265bhp TTS is another .5 seconds faster than the 211. A full second faster than the manual(well .9)

No FWD car can put its power down like a Quattro, a 50cc scooter can beat just about anything from 0-10 mph, that's why the test has always been 0-60. The scooter can sit there 75% throttle and his foot on the break, it's simple to launch like launch control on a S-Tronic, foot of the break and BANG, but with the scooter top speed of 30mph it's 0-60 is not to good  but 0-5 or 0-10 it's a winner.

I wonder if at some point they will change tax codes to make people buy petrol when most cars will be TDI, remember how cheap diesel was until they saw the demand go up and now it's more than petrol lol, talk about cashing in. Be interesting to see what happens over time.

But how many people sit at the lights doing launch's? Not many. 30-100mph is more a real test of a cars power IMO ofc.
If your doing mileage or never breaking the speed limits, sitting at 70 or even 60mph on motorways, I would say like my Son the TDI is the one. The mpg king. He gets 59mpg if he does 60mph if the motorway's are congested. 59...


----------



## spaceplace (Mar 10, 2013)

A tdi will never beat a petrol, maybe a 3.0 tdi with 250 odd bhp , also isn't the torque peak quite low in the petrol turbo engine rev range? A tt tdi is slow and always will be, what do you expect from something giving 50mpg, the whole 0-10 mph is pointless as well - unless there's a new drag racing sport I haven't heard of where the aim is to get to 10mph the fastest

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

If the aim is to get to 10mph the fastest then I have something that will beat any TT.

Me.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

Don't be silly are we saying tdi's are slow, Audi published the figures as detailed within this thread clearly show they are in amongst the petrol variants in standard form and can far closer when mapped so what are we comparing them to say they are slow ? please advise.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TT20TDI said:


> Don't be silly are we saying tdi's are slow, Audi published the figures as detailed within this thread clearly show they are in amongst the petrol variants in standard form and can far closer when mapped so what are we comparing them to say they are slow ? please advise.


I'm not seeing how you interpret the above figures as showing the TDI ":in amongst" the performance figures for petrol variants. The fastest TDI is a full second slower 0-60 than the slowest petrol variant- that's like a fortnight in performance terms,. Talking about mapping the TDI to put it closer to a petrol version is meaningless as the petrol version can be modded too.

Buy a diesel because you want the economy and it makes perfect sense, but for goodness sake accept it's slower than any petrol variant and let's be done with this futile argument.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TT20TDI said:


> Don't be silly are we saying tdi's are slow, Audi published the figures as detailed within this thread clearly show they are in amongst the petrol variants in standard form and can far closer when mapped so what are we comparing them to say they are slow ? please advise.


I'm not seeing how you interpret the above figures as showing the TDI ":in amongst" the performance figures for petrol variants. The fastest TDI is a full second slower 0-60 than the slowest petrol variant- that's like a fortnight in performance terms,. Talking about mapping the TDI to put it closer to a petrol version is meaningless as the petrol version can be modded too.

Buy a diesel because you want the economy and it makes perfect sense, but for goodness sake accept it's slower than any petrol variant and let's be done with this futile argument.


----------



## TT20TDI (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm not seeing how you interpret the above figures as showing the TDI ":in amongst" the performance figures for petrol variants. The fastest TDI is a full second slower 0-60 than the slowest petrol variant- that's like a fortnight in performance terms,. Talking about mapping the TDI to put it closer to a petrol version is meaningless as the petrol version can be modded too.

I just dont get people saying they are slow when you can map a TDI to be right with a "standard" petrol equivalent and be just as fast in real round the doors use, forget mappin the petrol thats not what i am saying you can get a TDI very close to a 2.0 petrol motor very easy, I could get her TDI movin with a bigger turbo ,bigger intercooler, big injectors to smoke a standard 2.0 petrol.

What i am saying in mapped TDI is close to a 2.0 petrol in standard form no argument.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

igotone said:


> I'm not seeing how you interpret the above figures as showing the TDI ":in amongst" the performance figures for petrol variants. The fastest TDI is a full second slower 0-60 than the slowest petrol variant- that's like a fortnight in performance terms,.


The trouble is that, if we believe Audi's figures, it seems that the TFSi FWD has a lot of trouble getting its power down from a standing start - why else is it so much slower than the Quattro version to 60mph. You can't put 210 bhp through two wheels and expect the tyres not to slip or the traction control to intervene. And that's death to any attempt at a racing start - the TDi would be yards up the road, I suspect. You might not even have caught up by the time you reach 60mph. It would be interesting to try it. I had the same trouble with my SLK V6 - it just couldn't get its power down and it lost a lot of ground while the wheels scrabbled for grip.


----------

