# audi 2.0 tdi 140 vs 170



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

what makes the difference?


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

Different Turbo, Intercooler & Injectors.....
170 also has a DPF, although I had the Milltek DPF delete pipe fitted to mine......


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

If you're thinking about remapping, doing it with the DPF can be troublesome, so budget for the additional workaround if you go for the 170 and plan a remap.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

the 143 and 168 are the same engine is what Audi said to me at the weekend.
Just the map.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I have no basis in fact, but I had heard the 140 is a more pleasant engine to drive. Can't remember the reasons why, but I seem t oremember the same was true of the old PD VAG engines.

The 130PS version, with its smaller turbo, was more pleasurable, if not as quick, as the 150.


----------



## jackmontandon (Apr 3, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> the 143 and 168 are the same engine is what Audi said to me at the weekend.
> Just the map.


Not true, different turbo for sure and a few other differences such as the DPF


----------



## Jen-TT (Feb 2, 2009)

jackmontandon said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > the 143 and 168 are the same engine is what Audi said to me at the weekend.
> ...


correct!


----------



## MP (Feb 22, 2008)

I had an A3 140 and had an A4 courtest car once and I couldn't tell the difference in power, both were PD though, not common rail.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

i assume the older 1.9tdi are more rattle sounding diesel?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

You will also find pd and common rail engines in these outputs. The CR engine is, in my experience, far superior both in terms of refinement and fuel economy. In addition there have been many fuel injector problems on 2.0 pd engines of both outputs. The 140BHP CR is an excellent engine that punches above its weight in terms of performance and economy. I haven't driven a 170 BHP CR sufficient miles to comment on its relative abilities but it does pull better at the top and and is more "fizzy" and alert.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Both the 140 and 170 brake CR engines are some way ahead of older PD lumps in terms of: smoothness, response, noise and economy/emissions.

I have reecently driven Golf Cr TD 170 and 140s back to back, plus a 170 CR A4 spearately. Whilst hardly leagues ahead, in subjective terms the 170 hp units pull harder and sooner, especially in the higher gears, where the increased mid torque band is more apparent. The 140 unit may seem a little less frenetic buty that is because it is less urgent - but it is perfectly adequate in Golf. With heavier A4 (I have been driven in a 140) and that feels a bit more leisurely. The 170hp A4 I drove was quite lively for a car of it's size, especially between 40-80mph.

Like all 4 pot diesels, they can feel like they run out of revs too soon. You just have to change your driving style and change up sooner, letting revs fall back to maximum torque. This preserves the derv economy which is eroded when one revs cogs off them.

Ageee about internal and ancillery changes from 140 to 170 lump. This is to increase margins of safety on engine's duty cycle parameters.

A 140 mapped to 170 makes sense. As does a 170 mapped to 205.


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> A 140 mapped to 170 makes sense. As does a 170 mapped to 205.


Or a 170 mapped to 231bhp


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

NickP said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > A 140 mapped to 170 makes sense. As does a 170 mapped to 205.
> ...


Quite. 

I presume at that output level, we are talking plumbing in addition to code?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Those numbers for real? 
I have a 170 in a Q5, 60 more BHP might be fun.....


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> NickP said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Just a Milltek DPF removal pipe and mapping to suit 
Quite Torquey too!


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Those numbers for real?
> I have a 170 in a Q5, 60 more BHP might be fun.....


It's all about the ft/lb torque in a derv, not BHP.

My 2.0T 1er D is 177bhp & and 258 lbs/ft out of the box, but with my Bluefin map I have 220bhp and 330 lbs/ft available. The real-world "go" is now unbelievable, not bad for £400! 8)

Bluefin's website show figures and powercurves for their individual maps if you want to see how the Q5 would benefit.


----------

