# 1.8TFSI vs 2.0TDI MK3 TT



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

Well hello again chaps... Been a while out of the TT world!

Considering a MK3 S-Line for my girlfriend, the logical choices are the 1.8TFSI or 2.0TDI as she does a reasonable amount of driving and fuel return would need to be reasonable to good. Which will likely write off the TTS or TTRS at this stage. I have a Stage 2 Golf R7 so no need to duplicate I guess.

*Feedback on the following questions would be really helpful... 1.8 vs 2.0tdi
*- Real world fuel return? Im guessing 2.0TDI will be 40-45mpg on average. Is the 1.8 realistically around the 40 mark?
- Handling of the car, I would expect the 1.8 to be a bit more nimble...?!
- 1.8TFSI engine, people thoughts that have driven it?

There is a £2500-3000 uplift to the 2.0TDI, which I think may take some justifying over the 1.8TFSI and its returns if they are respectably in the high 30s over a long average. My preference for her would be the 1.8, I guess I'm most curious to hear about the fuel return.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

My 1.8 has done 200 miles and can't get over 30mpg at the time being, and I would say that is for a combined figure. I expect it to increase after I have done more miles, but it is pretty poor atm.

The handling is better than the diesel, it definitely feels more nimble.


----------



## Andy_E (Apr 10, 2008)

No idea about the 1.8 but I record my mileage and fuel use for expenses claims and on mixed roads my TDI is averaging 48mpg on around 500 miles per week - having said that I've only had it a month so that's only 3 over 3 tankfuls.

No issues with the handling other than it's a lot better than the Mk2 TDI this one replaced - feels more precise and turns in quicker.


----------



## sumeet8al (Mar 2, 2016)

TTimi said:


> My 1.8 has done 200 miles and can't get over 30mpg at the time being, and I would say that is for a combined figure. I expect it to increase after I have done more miles, but it is pretty poor atm.
> 
> The handling is better than the diesel, it definitely feels more nimble.


Hi TTmi, How does the acceleration compare to the diesel?


----------



## winrya (Feb 22, 2014)

Id suspect the mpg gulf would be much bigger than you estimate. I can't comment on the 1.8 but I've been alternating the wife's 2 litre s tronic Quattro 230 and my a3 with the tt diesel and on my 45 mile each way commute the tt sits around 37mpg give or take 1mpg each way depending on the mode i use. (Putting it in manual mode adds 3mpg to the journey). The a3 however is sat at 62mpg for the worst Journey. Bearing in mind the a3 mpg is lower than the tt tdi id suspect I could basically achieve almost double the mileage in a tt tdi to the 2 litre petrol. I'd still not swap the petrol for diesel as it's much more fitting the character of the tt. I'd also not swap the tdi in the a3 petrol as it seems a perfect combo in the sensible car!


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

TTimi said:


> My 1.8 has done 200 miles and can't get over 30mpg at the time being, and I would say that is for a combined figure. I expect it to increase after I have done more miles, but it is pretty poor atm.
> 
> The handling is better than the diesel, it definitely feels more nimble.


Wow thats very disappointing... Granted it'll want a few thousand to loosen up, but its hardly going to be doing 40mpg by then :/ 
My Golf R has now got 1500 miles on it and has improved 1-2mpg Id say, but that is averaging 25mpg combined which I think is apalling these days, the Golf GTI courtesy car I had was capable of well into the 40s for the 2 months I had it... You'd think the 1.8 would be a good compromise engine for power and mpg.

Keep the feedback coming its great to hear.


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

For reference Ive just checked the weight difference.

2.0TDI is 55kg heavier than the 1.8TFSI.

1.8TFSI - 1210kg unladen
2.0TDI - 1265kg unladen

Thats 55kg more weight hanging over the front axle, making quite a difference to the turn in and handling characteristics I should imagine. We may go test drive this weekend.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

TondyRSuzuka said:


> For reference Ive just checked the weight difference.
> 
> 2.0TDI is 55kg heavier than the 1.8TFSI.
> 
> ...


Difficult as most dealers don't have a 1.8 to test drive! Usually have the diesel and petrol 2.0.

The acceleration between the two really isn't so much different in the two. Both pull similarly but the petrol from a slightly higher rpm. 1.8 sounds better when idle thats for sure.

The mpg I do is in efficiency mode, changing gears at roughly 2.2k rpm. I drive around MK and if there was no traffic then I can hit 30mpg while doing this. In traffic it sits at roughly 20-22mpg at the moment.

I have only had the car a week so I can't judge fully yet, and have only driven the diesel for around 1 hour on a few occasions so couldn't tell you what the mpg would be on that.

FYI in a 2008 BMW 118D I would get around 37-42mpg on the same journey.


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

It's interesting that some are reporting 35+mpg in the 2.0 Quattro S-tronic, yet others in the 1.8 are quoting circa 30mpg. Obviously, we could be looking at very different journeys and/or driving styles, but if 35+mpg is readily achievable on a run in the 2.0 Quattro, I think I'd be inclined to make my comparison between the 2.0 FWD petrol (manual for value) and diesel instead.

The torque in the 2.0 petrol, when driven sensibly, is probably what helps bridge the gap between the headline 1.8 and 2.0 petrol mpg figures and as laboratory mpg tests do not factor in hills, or headwinds, the reported figures from real-world driving may well be an accurate long-term indicator. So, perhaps the 1.8 qualifies for lower road tax and better headline fuel consumption figures but, in the real world, it may well burn more fuel than its more powerful sibling.

It would be interesting to hear of more members' thoughts.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Yeah but people with the 1.8's wouldn't have had them for very long. I can only remember the 1st 1.8 being delivered from MK was about a month ago! Whereas the 2.0 has been out for over a year now.

Hopefully the 1.8's will improve quite a lot! It shouldn't be much to do with the torque, as I apply throttle really lightly. I usually don't even hit over 56mph on my daily commute. (I drive like a granny most of the time)


----------



## iainfrmeastkilbride (Feb 19, 2016)

Last week and over weekend covered 395 miles in Diesel for £40. Wifes driving locally midweek then myself on Motorway mainly at weekend. Average speed 75-85. Mid range torque is excellent. Gotta petrol car for work. Its a Renault so crap. Had 4 audi ,bmw now and prefer audi diesel,quieter.No doubt the 1.8 petrol is slightly faster.Just up to your wallet. Whatever one you choose you will enjoy


----------



## airdrieonians (Sep 27, 2011)

I had the same choice to make when I bought mine and went for the diesel in the end. Over 3500 miles my TDI is showing an average of 54.9mpg. I do mostly motorway miles (500 miles a week) so the TDI is better for me.


----------



## Ht1469 (Dec 12, 2015)

Don't disregard the 2.0 litre Petrol. Have covered nearly 3000 miles and its overall average is 36.7 mpg. Mixed driving, so to return this is impressive. The car warrants a petrol engine!


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

Did 12,000 miles in my Mark 2 1.8 and averaged only 28mpg in what is broadly an urban environment. To be honest, none of the true mileage figures are anywhere near those quoted, my TTS is currently returning 24mpg.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> Did 12,000 miles in my Mark 2 1.8 and averaged only 28mpg in what is broadly an urban environment. To be honest, none of the true mileage figures are anywhere near those quoted, my TTS is currently returning 24mpg.


I will be upset if I don't see at least 33mpg on my journeys to work!


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> Did 12,000 miles in my Mark 2 1.8 and averaged only 28mpg in what is broadly an urban environment. To be honest, none of the true mileage figures are anywhere near those quoted, my TTS is currently returning 24mpg.


Interesting. I've done 20k miles in my Mk2 1.8 over the last 2.5 years and I have regularly met or exceeded the manufacturers urban mpg figures driving urban roads in Manchester. 
I also frequently meet the combined mpg even when that includes parts at 70+ mph. 
On the other hand with the Mk3 there is virtually no difference between the mpg figures for the 1.8 and the 2.0 and I would expect the 2.0 to do better if there is any additional load in the car. 
Comments about 1.8 models not racking up enough marriage yet are valid though.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

To be fair with a 1.8 and a 2.0 you shouldn't see massive differences in mpg. Maybe a few mpg at most. I think the 1.8 is popular because the savings of when you first buy the car, not so much running costs.


----------



## mackem47 (Mar 8, 2010)

Getting between 30 and 35 mpg in efficiency mode with a couple of blasts in dynamic on a daily basis. I drove at 50 behind a wagon on Saturday and got 43 mpg. Mine is 2.0tfsi stronic front wheel drive. I had diesel Mk 2 TT previously. Love the petrol but not sure if that is because it is a mk3 rather than a mk2 - I test drove the tdi and it was fine but wanted the auto box.


----------



## Steve82 (Feb 19, 2016)

Covered 250 miles of mixed driving today after collecting the wife's 1.8T and the average is 39mpg


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Sitting at 60mph in the 1.8 I am currently getting 45mpg which is pretty good?


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

TTimi said:


> Sitting at 60mph in the 1.8 I am currently getting 45mpg which is pretty good?


Not bad at all! For the sake of the environment just go everywhere at 60


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

TTimi said:


> Sitting at 60mph in the 1.8 I am currently getting 45mpg which is pretty good?


Is that your Current mpg or Average mpg?
And please tell me you didn't type that post while driving at 60mph.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

That is the mpg if I reset the short trip comp while doing 60mph. No I wasn't driving at the time lol.


----------



## Mcgrimes (Feb 25, 2016)

I get about 29mpg through town driving in a 2.0l TFSI Quattro DSG; not certain which it should be in anything other than dynamic mode!


----------



## deanshaw24 (Apr 15, 2015)

Over 8000 miles in my old Mk 3 2.0 fwd manual I managed 37mpg over those 8000 miles soley in dynamic mode. And I would say I good 3000 of those miles were spirited driving. I was very impressed. On a Eco run it would always get around 41-42mpg. And it had 340bhp too :twisted:


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

2 months and 1500 miles under the belt of the 1.8T sport, mixed driving and a few good blasts, averaging 46mpg. It's a really enjoyable, revvy engine that seems to be getting better all the time.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

4433allanr said:


> 2 months and 1500 miles under the belt of the 1.8T sport, mixed driving and a few good blasts, averaging 46mpg. It's a really enjoyable, revvy engine that seems to be getting better all the time.


46mpg?! I get this while doing a steady 55mph in 6th gear lol.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

I've read this thread from front to back twice and here's my conclusion:
1.8T - About 30mpg
2.0T - About 30mpg
2.0TTS - About 30mpg

2.0TDI - About 45 mpg

Now for the science bit. If you work to 12k annual miles. £1.19 for unleaded and £1.22 for diesel your annual fuel cost is going to be:
Any petrol car at 30mpg - £2,180
Any diesel car at 45mpg - £1,490

So the diesel saves you £690 a year in fuel cost but you have to consider that in light of the cost to purchase the cars in the first place.

Of course I pretty much used all of the above to justify my TTS so it may be what they call "skewed" :lol:


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

Oh and just for those of you who jump over my guess at fuel consumption on the TDI. here's the numbers for you to play with:


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I've done this sort of calculation several times in the past but to get any meaningful sort of comparison you have to compare a diesel with a petrol version of similar performance. Not done it for the Mk3 but the Ultra TDi and 1.8 TFSI are pretty close and would be a fair comparison.
With other cars I've found you have to be doing about 20+k miles per year in a diesel to break even over a period of 3 years. This doesn't take into account any tax advantage that you might get if this was a company car.

PS Evil Ted I don't agree with your average figures of 30 mpg for the 1.8 and 2.0 petrols. Those sorts of figures were generally reported by members who's cars were still new. Later posts from some of them give mpg in the low 40s. I've just come back from a 60 mile drive involving A and B roads and motorway (ahem  ) and I got 43.5 mpg - and I've only got 1500 miles on my clock, I'll expect better in time.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

On the other hand - who really buys a car like a TT for "fuel economy"? :lol:


----------



## Edinburra (Aug 19, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> On the other hand - who really buys a car like a TT for "fuel economy"? :lol:


My sentiments exactly, what do you buy a Sports Car for if it's not for the performance? If it's economy you must have buy a Dacia. :lol: :lol:


----------



## R_TTS (Mar 16, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> On the other hand - who really buys a car like a TT for "fuel economy"? :lol:


"Fuel economy" was definitely a factor in my choice of a TTS. I've gone from a car that did 20 MPG to the TTS where I get 30 MPG with the same performance. It's not so much the money saved but the fewer trips to the petrol station!


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

Impressive fuel economy wasn't really my point. The engine is loosening up nicely and is really well suited to the car, a by product is 46mpg on the computer which probably means 40/42 in reality, and having owned a Range Rover that barely scraped into the teens on mpg, the constant trips to refuel soon wear thin.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> I've done this sort of calculation several times in the past but to get any meaningful sort of comparison you have to compare a diesel with a petrol version of similar performance. Not done it for the Mk3 but the Ultra TDi and 1.8 TFSI are pretty close and would be a fair comparison.
> With other cars I've found you have to be doing about 20+k miles per year in a diesel to break even over a period of 3 years. This doesn't take into account any tax advantage that you might get if this was a company car.
> 
> PS Evil Ted I don't agree with your average figures of 30 mpg for the 1.8 and 2.0 petrols. Those sorts of figures were generally reported by members who's cars were still new. Later posts from some of them give mpg in the low 40s. I've just come back from a 60 mile drive involving A and B roads and motorway (ahem  ) and I got 43.5 mpg - and I've only got 1500 miles on my clock, I'll expect better in time.


Yes, I was unfair on the 1.8 and the 2.0T just so I could get to an artificial and generic petrol TT consumption and a Diesel TT consumption. I am really surprised that the 1.8 doesn't show better in the early days though. I thought people would be rattling off 40mpg in the early days.

The figures I've put above though are valid for any petrol and any diesel car so anyone can work out what *they *think they'll get based on the info in this thread and others and make a cost comparison.
The spreadsheet these came from can be adjusted for mileage but it's reasonable to say that if you take the difference between your two on this 12k list and factor it down (half for 6k, double for 24k) you'll be pretty much there.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

As long as your figures ease your conscience about buying a TTS then that's fine Evil Ted.


----------



## noname (Aug 20, 2015)

Never thought and never will about fuel economy but if I have to go that way, I'll always prefer a less powered petrol engine than a TDI.
The only pro for the tdi is less price per litre and we have to admit, it runs a bit more KM/L but here the cons,
It's a sporty car so no way a tdi inside even if you drive milion of km, also petrol engine can do them with a good maintenance
delicate engine
risk of water in the gasoline
stinky
no sound
4000rpm and you're done..


----------

