Hi, I've narrowed my choice of new car to a Passat but I am unsure of whether to go for a 2.0 140 diesel or 170 - it will be a PD as I can't quite stretch to the CR version and probably on a 06/07 plate. I've test driven the 140 in the Sport guise but have not tested the 170 and there are no cars local to me to try one out. Can anyone who has experience of this car or both give me some insight as to whether the 170 is worth spending the extra money and the slight downturn in economy for extra performance (if indeed there is a noticeable difference)? Or is it better to try and find the extra cash and go for the CR variant. My driving consists of mainly a 10-15 min commute to work in the week with longer journeys on A roads at the weekends.
Many thanks.
Edited by Pugugly on 01/07/2009 at 17:14
|
|
140 di would do you fine IF you feel you need adiesel. Sounds like your mileage is pretty low. Is it worth the extra cost of diesel.
|
|
|
|
You could buy a 140PS version and then re-map it to ~170PS. I think I'm going to do that with my 140PS Leon in the future, once the warranty has expired.
|
Having had both verisions in an A3 I'd say 170 every time. The 170 has lots of different components to the 140, it's not just a remap. As a result the 170 was much quiter inside the cabin.
Unfortunately the 170 may also have a DPF so you need to be doing regular high speed work. My useage is similar to yours lots of urban motoring during the week, but longer weekend trips and I never had any DPF issues.
|
|
Hi thanks to all for the replies. I do around 15k a year (how I am not quite sure) and prefer the driving style of a diesel. I was wondering if a DPF could be a potential problem but you have allayed my fears on that score. Again, the idea of the mondeo 155bhp diesel keeps popping up into my head tho......
|
we have the 140 in an octavia estate and the 170 in a Leon FR. They are very different engines. Fuel economy in 170 disappointing compared with 140 (c. 40mpg in 170 over 31k miles, 48mpg in octavia over 39k miles). 170 feels a lot quicker, might be due to the cars as well, but 140 is teh more relaxed engine and slightly torquier lower down the rev range with less of a all and nothing nature to its power delivery.
Personally I'd have the 140 in a Passat.
|
I've got a Passat 140 on 56 plate (PD) and I think it's a great engine - superb combination of power and economy. I had considered a remap or whatever to 170 but I don't feel the need. I haven't driven a 170 or the new CR versions.
However, you may wish to search my previous posts re engine failure!
|
|
|
|
My fiance has an '07 Passat Tdi 140. Now with 76k miles and, to date, faultless. I always drive it at weekends, and sometimes midweek on 'chauffering' duties. It excels as a motorway mile muncher, which is its primary role in life! No idea on mpg.Not the best handling car in class...I find it less satisfying to drive than the Mondeo, although I have covered far fewer miles behind the wheel of a Mondeo. Performance is more than adequate. Build quality excellent, no squeaks or rattles anywhere...although I cannot get 5Live on the radiogram. If I were buying and running this type of car privately, and with your annual mileage, i would consider an Octavia Vrs, although my priorities are probably different to yours. Good luck with whatever you decide.
|
|
I have not driven recent VW diesels (the last was me taking the dealer principles PD 130PS Passat)... so all I can say is 143PS in my Mazda6 is fine performance wise. 170PS would be better.
|
|
Funnily enough I test drove the VRS last weekend but for some reason I didn't quite like it enough to warrant the extra outlay but I still can't put my finger on it as to why I didn't.
|
|
My twopennyworth is that 140 is more than adequate for UK roads. All I'd do with a 170 is burn more fuel for accelerating marginally faster. Just because it's available doesn't mean you need it. If it didn't exist you'd likely be more than happy with the 140.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My last car was a Golf estate 2.0 TDI 140 - engine quite adequate to pull the Golf along with plenty of acceleration. A bit of turbo lag but you get used to it and can easily achieve smooth progress.
I changed to an Octavia vRS estate (good deal available) in April - this has the CR 170 but because of a muddle I had the use of a vRS with the PD 170 for 10 days. More wallop than the 140 - quite a lot more - and more turbo lag. I found there was less oomph at low revs than with the 140. The CR lacks the sudden wallop but is much more tractable at low revs.
You need to try both: if you weren't sure about the vRS it may be that the bigger wheels gave you a harder ride than you'd like. An Octavia Elegance 140 might be worth comparing with a Passat: you'd get a slightly newer one for your money and you'd also get a proper handbrake.
Economy is naturally better with the 140, not least because if the wallop is available you tend to use it! The CR 170 is almost as good as the PD 140, quite a lot better then the PD 170.
|
|
|
I have an A4 with the PD 140 engine, and get regularly high 40's MPG on most journeys, however various VW/Audi bulleting boards are littered with complaints about the dissapointing MPG from the PD 170 engine so it seems.
When I ordered my car from new, the dealership advised me against the 170 in terms of driveability even though it was a good bit more expensive.
I guess you have to compromise in this area if you want 170BHP from a 2 litre diesel.
|
My 140 and 170 were virtually the same mpg wise. Up to 40ish round town, mid forties on a motorway run, best was mid fifites.
If the 140 had the 170 piezo injectors it would improve the refinement of the engine, this is the main reason why I went for the 170 second time round.
Edited by daveyjp on 03/07/2009 at 17:13
|
|
|
|
