If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed, registering will remove the in post advertisements. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
This means you should apply for your renewal now to avoid any disruptions to your membership whilst the renewal process is taking place! NOTE: If you have an auto renewing subscription this will happen automatically.
HA BUDGET, never works when buying a car! I was going for a Comfortline 2.0 TDI at most...... I ended up getting the TSI with a few Options, Just too damn good of a drive!
haha similar thing with me.
My partner says, buy one of those $25K Golfs. I am like yeah whaa evaa
tdi and tsi are at opposite ends of the spectrum. tdi power is brutal, short and in a big lump at low revs. tsi gets its performance from a long linear rev range. very different style i think most will agree. depends what floats your boat and if the premium for the diesel is worth it for you. however if you're a person who likes to drive your car hard, i would recommend reconsidering the diesel as it will only use marginally more fuel when driven hard whereas the tsi will suck juice like no tomorrow if you're constantly revving to redline etc...
tdi and tsi are at opposite ends of the spectrum. tdi power is brutal, short and in a big lump at low revs. tsi gets its performance from a long linear rev range. very different style i think most will agree. depends what floats your boat and if the premium for the diesel is worth it for you. however if you're a person who likes to drive your car hard, i would recommend reconsidering the diesel as it will only use marginally more fuel when driven hard whereas the tsi will suck juice like no tomorrow if you're constantly revving to redline etc...
Just out of curiosity, never looked, what is the price difference between diesel and 98 Ron at the moment in Melbourne?.
I think the review at the start of this thread is spot on with the GT's.
I also believe the key is to drive them all. I did.
I went in to buy the TSI, cause I love technology and I figured I'd have a ball messing with both a blower and a turbo. I never considered a "weezy" diesel. The TSI was willing, reasonably smooth and revvy. Felt like a 2.5 litre honda to me.
I drove the legendary GTI next, and it's easy to see why they are so well regarded. Heaps of easy, effortless power, and great finish and handling. I did find the suspension put me off, as it was just TOO hard for me.
The sales guy talked me into driving the diesel, and one boost and I was sold. A real feral car with a jeckyl and hyde personality. I can see why the sales guy said only certain "types" like the on-off power.
It took me 5 hours at the dealer, and a second drive of the GTI to make the choice. All three cars were in stock, in my options and colour ready to go. What a delimma!
Ring around and arrange to drive them all back to back at the same dealer. They are all close enough in price and their own fun factor to make it a real hard choice!
In the end whatever way you go, you'll win!
2014 Skoda Yeti TDI Outdoor 4x4 | Audi Q3 CFGC repower | Darkside tune and Race Cams | Darkside dump pDPF | Wagner Comp IC | Snow Water Meth | Bilstein B6 H&R springs | Rays Homura 2x7 18 x 8" 255 Potenza Sports | Golf R subframe | Superpro sways and bushings | 034 engine mounts | MK6 GTI brakes |
Well I run 95 octane a lot and around town I really aren't aware of any real difference. I've never done a high speed run on 95, so can't comment on any pinging or the like at high speed. Certainly around town and under 4000 rpm I've never picked anything odd. And 4000 rpm around town is REALLY rapid motoring in the TSI. The service dept said that you can run 95 no probs at all, and even std ULP at a pinch.
Mischa's spot on with the 2 characteristics of the cars - one's all about torque and not as many revs, the other's not as much torque and tons of revs - you choose. I didn't have to, as the TDI GT wasn't available when I bought mine - I was tossing up between the GTI and the TSI.
I'll have to say however, that I'm very disappointed with the way the price of diesel is going in this country - I think we need more of the TDI style cars available to us, and the disproportionate escalation in the price of diesel isn't helping at all.
Neither car is a guzzler, so if economy is important to you, choose either. At the end of the day it's each car's character that you need to be happy with. Happy decision-making! You could be deciding between a Ssanyong Something or Other and a Kia Doodad, so count yourself lucky
2007 Golf GT | DSG | TR | roof | iPod rubbish | R line fog grilles | R satin mirror caps | R pedals | R console trim | colour coded GTI valences | R32 Ormanyts
The TSI is a nice drive but I think it is overly complex and destined for a shorter life and poor resale. I don't really see the point of this engine.
I asked one of the sales guys about this and he thought that 1.4l engines get a tax break in Europe, if that is the case then I can see the logic over there.
The 1.8 TFSI that Audi and Skoda use gets similar power (118Kw) and torque (250nm 1500-4200rpm) on 95RON fuel and it has the same fuel economy. I drove the TSI and the 1.8TFSI and prefered the TFSI engine. Unfortunately I hated the Audi seats, the all black interior and the lack of storage.
The TDI motor is a known quantity and I love the torque.
My wife didn't like the abrupt nature of the diesel power as much as the petrol versions but the simple solution to that is the W switch.
I did some fuel calculations and the cost per 100km is very similar for both with diesel slightly ahead. The 1.8 TFSI would be slightly better than the diesel because it can use 95 or standard unleaded.
The big thing in the back of my mind too is that when fuel hits $3-$4 clams a litre in the next several years, I have the option of biodiesel. I bought this car for fun now, and options in the mad max days ahead.
2014 Skoda Yeti TDI Outdoor 4x4 | Audi Q3 CFGC repower | Darkside tune and Race Cams | Darkside dump pDPF | Wagner Comp IC | Snow Water Meth | Bilstein B6 H&R springs | Rays Homura 2x7 18 x 8" 255 Potenza Sports | Golf R subframe | Superpro sways and bushings | 034 engine mounts | MK6 GTI brakes |
Look, there's waaaay too much F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty & doubt) circulated regarding both DSG and TSI.
"There's a lot more to owning a diesel than fuel cost - sheer driveability and
longevity spring to mind...If you really want to protect yourself against long term expense choose a manual instead of a DSG." & "The TSI is a nice drive but I think it is overly complex and destined for a shorter life and poor resale."
are just 2 examples on this page.
Nothing personal guys, but those statements are based on WHAT?
On the DSG:
"Before production start the new DSG covered two million test kilometers
Both DSGs are built at the VW Transmission Plant in Kassel. The light 70 kilogram 7-speed DSG is built with about 400 parts. The new transmission is like an old friend to employees in Kassel as production volume is being ramped up these days: as early as September 2005 a die-casting machine was used to produce the first prototype case. While the many DSGs had to prove their qualities on stationary test benches for far more than 60,000 hours of durability testing, developers sent the other DSG prototypes aboard Golf and Co. to run test trial routes in the real world. They covered about two million kilometers. Afterwards the findings were clear: the new DSG is extremely durable and extremely efficient too."
On the TSI:
"In spite of the high output per litre, the high pressure level in the engine and possible engine speeds of up to 7000 rpm, the “Twincharger” is designed for a long service life – with the same criteria that apply to all power units from Volkswagen.
More than 250 prototype and pilot series engines have been put through their paces in all necessary test cycles. Every single component of this new power plant has been designed for the engine service life and has come through its baptism of fire. Endurance runs corresponding to a mileage of 300,000 km (186,420 miles) have been successfully completed."
and
"Being based on the VW’s EA111 modular engine and using an equally well-proven Roots-style Eton supercharger, the new TSI twincharger engine had little trouble meeting VW’s durability requirements, according to TSI project manager Niels Moeller, who flew out from Germany for the launch."
and
"the TSI engines with twin charging have stood for this magic formula for more than a year. In this time, more than 41,000 Golfs, Jettas and Tourans have been delivered with TSI engines."
The point being that both these technologies pass the exactly the same durability tests as the Golf you drive.
And in the complete absence of any evidence to suggest that either of these devices are any less durable than a TDI or FSI engine, or a regular auto or manual gearbox - maybe we ought to start to bag them if and only when there appears to be way more faults than occur on any other model? We may as well all believe in the BoogyMan - you know, that thing no-one's ever seen but we're all scared of?
Please don't take it personally, I'm just well over the FUD factor - I've heard it all before: when fuel injection replace carburettors, when FM radio came in... and auto testing standards are light years ahead of anything in recent memory. Volkswagen aren't about to rush in a technology that would destroy their reputation as the maker of durable cars. Your Mark 5 has a ton of new gizmos compared to the Mark 4 (different kind of power steering, ESP, a new generation ABS, totally new electrical system, a new generation of FSI engines...) and you don't hear anyone warning people not to buy the Mark 5, just because the new steering system 'seems' overly complex, un-proven (not) and might fail, do you?
So until we actually have droves of DSG TSIs parked around the world with their bonnets up and smoke billowing from them, ease up eh? The evidence so far is that they are NO more quirky or unreliable than any other model (as evidenced in this forum).
2007 Golf GT | DSG | TR | roof | iPod rubbish | R line fog grilles | R satin mirror caps | R pedals | R console trim | colour coded GTI valences | R32 Ormanyts
All good points with technical backup, and i agree 100%. But that doesnt replace the perception and trust a lot of people may have.
Many people will go with their comfort factor and what they know and trust. engine and gearbox are 2 major factors in this. It's a lot cheaper to replace a faulty power steering pump out of warranty than say a DSG gearbox.
I went DSG, as i enjoyed the experience of driving, and still do, BUT i dont intend to keep the car beyond its warranty period, if i was id have gone manual, just because ive been driving them for 15 years and never had a major failure.
It doesn't matter if it's a Golf or a Corolla, any auto transmission is going to cost more than the average manual transmission in terms of servicing and replacement parts.
In regard to the DSG, I have just one question - if the 6 speed wet clutch system was so brilliant why is it being replaced with a seven speed dry clutch unit?
Not too sure on the actual reason, perhaps it is a cost to build and maintain reason, or perhaps not. It may be that the 7 speed makes the car more economical and a dry system is lighter and easier. All my own theories though.
Tweet
Comment