Canadian new to OZ - TDI or TSI, which is for me???

[wai]

...and they gave me $2,000 more for my trade in than any other dealer!!

The EA discount was something arranged between EA and VW Group for members. There are a couple of conditions. You must have been a member for at least 3 months, and you have to be a member when you arrange the deal. It does not cost the dealer anything as they get reimbursed by VW Group when the sale is completed. It is something done to encourage buyers to buy a VW Group vehicle.

As to whether your professional body has such an arrangement, check with them first, and then when you are talking turkey with the dealer, get them to check if there are any other offers available. Even if there are none, you can still try and squeeze them. For example, if you have to be a member for at least 3 months and you have one more month to go, then tell them you can wait and will check back with them in a month.

If there are no such discounts you can get, still try and get them to come even a little closer.

[ziggyboy]

Fuel cost is one thing but the TDI costs more than the TSI. You need to factor in the difference in vehicle price as well. I've read a car review saying factoring in the fuel costs of petrol vs diesel AND the price difference between TSI and TDI, one would realise the benefits only after 20 years!!! Bear in mind that the 103TDI costs $2,600 more than the 118TSI, and apart from the engines, everything you get is identical between the two.

[bugsalanko]

That's 20 years on average consumer km. if your doing 140-160km's a day just for work then you would see the saving a lot earlier. Furthermore more money down the track in resale due to the frugal consumption the engine has.

Fuel cost is one thing but the TDI costs more than the TSI. You need to factor in the difference in vehicle price as well. I've read a car review saying factoring in the fuel costs of petrol vs diesel AND the price difference between TSI and TDI, one would realise the benefits only after 20 years!!! Bear in mind that the 103TDI costs $2,600 more than the 118TSI, and apart from the engines, everything you get is identical between the two.

[pologti18t]

Does the 118TSI mandate 98RON or is 95RON acceptable?

Have you looked at the VW Jetta? Sedan version of the Golf and slightly cheaper.

I am not sure of the situation is the same in Canada. We have lots of sales in Jan of each year as dealers try to get rid of the previous years (build date, not model year) cars. So, I would expect you should be able to negotiate a good price on a car in Jan/Feb/Mar

[bugsalanko]

98 recommended with 95 being bare minimum.

Does the 118TSI mandate 98RON or is 95RON acceptable?

Have you looked at the VW Jetta? Sedan version of the Golf and slightly cheaper.

I am not sure of the situation is the same in Canada. We have lots of sales in Jan of each year as dealers try to get rid of the previous years (build date, not model year) cars. So, I would expect you should be able to negotiate a good price on a car in Jan/Feb/Mar

[wai]

98 recommended with 95 being bare minimum.

The other thing to remember is that the government continues to fiddle with petrol.

The car makers are trying to have Standard ULP phased out. In Sydney, you cannot get Standard ULP, just E10 (which is an absolute waste). If SULP is phased out, then you will start to see ethanol in PULP. The issue here is that you have a reduction in calorific value, so less power and you use more. The oxygen that is released when ethanol breaks down leans out the mixture. You cannot tune it for E10, as you cannot get an ethanol blend outside Sydney, so if you do tune it for E10, it will run rich when running straight petrol. The same will apply to most capital cities.

[ziggyboy]

That's 20 years on average consumer km. if your doing 140-160km's a day just for work then you would see the saving a lot earlier. Furthermore more money down the track in resale due to the frugal consumption the engine has.

Maybe, but still highly debatable (and still unlikely IMHO). There's potential to get into some sort of false economy here... paying $2,600 more to save on fuel costs (???). That's $2,600 you can spend on fuel! And I think unless you plan to keep the car for at least 10 years it really is false economy!

[pologti18t]

You cannot tune it for E10, as you cannot get an ethanol blend outside Sydney, so if you do tune it for E10, it will run rich when running straight petrol. The same will apply to most capital cities.

The car makers are well aware of ethanol blend fuels and the ecu can easily cope with it. The USA use ethanol blend fuels.
If GM can make the entire Commodore engine range run on E0 to E85 I assume VW can handle E10.

[wai]

In that case, go with whatever suits your budget.

[The_Hawk]

5.6L/100km on the diesel vs 6.2L/100km on the petrol. 0.6L/100Km will take a long while to add up.

realise the benefits only after 20 years!!!

For the sake of this argument lets say fuel is fixed at $1.50 per litre.
When your savings is 0.6L / 100 km in the diesel that's $0.90 / 100km.
To save $2,600 worth of fuel it would take 288,888.9km
At an average of 15,000 km per year it's a shade under 20 years to "save" the purchase cost.

If you're doing 150km / day (150 x 5 = 750km) for work, say 46 weeks a year (4 weeks leave + 10 public holidays off 52 weeks) that's still only 34,500 per year. It would still take almost 10 years to cover the required distance and remember this is only to "break even!"


Of course this is all on paper, but you get the idea. Petrol has become more and more efficient to the point where it really is rivalling diesel in the right circumstances.

For massive km I probably still lean towards diesel, for some reason my brain thinks a diesel with high km is better than a petrol with high km... don't know why, just does.

[wai]

For the sake of this argument lets say fuel is fixed at $1.50 per litre.

This is the issue. There is talk of letting the price of petrol going much higher than this.

There are other thing to consider as well, but in the end you will get those who prefer one over the other, and that's the choice. It's the same with manual vs DSG. There are those entrenched in both camps.

I got my TDI250 back in July when the price of PULP was around $1.30 per litre. It is now in the range $1.55 to $1.60 depending on where and when you buy. I tried E10, but my consumption went over 10% higher, and it was actually cheaper overall to use PULP, and there was none of the roughness that was there with E10.

Ah well, it is good there is a choice.

[ziggyboy]

Of course this is all on paper, but you get the idea. Petrol has become more and more efficient to the point where it really is rivalling diesel in the right circumstances.

For massive km I probably still lean towards diesel, for some reason my brain thinks a diesel with high km is better than a petrol with high km... don't know why, just does.

Fair enough. What would you say about the TDI's engine reliability? Can't say the TSI engines are the most reliable out there... I would fork out the extra $2,600 if I know I'm getting a better engine though!

[Greg Roles]

As they are all common rail now, they are better than their MKV counterparts, at least from a DPF perspective. Also the new DPF's have been redesigned, and to date the only issues are the fuel pump and the regeneration valve in the exhaust pipe, on the US cars at least, have not heard of nay local cars with such issues, but early days.

The one BIG issue with common rail is fuel quality, and where the former PD TDI's would cope with a bad barch of fuel, the newer common rail ones are ultra sensitive given the far greater pressures, and again, if you stick to the top brand fuels, you should be fine.

I only mentioned Shell as a lower choice as there were a few cars that had problems while using Shell diesel, but only a select few, and the fuel may not have even been the main factor. Have not heard of any such problems at all with BP, and Caltex Vortex seems to be as good.

I'm sure Shell is fine, just my own "gut feel".

I just like the fact I have to visit the petrol station a whole lot less, and if I wanted to drive to Sydney from Brisbane, I could probably make it on just one tank.

[kaanage]

Petrol has become more and more efficient to the point where it really is rivalling diesel in the right circumstances.

Which is how the official fuel consumption figures are achieved - the manufacturers know how the tests are run and can optimise the car for these.

In the real world, it is fairly easy for diesels to match or better their official consumption figures but IME a petrol engine struggles to get near theirs

But the MapleMan will most likely make up his mind after driving the cars for himself - the driving characteristics are so different it should be an easy choice depending on his preferences.

[MapleMan]

After reading all that, I have to say that petrol in my case would be a best bet. In all honesty, I only plan on keeping the car maybe 3-4 years, 5 tops, and although I will be traveling a fair distance at first, the distance will gradually shrink to the point where I plan on living pretty close to work. The resale will definitely be less but with respect to initial cost, it won't hurt as much I don't think.

From this point, looks like I'm leaning towards petrol.

But the mention of alcohol fuel has me curious - why is it such a debatable topic? Here in North America, many cars are what we call flex-fuel and run on little to no alcohol all the way up to E85. No drama, apart from the lower MPG, cheaper cost of fuel, and much higher octane ratings. There was also mention of the 95 octane minimum for the Golf which is also curious because in Canada, you will be hard pressed to find ANY gasoline that is over 93 octane. And even that is hard to come by because there is only one station that offers it. All the rest have 92 octane max.