New car - 110 TDI vs 103 TSI

[Disciple]

Hi guys,

I'm thinking of getting a new car this year. I use it primarily just to commute to and from work. I do about 35,000kms per year and 95% of my travel is on the Bruce Highway.

My question is; Do I go with the 110 TDI or the 103 TSI? Fuel economy is a big factor for me considering the amount of K's I do.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Cheers.

[Lucas_R]

New car - 110 TDI vs 103 TSI

Definitely diesel with those km's.

Better fuel economy and more torque than the petrol engine for highway overtaking/hills etc.

[DV52]

Hi guys,

I'm thinking of getting a new car this year. I use it primarily just to commute to and from work. I do about 35,000kms per year and 95% of my travel is on the Bruce Highway.

My question is; Do I go with the 110 TDI or the 103 TSI? Fuel economy is a big factor for me considering the amount of K's I do.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Cheers.

Disciple: (interesting handle!) I had to make the very same decision when I purchased my Golf earlier last year. Like you my sole considertion was an ecomonic one (I didn't consider issues such as better torque-as Lucas_R has indicated).

The calculation (for me) was very easy albeit the numbers that I used weren't that accurate (I had to assume a medium-to-long-term price differential between petrol and deisel and I simply used VW's advertised cconsumption figures for the two model cars). My analysis was highly sensitive to both these numbers but I didn't think that accuracy was that important because I only wanted to calculate a rough payback period for the extra cost of the TDI. Anyway the result for my (comparatively small) annual Kms was that I couldn't justify the additional expense for the TDI. Your calcs might be different.

The other tool that I used was to make my problem, the problem of the car salesman at the dealership. I've often found this approach useful in the past; I simply said to the dealer "you tell me why I should give you the extra $*** for the TDI when I travel x/yr? I then just listened to the logic of his response. In my case I wanted to validate the salseman's response with my own calculations (which verified what the salesman had said)

[tonymy01]

I heard what I suspect was a 103TSI MK7 two days ago accelerating and pinging it's nuts off.. I thought VW had sorted that stuff out by now?

[Disciple]

Disciple: (interesting handle!) I had to make the very same decision when I purchased my Golf earlier last year. Like you my sole considertion was an ecomonic one (I didn't consider issues such as better torque-as Lucas_R has indicated).

The calculation (for me) was very easy albeit the numbers that I used weren't that accurate (I had to assume a medium-to-long-term price differential between petrol and deisel and I simply used VW's advertised cconsumption figures for the two model cars). My analysis was highly sensitive to both these numbers but I didn't think that accuracy was that important because I only wanted to calculate a rough payback period for the extra cost of the TDI. Anyway the result for my (comparatively small) annual Kms was that I couldn't justify the additional expense for the TDI. Your calcs might be different.

The other tool that I used was to make my problem, the problem of the car salesman at the dealership. I've often found this approach useful in the past; I simply said to the dealer "you tell me why I should give you the extra $*** for the TDI when I travel x/yr? I then just listened to the logic of his response. In my case I wanted to validate the salseman's response with my own calculations (which verified what the salesman had said)

Thanks for the reply. This sounds like quite a sensible way to figure it out. Bear with me while I do some maths here then...

110 TDI ($34,490) = 4.5L/100km (Highway). 35,000 kms per year = 4.5 x 350 = 1575L per year x $1.60/L (Diesel) = $2520.

103 TSI ($31,990) = 4.6L/100km (Highway). 35,000 kms per year = 4.6 x 350 = 1610L per year x $1.80/L (98 Ron) = $2898.

Difference = $378 yer pear (103 TSI being more expensive to run). Difference is $2500 (Diesel more expensive). At $400/year it'd take 6 years just to recoup the extra cost of the car.

Someone correct me if my maths is off.

The 103TSI is also slightly quicker in a straight line and should be fundamentally more refined due to the natural downfalls of a Diesel engine.

Thoughts?

[DV52]

Thanks for the reply. This sounds like quite a sensible way to figure it out. Bear with me while I do some maths here then...

110 TDI ($34,490) = 4.5L/100km (Highway). 35,000 kms per year = 4.5 x 350 = 1575L per year x $1.60/L (Diesel) = $2520.

103 TSI ($31,990) = 4.6L/100km (Highway). 35,000 kms per year = 4.6 x 350 = 1610L per year x $1.80/L (98 Ron) = $2898.

Difference = $378 yer pear (103 TSI being more expensive to run). Difference is $2500 (Diesel more expensive). At $400/year it'd take 6 years just to recoup the extra cost of the car.

Someone correct me if my maths is off.

The 103TSI is also slightly quicker in a straight line and should be fundamentally more refined due to the natural downfalls of a Diesel engine.

Thoughts?

Disciple: I went back and had a look at my calcs for the two vehicles. I made a few more assumptions (aboout how the price curves for petrol and deisel would track over a five year period and I also assumed a discount rate for the cost of cash over the pay back period).

The other (big) diference in my calcs was the underlying consumption numbers for the two cars. According to the brochure that I got when I purchased my Golf, the TSI has a fuel consumption (combined urban and extra urban) of 5.2 L/100km whereas the TDI's number is 4.9 L/100kms.

As I said in my previous post, extra complication is probably wasted in this analysis but if I plug-in your fuel price costs into my fuel consumption numbers and I use your $2,500 differencial for the two cars, I get a pay back period that is fairly close to 4.7 years. A bit better than 6 years but is it enough?

[Disciple]

Definitely not enough from purely an economic point of view. Other considerations like driving experience, delivery of torque, refinement, ride quality etc also have to come into the equation. On paper, the petrol makes its peak torque lower than the diesel, but the diesel makes more overall torque.

I'd really love to see real world highway cycle consumption figures of people with the 103TSI and the 110TDI respectively.

[DV52]

Definitely not enough from purely an economic point of view. Other considerations like driving experience, delivery of torque, refinement, ride quality etc also have to come into the equation. On paper, the petrol makes its peak torque lower than the diesel, but the diesel makes more overall torque.

I'd really love to see real world highway cycle consumption figures of people with the 103TSI and the 110TDI respectively.

Disciple: I deliberately steered-away from your "other considerations" in my decision. My view was (at the time) that these more ephemeral concerns only added to the weight of uncertainty in the analysis. How does one value "driving experience" or "refinement"? For me, the bald numbers needed to make sense from the get-go. If the payback period had been more reasonable, I would have used your "other considertations" at the margin in deciding.
This said, I do agree with your comment about fuel consumption. I've notice on my TSI that the fuel consumption is highly variable and very individual. My experience has been that fuel consumption is very dependent on the prevailing emotion of the driver. For this reason, I suspect that getting fuel consumption numbers from others might be of little value (unless of course they all have your sage temprement when driving).

[Lucas_R]

New car - 110 TDI vs 103 TSI

In the real world, the 103TSI will use more than 4.6L/100km. I'd re-do your maths using 6.0L as a more realistic figure for highway driving.

The diesel, on the other hand, will be sub 5.0L

[tigger73]

The 103TSI is also slightly quicker in a straight line and should be fundamentally more refined due to the natural downfalls of a Diesel engine.

Thoughts?

I've driven both around the track on VW driving experience day last year. TSI is a lighter engine/car and this is quite noticeable when cornering. TDI is heavier up front but a lot more torquey motor.

I would suggest driving both. I don't think fuel economy is going to make that much difference from a $/ running cost point of view. You would need to take service costs into consideration also with the high km you do.

Also keep in mind TDI will probably have better resale down the track too.

The other major difference between the 2 is that the TDI has the higher spec 6 speed DSG which is the one you want if you're going to keep the car long term.

The 7 speed DSG in the TSI is the same/similar unit that has been involved with the recent recalls. I'm still yet to be convinced that they have fully sorted the issues (too much clutch slipping at low speeds for my liking).

If you're intending on keeping the car longer than the warranty, I would buy the TDI over the TSI just for this reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AJD]

Hi guys,

I'm thinking of getting a new car this year. I use it primarily just to commute to and from work. I do about 35,000kms per year and 95% of my travel is on the Bruce Highway.

My question is; Do I go with the 110 TDI or the 103 TSI? Fuel economy is a big factor for me considering the amount of K's I do.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Cheers.

My 2 cents worth - I'm on my 3rd diesel and it will take a lot to get me to go back to petrol. You can play the numbers game all day, add in variables such as service costs and average fuel costs but in the end it may well come down to what you prefer to drive. Admittedly, I do live in Sydney so a considerable part of my time in the car is spent at a standstill staring at the bumper of the car in front, however, I have put about 250,000k's behind my 3 diesels and have never found myself looking for refinement in the engine.

Try test driving them back to back over the same route and add that in your decision making process, some people just don't like diesels.

[Disciple]

I'm not against diesels at all. I had a Mitsubishi ASX diesel for a year and drive ability wise, it was great. My mother has an ix35 diesel and my father has a Nissan STX550 diesel. I love the torque delivery of a diesel, don't get me wrong. The resale point is fair enough - I never buy a car thinking too much about resale, but in 3-5 years I might want to trade, so the extra value of the diesel might be worth it.

I think driving both back to back is definitely the best way to go.

[pologti18t]

Would it be out of line to suggest a new Skoda Octavia Elegance 103TSI at 35.5K? Gets full leather trim and the 8" Columbus sat nav (the unit VW wont put in any Golf models here)

[tigger73]

Would it be out of line to suggest a new Skoda Octavia Elegance 103TSI at 35.5K? Gets full leather trim and the 8" Columbus sat nav (the unit VW wont put in any Golf models here)

Given that the OP has posted in Mk7 Golf thread then yes it's out of line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Disciple]

Would it be out of line to suggest a new Skoda Octavia Elegance 103TSI at 35.5K? Gets full leather trim and the 8" Columbus sat nav (the unit VW wont put in any Golf models here)

It's a Skoda. Maybe not an issue for some people, but it is for me. I was set on an Audi A3 sedan, but the Golf is basically the same car for $15k less...