2014 VOLKSWAGEN SCIROCCO COUPE 3-DR 2.0 TDI R Line BMT

Ninco! · 29 Jul 2017 at 20:01

If you are driving to 40mpg, I would able to overtake you in my Diesel.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jul 2017 at 21:20

rodenal said:
I get where you're coming from, but why should you or I have the authority on what manufacturers can or cannot do?

The first car that I had when I was younger (not happy about writing that, now feel old at 33) and actually liked was an A3 "sport". If i could possibly have bought one with the same engine, that looked like an S3 I would have had it in a heartbeat. I would have been happy, the insurance man would have been happy and the seller would have been happy. Manufacturers have clearly caught on to this and seen an opportunity to make some cash.

If you spend much time in Europe you'll notice it's also pretty much an exclusively UK thing - the rest either want basic, cheap motoring or care far more about spec than bling.

If anything I prefer it when you need to know what you're actually looking at to tell if something has a little bit of power. When you're in the mood it can lead to some rather confused faces from other interested parties.......

Same thought process as me. Most people wouldn't know what they are looking at when they look at my car, slow Volvo with an ugly rear end. R-Design body kit can be had with any of the range, even dual exhaust is found on the diesel. Only the tiny T5 badge gives it away totally.

crinkleshoes · 29 Jul 2017 at 23:52

Nasher said:
I bet you won't actually get any where near 40mpg

Fiesta ST is over 47 combined...yea right, maybe downhill. But yea, the gap is a lot smaller than it was. It's not worth having a diesel unless you do a lot of miles.

Ninco! said:
If you are driving to 40mpg, I would able to overtake you in my Diesel.

No... it really does get over 40mpg at 70-80mph

Heck... I managed to exceed 40mpg at 70-75mph in my 3.4L

Diesel gets maybe 55... really not worth it unless you're doing 50,000 miles a year... and even then, depreciation is going to make fuel look like chump change.

I highly dislike diesel... and extra £100-200/month in cost is much preferred over the depression of driving a tractor every day.

The only diesel that comes close to being acceptable is the 3.0 BMW engine... for a diesel, that is a damn good engine.

theone8181 · 30 Jul 2017 at 06:34

crinkleshoes said:
No... it really does get over 40mpg at 70-80mph

Heck... I managed to exceed 40mpg at 70-75mph in my 3.4L

Diesel gets maybe 55... really not worth it unless you're doing 50,000 miles a year... and even then, depreciation is going to make fuel look like chump change.

I highly dislike diesel... and extra £100-200/month in cost is much preferred over the depression of driving a tractor every day.

The only diesel that comes close to being acceptable is the 3.0 BMW engine... for a diesel, that is a damn good engine.

They are pretty smooth, a guy at work has a white 430d (one of the reasons I don't want a white m4) and when he drives by its hard to tell it's a diesel as it doesn't sound like a bag of spanners. I guess it's partially down to them being 6 cylinder, not sure of many cars that are in terms of diesel.

Quinnaay · 30 Jul 2017 at 08:15

lol, my 2.0 petrol Rocco does 30MPG absolute tops

Kenai · 30 Jul 2017 at 08:23

Quinnaay said:
lol, my 2.0 petrol Rocco does 30MPG absolute tops

You're hammering it everywhere then, I haven't managed to get my VRS under 30mpg even when I've tried and I'm sure it's a good chunk heavier

Quinnaay · 30 Jul 2017 at 08:40

Kenai said:
You're hammering it everywhere then, I haven't managed to get my VRS under 30mpg even when I've tried and I'm sure it's a good chunk heavier

Nah, honestly hammering it i can see around 23MPG. My avg over 5000 miles is 28MPG. The 280bhp R does 25MPG taking it steady.

Kenai · 30 Jul 2017 at 09:03

Sounds broken then, I think I'd have to drive to work in third gear the whole way to get it that low!

badgeruk · 30 Jul 2017 at 09:15

Going to say that's less the I get on the Z4M. On motorway trip I can just about get 34. It's currently on 22 with town and fun driving.

Skillmister · 30 Jul 2017 at 09:56

Nasher said:
Fiesta ST is over 47 combined...yea right, maybe downhill. But yea, the gap is a lot smaller than it was. It's not worth having a diesel unless you do a lot of miles.

On Thursday I averaged 54mpg in my ST over 120 miles with cruise set to 70mph on the motorway and a 10 mile A road blast getting to it. It was up to 56 at one point.

My commute is 10 miles A road, 10 miles motorway, 4 miles town and I average 40mpg easily and that's being fairly spirited on the A road part.

Skillmister · 30 Jul 2017 at 10:07

crinkleshoes · 30 Jul 2017 at 12:21

Quinnaay said:
Nah, honestly hammering it i can see around 23MPG. My avg over 5000 miles is 28MPG. The 280bhp R does 25MPG taking it steady.

Must be something wrong with it then

Or you're just driving un-economically...

My friend has had one for nearly 2 years, his latest job has him driving from Slough -> Hastings and back 3 days a week... he gets nearly 45mpg on that trip and it's the 280R

ultralaser · 30 Jul 2017 at 17:37

Nice car OP. Personally I think the 140BHPish range is a decent amount of power (whether that be a 1.4 TSI / 2.0 VW TDI etc..) for everyday driving around.

Nasher · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:10

140hp is pretty poor for a 2.0 turbo engine though these days. It does feel very lethargic if your used to having more, especially a lighter petrol engined car with more. Coming from the average Corsa though it will feel like a rocket.

Raymond Lin · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:24

Nasher said:
140hp is pretty poor for a 2.0 turbo engine though these days. It does feel very lethargic if your used to having more, especially a lighter petrol engined car with more. Coming from the average Corsa though it will feel like a rocket.

I had 131BHP from my 1.8L NA Yaris, how does a 2L only make 140BHP?

Dis86 · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:33

I had 170 from a 1.4t! Can only assume it's detuned for efficiency or longevity

Nasher · 30 Jul 2017 at 18:39

Well, it wasn't for emissions. They simply cheated on that lol

Kenai · 30 Jul 2017 at 21:37

Raymond Lin said:
I had 131BHP from my 1.8L NA Yaris, how does a 2L only make 140BHP?

Because they need to have a range of them, same as every other engine with varying power outputs in different trims.

ultralaser · 30 Jul 2017 at 22:16

The new Scirocco R-Line have two options, a 150PS 2.0 TDI and 180PS 2.0 TSI. The TDI is 20 MPG more efficient and is only 1.2 seconds slower 0-60 wise..... I know which I'd rather have, and TBH I bet the OP had a similar decision to make. I think the point for me would be "In real world terms what is 1.2 seconds getting me"? And the answer is pretty much nothing over a car that already gas a 8.6 second 0-60 time (a 140/150PS car will overtake on country lanes with ease and hold its own on the motorway). If we where talking about a base car that was a 1.0T / 1.2NA / 1.4NA then sure I could see your points..... but really having a dig at an engine because he should have bought something that is a second quicker seems bizarre to me!

Kenai · 30 Jul 2017 at 22:33

ultralaser said:
The new Scirocco R-Line have two options, a 150PS 2.0 TDI and 180PS 2.0 TSI. The TDI is 20 MPG more efficient and is only 1.2 seconds slower 0-60 wise..... I know which I'd rather have, and TBH I bet the OP had a similar decision to make. I think the point for me would be "In real world terms what is 1.2 seconds getting me"? And the answer is pretty much nothing over a car that already gas a 8.6 second 0-60 time (a 140/150PS car will overtake on country lanes with ease and hold its own on the motorway). If we where talking about a base car that was a 1.0T / 1.2NA / 1.4NA then sure I could see your points..... but really having a dig at an engine because he should have bought something that is a second quicker seems bizarre to me!

I think i'd rather have the petrol even if it was no quicker, just for the way they drive. I'd happily forgo £100 a month in fuel savings to avoid spending my life driving a depressing 2.0TDI around.