Associate
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 324
Wouldn't you compare to the 1.4TSI GT 160PS which costs £21325?
Fancy a diesel corsa for more mpgzzz? Better keep it for 20 years.
- Thread starter tummelv
- Start date
Wouldn't you compare to the 1.4TSI GT 160PS which costs £21325?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You mean lets look a load of cars which are not like for like?
Not like for like. The GTI is a considerably faster car and the GTD is not simply a GTI with a diesel engine. Instead the alternative is the 160bhp 1.4 TSI GT which at £21325 is CONSIDERABLY cheaper.
So why compare it with the TFSI as they dont do a 211bhp diesel either? Again, not like for like.
So basically then in the few occasions where you did manage to find a like for like example.. the diesel was loads more expensive, just as was said.
Yea, the world is just flooded with expensive ignition system issues on petrol engined cars these days. They make DPF replacement seem like a walk in the park.
I do agree on the whole though that there should be no expectation that a direct injection turbocharged petrol engine should be any less reliable than a diesel. The diesel v petrol reliability thing is mostly in comparison to traditional indirect injection normally aspirated petrol engines which until recently were pretty much all petrol engines but are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as manufacturers get more and more complicated in the name of emissions legislation.
Infact frankly I dont think it matters what flavour of 2012 Golf you buy - I wouldn't want to touch the thing once the warranty had expired.
Last edited:
Associate
nanospider said:
[TW]Fox;21482242 said:
Well that depends on what you both consider like for like. The vehicles I compared were the same trim level and the same external appearance. The power was less on the diesels, which I quoted, and the economy is greater by a similar amount on the diesels, which I didn't quote.
Perhaps I should have included the torque figures instead, which are in favour of the diesels. "But torque doesn't determine how fast you go!" I hear you cry. Not when thrashing your vehicle down a back road perhaps - but not everyone does this. Consider the place where most miles are done - the motorway.
At 70mph in top gear, a diesel will be significantly closer to its peak power rpm compared to the petrol. I don't know about you folks, but personally I don't regularly drop a couple of gears in my petrol to get closer to my peak power every time I want to accelerate.
I don't see why a Golf GTD is not simply a GTi with a diesel engine? Other than the engines and gearboxes, which other components are different? Comparing the 160bhp 1.4 TSi GT is not valid - there is a 140hp 2.0 Tdi GT which is this cars equivalent, which at £20,930 is again cheaper than the petrol.
Lets go a little deeper into the comparison of the two Golfs which are nothing like each other:
VW Golf GTD £24650
170hp @ 4200rpm
258lbs.ft @ 1750rpm
0-60 8.1s
55.4 mpg combined
VW Golf GTi £25320
211hp @ 5300rpm
207lbs.ft @ 1700rpm
0-60 6.9s
38.7 mpg combined
So the petrol is 17% faster to 60 than the diesel. The diesel is 43% more fuel efficient than the petrol. So you are both right, I stand corrected. These two vehicles are nothing alike, the diesel is much better.
My point is, there is more to cars than performance. The majority of this forum is fascinated with power and acceleration, which is to be expected as a section of the form dedicated to motor nuts. However, in the real world most people use a car to get from A to B. Performance is not the number one aspect when selecting a car.
Last edited:
Associate
The GTD doesn't have the electronic XDS system either. It's definitely a case of sporty vs practicality.
The diesel is much better, if you don't care about performance...
Your comparison is ridiculous.
The GTI has 40 more BHP and does 0-60 more than a second faster!
Soldato
The diesel is much better, if you don't care about performance...
Your comparison is ridiculous.
The GTI has 40 more BHP and does 0-60 more than a second faster!
The GTi also has different trim and equipment to the GTD, they are not the same cars with different engines, the comparison car is the GT 1.4 TFSI as Fox already mentioned.
When I bought my GTI, I considered the GTD, but to spec it to the same level as the GTI made the cost prohibitive, that was basing the GTI on a the DSG model.
Only if the choices are either 'like for like' or 'what Bluelion pretends is like fr like'
No, they were not. I've explained to you which ones were not the same trim level. I
Why would you want peak power at 70mph on a Motorway? How often do you find yourself travelling along the M4 at 70mph and then suddeny need to engage Warp Drive and accelerate at the maximum level your car provides? Why would you want that? You are not getting up to speed, you are not overtaking on the wrong side of the road... why would you want peak power?
Fact is, you wouldn't. The acceleration, say, a Golf 1.4TSI provides at 70mph in top gear is sufficient enough for pretty much any need you'd have on the Motorway at 70mph.
I never need to drop a gear to accelerate whilst on the Motorway - the requirement for maximum acceleration is simply never there, so your point is irrelevent.
Because its... not? Surely you are not forming an entire argument on the basis of the 3 letters in the model name? You actually know about the cars, right?
I guess not. The GTI is a hot hatch - it has a different suspension setup and it has a different level of standard equipment. The GTD is a a rep-hatch made to look nice.
Wait, what? Comparing a 170bhp diesel with a 210bhp is 'valid' but comparing a 160bhp GT with a 170bhp GTD is 'not valid'?
It is when you are buying a Golf GTI. If you are buying a car to go from A to B then most people wouldnt be buying a £25,000 Golf GTI. They'd buy something arguably more suited to the boring job of going from A to B.
The sheer terrifying repair costs of modern diesels should be more then enough to nullify any true comparison.
The majority of new bits that have been bolted onto diesels in the past decade or so are just disasters waiting to happen. Also as a side point that despite needing fewer bits replaced the average service is just as if not more expensive on a diesel.
If you really want a diesel to save a few pennies find a old 1.8d fiesta.
The majority of new bits that have been bolted onto diesels in the past decade or so are just disasters waiting to happen. Also as a side point that despite needing fewer bits replaced the average service is just as if not more expensive on a diesel.
If you really want a diesel to save a few pennies find a old 1.8d fiesta.
Sadly this is now happening to modern petrol cars. It's nothing like as widespread yet - but in 5 years time we'll be in the same place with used petrol as we are now with used diesel.
Associate
[TW]Fox;21484588 said:
I suppose one thing we can hope for is that as these things like high pressure injectors and turbochargers become even more common, more manufacturers start making them, manufacturing efficiency increases and the materials used are easier and cheaper to obtain due to demand. The result being cheaper part prices and lower repair costs.
A bit like how catalytic convertors were very expensive when they were introduced in the early 90's. Last year I got mine changed on the MR2 for £200 all in.
The most terrifyingly expensive (in future) addition to most modern petrols and diesels for me is the Dual clutch transmission - people seem to gloss over how horribly expensive the eary vag dsg system has been for a lot of unfortunate individuals. Given how troublesome and expensive to fix a traditional slushbox can be I dread to think what 15 year old dsg type systems will be like.
Priced up a cat yesterday for a 02 1.6 stilo, £1182 from main dealer.
Associate
Well done.
It's an hours work to change one and they're £160 to buy. http://www.eurocarparts.com/ecp/c/F...6c7e989ac7906bc17146aaf0dff870eeb500d4&000059
Soldato
Key words: Main dealer lol
Have you added an extra 1 in there??
Caporegime
DSG is becoming cheaper to fix, initially it was dealer only and they just replaced the whole thing. Now there's specialists springing up that can recon the mechatronic unit for a fraction of a new box. Add to that that the DSG boxes have far less clutch issues and flywheel issues compared to the manual boxes and it's not as bad as you'd think at all.
Any one with a remapped manual gti/s3 is looking at a new clutch within 20k, the DSG is much more robust.
Man of Honour
He works in a garage - most garages do not source their components from places like Euro Car Parts.
Associate
I dont quite understand what difference that makes to my point?
The most a Catalytic convertor should cost to replace on a run of the mill car is £400, most will be less than this. When they first came out, they were substantially more to repair. A random quote of £1100 to change one or where someone buys their parts from, shouldn't detract from that. The link to eurocarparts was just to show (in a helpful way) that £1100 was a rip off.
Yes I know, I fitted the one we got from euro (or the 2nd as the first was wrong), which proceeded to fail an emissions test requiring a third from them.
My point was not all prices drop with common use.
lopez- euro do actually have a decent trade delivery service, not our preferred buts its reasonable. (also much more discounted)
Last edited: