Golf 1.4 TSI

Tommy B · 21 Jul 2007 at 01:04

Dogbreath said:
168bhp in a hatch and it can only just crack 8 seconds 0-60? Not overly impressive I have to say.

It's more about fuel economy than performance.

Still sounds pretty fast to me though.

PMKeates · 21 Jul 2007 at 01:08

Dogbreath said:
The Astra GTE I owned many years ago had less power but was faster with simmilar economy. Things havn't moved on much really, though I suppose the Golf is a safer (aka more boring) car.

1.4 TSI 170PS does 0-60 in 7.6s with a manual box and a top speed of 137. The Astra GTE would maybe have matched it early on, but with 170PS the Golf'll pull away as the speeds pick up.

Dandle · 21 Jul 2007 at 01:16

Dogbreath said:
The Astra GTE I owned many years ago had less power but was faster with simmilar economy. Things havn't moved on much really, though I suppose the Golf is a safer (aka more boring) car.

Cars just get heavier with age as more things are added(airbags, electric windows, aircon etc). Your old astra GTE wouldnt weigh anything near the golf. As the old chevetes etc wouldnt weigh what the astra did(i'm guessing at this rather than knowing figures though

). Plus the TSI isnt the hot hatch version anyway.

Dandle · 21 Jul 2007 at 01:22

PMKeates said:
1.4 TSI 170PS does 0-60 in 7.6s with a manual box and a top speed of 137. The Astra GTE would maybe have matched it early on, but with 170PS the Golf'll pull away as the speeds pick up.

If it was a 16v GTE the Golf would have its work cut out I would thing. The 16v had a 0-60 of 7.2 and 150bhp plus the fact they would be lighter than a current golf.

broona · 21 Jul 2007 at 04:49

Dandle said:
If it was a 16v GTE the Golf would have its work cut out I would thing. The 16v had a 0-60 of 7.2 and 150bhp plus the fact they would be lighter than a current golf.

But it's all about the torque once you get rolling, and the Golf also has 30 to 40nm more than the Astra, so 30-50, 30-70, etc, would be faster in the Golf. Who needs to do 0-60 in a real world situation anyway?
As has already been rightly pointed out however, this isn't designed to be a performance car, so comparing it to a 15 year old hot hatch is very unfair anyway.

unclelonghair · 21 Jul 2007 at 05:26

I should be getting mine next week, so I'll report then

Dangerous Dave · 21 Jul 2007 at 09:21

An Astra GTE had a kerb weight of 1007kg from the factory (give or take the same as a 106), so its power to weight is very similair to the modern hot hatches so it would give them a serious run for there money. They will clock 0-60 in 6.9secs standard not far away from a MK5 GTI/Tyre R of today. So I would be surprised if the TFSI was quicker as its not a fair comparison.

If you are going for the 170bhp 1.4 TFSI GT I personally would just pay the £1000 odd extra and get the GTI.

PMKeates · 21 Jul 2007 at 11:49

Dangerous Dave said:
They will clock 0-60 in 6.9secs standard not far away from a MK5 GTI/Tyre R of today. So I would be surprised if the TFSI was quicker as its not a fair comparison.

Whatever the 0-60 is, 60-100 will take a long time in comparison!

flat-6 · 21 Jul 2007 at 11:53

Clarkson hated it but that doesn't count for much. Certainly the performance and economy is very good for the low CO2 emissions making it a tax-friendly choice.

Why not book a test drive?

Tommy B · 21 Jul 2007 at 12:01

flat-6 said:
Clarkson hated it but that doesn't count for much. Certainly the performance and economy is very good for the low CO2 emissions making it a tax-friendly choice.

Why not book a test drive?

Clarkson always goes on about how he loves the Golf, especially the Golf GTI. Wasn't it their car of the year last year too?

PMKeates · 21 Jul 2007 at 12:04

Tommy B said:
Clarkson always goes on about how he loves the Golf, especially the Golf GTI. Wasn't it their car of the year last year too?

He didn't like the TSI though. It's a bit diesel-esque.

Vertigo · 21 Jul 2007 at 15:40

Dogbreath said:
safer (aka more boring)

LOL, what you actually mean is the Astra had the structural integrity of a baked bean can by comparison. The Golf is safer in that you could actually have an accident in it and walk away.

Vertigo · 21 Jul 2007 at 15:42

PMKeates said:
He didn't like the TSI though. It's a bit diesel-esque.

Which raises the question of why choose it over the equivalent diesel, which will be pretty much as fast, far more economical and command less tax?

PMKeates · 21 Jul 2007 at 15:46

Vertigo1 said:
Which raises the question of why choose it over the equivalent diesel, which will be pretty much as fast, far more economical and command less tax?

Do you mean on a personal basis, or in a "why did Volkswagen do it" kinda way?

Vertigo · 21 Jul 2007 at 16:48

Both really. Why would you buy one when the diesel is generally better all-round? Why would VW make it when the diesel is better all-round?

I always assumed the answer was that it'd appeal to those who couldn't stomach a clattery diesel but, from the sound of things, it's pretty noisy anyway so where's the advantage?

PMKeates · 21 Jul 2007 at 17:16

Vertigo1 said:
Both really. Why would you buy one when the diesel is generally better all-round? Why would VW make it when the diesel is better all-round?

I always assumed the answer was that it'd appeal to those who couldn't stomach a clattery diesel but, from the sound of things, it's pretty noisy anyway so where's the advantage?

Firstly, it's a petrol engine. Many people won't humour a diesel, and so a petrol engine in that range has to exist on a car like the Golf. The TSI was just a novel way of getting good power, reasonable economy and low emissions. The 2.0 TDI is also not very popular in Greece, for example

While the 1.4 TSI isn't the epitome of refinement and smooth running, compared to the 2.0 TDI - which is quite a harsh engine with sudden power delivery - it's not that bad

csmager · 25 Aug 2007 at 09:34

Major thread revival!

Clarkson said it was as smooth as falling down stairs in a wheelchair. I just took delivery of an ex-demo (3500 miles) Golf GT 1.4TSI (the 170PS one). It's far smoother than he would have you believe, and blazing fast in comparison to what I was driving before...

(now I'll admit it was a Golf Mk4 1.4, with a huge 75BHP and a 0-60 time that runs into weeks rather than seconds...).

Pottering about (following long lines of cars), you get better petrol consumption than I did in the Mk4 (over 40mpg if you're careful). If you really go for it, it's well under 20mpg though.

SpeedFreak · 25 Aug 2007 at 13:11

Maybe the engine is more US orientated for rising oil prices and diesel stations not that common.

Cyber-Mav · 25 Aug 2007 at 13:18

took this for a test drive, was quite impressed. engine does have some good midrange torque but it does sound a bit ?clangy??
the fiat 1.4 T-Jet engine bravo or brava i took for a test drive was much smoother on power delivery and a bit quicker to 60 with a better sounding engine.

but i preferd the DSG gearbox in the golf, extremly fast auto box.
this is the golf i took for a test drive: http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=36341

these new fangled cars remind me of the renault 5 GT turbo with their small turbo engines.

csmager · 25 Aug 2007 at 13:22

Cyber-Mav said:
took this for a test drive, was quite impressed. engine does have some good midrange torque but it does sound a bit ?clangy??

this is the golf i took for a test drive: http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=36341

That's the less-tuned 140PS version - I'll admit that when you first start it, you'd be forgiven for thinking it might be a diesel (albeit a very quiet diesel). It does have some sort of rattle.

It sounds pretty quiet when cruising a motorway though - you can soon be doing a ton without even realising. Suppose that's just in comparison to my old Mk4 literally screaming at this point!