103TDI - General Discussion

[barges]

comparison of 2007 astra cdti auto (traded in with 69000kms) with golf vi 103 dsg (400kms)
engine:
astra - noisy and average, but had a pro blitz diesel tuning box installed 12 months ago and it was definately worth it. the astra modded was a stump pulling rocket ship and very responsive
golf - quiet but with massive turbo lag.
transmission:
astra - smooth 6speed
golf - little jerky at stop/low speed/reverse
handeling:
golf wins
build quality:
golf wins - interior finishes superb!!

i cant be happier with my new purchase

[gerhard]

the Manual is better for consumption on the highway.

I'm curious how that could be possible, since both cars are essentially manual, and when cruising in 6th gear, they are both cruising in 6th gear......

[STV4SYT]

That said, I am looking forward to winning lotto one day (fingers crossed) as I'd love try out the Golf GTI or Golf R32.
The main selling points for me were:


My list of options (prices are approx retail per item):

• $45 - Leather Protect
• $120 - Fitted Floor Mats
• $270 - Media Device Interface (MDI)
• $500 - Metalic Paint
• $500 - Rear View Camera
• $595 - Dark Window Tint
• $695 - Paint Protect
• $1,400 - Park Assist
• $1,900 - Sunroof
• $2,000 - Extended 3 Year / 75,000km Warrenty
• $3,000 - Satellite Navigation RNS510
• $3,300 - Leather Comfortline

Sorry for pointing this out, but if you reckon you need to win the lottery to get into a GTI or R32 but then spend $14325 in options above the base cost of the car, then that could have gotten you easily into a GTI albeit a lower spec.

[sabloke]

Well, that was the issue with noisy Astra, it was an auto... The manual version has a DOHC/16 valve engine while the auto one is OHC/8 valve only, hence less refined and less powerful (88 kW vs. 110 kW). If you think the 8V engine was a responsive rocket ship, I wonder what would you say about mine
Also, is not really fair to compare the interior of a Mk VI Golf with Astra H's, they're models 5 year apart...
Back in late 2006 when I was looking for a reasonably grunty Diesel hatch, there wasn't much to chose from. The top Mk V Golf TDI had the PD 2.0 engine, no match for Astra's CDTI for either refinement, grunt or tuning potential. Price wise the Astra was giving way more bang for buck, got mine for $29k on road with OEM 18" Penta alloys shod with Goodyear Eagle F1 GS rubber. Asking VW dealer about a TDI with similar stuff on the best price I got was close to $37k!
However, right now there's about the same Diesel offer to chose from. Luckily VW is using CR engines, the 125 kW looks quite interesting to be honest. Holden is importing the Cruze now instead of Opel Astras, no way I'll spend hard earned cash on that stuff... If only VW would bite the bullet and give us a 150 kW twin turbo Diesel in the Golf soon! If BMW can do it in their 123d, VW or Renault should be capable of doing that, too.

[barges]

im sorry to offend any astra drivers with my generalisations. but the point i was trying to make is the auto astras engine is flat and ordinary and needed to be modded to get any performance. it was still as noisy as a bucket of hammers flying around under the bonnet

[hoi polloi]

I'm curious how that could be possible, since both cars are essentially manual, and when cruising in 6th gear, they are both cruising in 6th gear......

I seem to recall reading the 6-speed DSG in particular has to pump lubricant around whereas in a conventional manual the gears just sit in a bath of lubricant. This, if true would add a bit of extra load to the engine...

Regards,
- Anthony.

[neil]

We have Mk V for almost 3 years and so far there are no squeaks and rattles in our car!


and we're very happy with it.

Same here.
3 years in November and not one issue.

[Corey_R]

I seem to recall reading the 6-speed DSG in particular has to pump lubricant around whereas in a conventional manual the gears just sit in a bath of lubricant. This, if true would add a bit of extra load to the engine...

Regards,
- Anthony.

One of the things I know is that the Australian and European fuel consumption tests use a set process for testing cars. This includes shifts at specific rpms, regardless of the car / gearbox. Depending on the ratio of the gears in the gearbox and the engines in use, this can cause the official fuel figures to result in readings which are not representable in real life.
For example, the fuel tests actually favour petrol - yes, diesel is still better in the tests, but in real life the gap is often even wider. Other cases have been where the fuel test shows the manual as being more efficient but in real life the DSG is.

I'm not saying that is the case for the 103TDI manual vs DSG, all I'm saying is, the official figures are simply a guide, and need to be viewed just as that, a guide and not what is necessarily true in real conditions.

[pologti18t]

One of the things I know is that the Australian and European fuel consumption tests use a set process for testing cars. This includes shifts at specific rpms, regardless of the car / gearbox. Depending on the ratio of the gears in the gearbox and the engines in use, this can cause the official fuel figures to result in readings which are not representable in real life.
For example, the fuel tests actually favour petrol - yes, diesel is still better in the tests, but in real life the gap is often even wider. Other cases have been where the fuel test shows the manual as being more efficient but in real life the DSG is.

Tests are only valid when comparing different cars. They aren't really meant to be accurate for all drivers and conditions.

C02 g/km will always be skewed towards petrol (given comparible l/100km) as diesel fuel has more carbon in it.

[Corey_R]

No that's not what I meant at all. The tests only give an INDICATION when comparing cars.

Just say car 1 is most efficient at 3000 to 4000rpm, but car 2 is most efficient at 5000 to 6000rpm.
The test then has you shifting cars at 4000 rpm.

The test is then going to favourite car 1, even though in real life, car 2 could be more efficient (unlikely, but just giving you an example).

Likely, what the manufacturers say is that because the SAME economy test is used for petrol and diesel cars, if the shift point was say at 4000rpm, and that change gear brings you at 3000rpm in the next gear, you're totally NOT using the benefit of your diesel engine of low end torque 1750 to 3000rpm.

So as I said, take the results with a grain of salt because for some cars you'll NEVER match the economy results, with other cars you'll SMASH the economy results!