Golf 118TSI vs. 103TDI

[Corey_R]

Brian - please move on. This thread isn't actually about you. You didn't start it, and yes, you didn't claim that the 118TSI was faster than the GTI, others did.

But you did come on and pick a fight which was misguided and directed given that Maverick stated "Plus all the other features of the GTI that help with power delivery and safe handling like".

So lets all just kiss and make up and move long. No more posts about the 118TSI vs GTI. We're all Volkswagen owners and supporters here, so we'll just have faith that Volkswagen know what they're doing, and that they consider the GTI to be better, and that's why it's a higher model and costs more.

Feel free to keep replying, but do it on the topic. 103TDI vs 118TSI.

[Corey_R]

A SuperMod has come through and done a massive cleanup of this thread.

One of the posts deleted said that the 118TSI has launch control. I thought I'd link to a post from Logger who has discussed this topic and shown that the 7sp DSG does not in fact have launch control. This is just an FYI here. Please don't discuss the topic further in this thread.

[MarkG]

got any pics

[moniker]

Right back on topic, I'm actually glad I got the 103TDI after considering the 118TSI.
The sheer driveability and economy are major plusses (?) for me.

The 'stock' numbers 0-100 etc. for the TDI certainly don't seem to match the 'feel' of the car. Are there any roadtests out there with real world figures?

[Transporter]

Right back on topic, I'm actually glad I got the 103TDI after considering the 118TSI.
The sheer driveability and economy are major plusses (?) for me.

The 'stock' numbers 0-100 etc. for the TDI certainly don't seem to match the 'feel' of the car. Are there any roadtests out there with real world figures?

Well, I like my TDI's for in gear acceleration and basically the same performance when the car is fully loaded , and you can still have a bit of fun and get outstanding fuel economy.

[Buller_Scott]

The 'stock' numbers 0-100 etc. for the TDI certainly don't seem to match the 'feel' of the car. Are there any roadtests out there with real world figures?

and they never will. all this wank about how slow diesels are etc etc based on seemingly NOTHING but official 0-100kmh times. yeah- because when you're doing drive days in the twisties, you spend a majority of the time launching from 0-100, and NOT rolling accelerating, i guess?

p.s. im not sure if drive days in large[ish] groups of cars without advising the police are illegal, and some of the cars might be running hub spacers, which are illegal, so i apologize if my post pertains to illegalities which are prohibited from discussion under forum rules

[Corey_R]

I have a current model Ford Focus Diesel in my garage. It's not my car, but the owner is not around atm, so I use the car semi-regularly to keep it in running order etc. Whilst it's obviously not of Golf quality, the engine is very comparable to the Golf 2L diesel - both having almost identical figures.

Having also been in a standard petrol Focus, the diesel is well and truly the pick of the crop. The power delivery is awesome, the fuel economy great. So when it comes to regular petrols vs turbo diesels, it's turbo diesel all the time! This is the same for most cars where they're available in an NA petrol and a similarly sized turbo diesel motor.

The thing is, compared to my Polo GTI - which is admittedly chipped, so it has the same ~320NM, but it then has 50% more power, the Focus just doesn't compare. My car has the "diesels great torque" from practically the same low RPM. But then it holds it for longer, and then has a peak power 50% larger and 2000rpm higher than the diesel's redline. Being such an old engine, the fuel consumption is just not even in the same league as the modern cars though.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is. Previously, diesel vs Petrol was a no brainer. Anyone "in the know" (which was not many people!) took the diesel. But the Golf has changed that. In the Golf, the petrol options are turbo charged, or turbo & supercharged. The fuel consumption is so close that almost no one will ever recoupe the difference in purchase price on fuel consumption. The power delivery, although featuring a different "curve", is quite impressive on both Golf diesels and Golf petrols.

I almost think that this thread is as pointless as a "which colour should I get thread". Drive both, pick which one you like. Be happy with what you have, and don't listen to what other people say. At the same time, don't put down what other people have chosen. We're all driving Volkswagens here, so we're already all of above average intelligence! .

So that's my message. We're all VW fans, embrace each other. Who cares what fuel you car uses

[pologti18t]

I almost think that this thread is as pointless as a "which colour should I get thread". Drive both, pick which one you like. Be happy with what you have, and don't listen to what other people say. At the same time, don't put down what other people have chosen. We're all driving Volkswagens here, so we're already all of above average intelligence! .

So that's my message. We're all VW fans, embrace each other. Who cares what fuel you car uses

Did you see the latest NRMA new car running costs?

Over the life of the vehicle (purchease price, depreciation, servining, fuel etc) it is the usually the diesel car that is more expensive to run per week than the equivalent petrol model.

Diesel-car ownership, traditionally more expensive than for petrol vehicles, closed the gap slightly, with the turbo-diesel Hyundai i30 hatchback costing just $159 a week, a $5 premium over the petrol-engined version and closing the gap by about 50 cents on last year

[Corey_R]

I didn't see the NRMA guide, but I figured this to be the case. If you like the diesel better, than I don't think $5 per week is going to upset you too much. The difference in initial purchase price might be more of a deterent though knowing that you won't be making up that cost over the long run.

[cameronp]

I didn't see the NRMA guide, but I figured this to be the case. If you like the diesel better, than I don't think $5 per week is going to upset you too much. The difference in initial purchase price might be more of a deterent though knowing that you won't be making up that cost over the long run.

Those "new car cost of ownership" comparisons always seemed a bit weird to me. If you're buying a brand-new car, you're already making the wrong financial decision, because the initial depreciation is so brutal. The cost calculations will vary a lot between different people and how you drive, too. Much better to just pick a car within your budget that you'll enjoy driving.

Not to say that cost and value-for-money is completely irrelevant, of course - if the 103TDI had been cheaper than the 118TSI rather than more expensive (as was the case in the Mk5), I might easily have gone for the diesel.