Top Gear "test"

[Greg Roles]

Well my only addition to the debate is I wanted a manual united grey golf. There was a manual grey GTI and a manual grey GT TDI in stock, for sale, on the day. I drove them both, extensively, and they were both excellent cars. I could easily buy either. I found the TDI a more exciting drive, so that's what I bought.

Haven't regretted it for a minute yet. Each to their own!

[benough]

I am yet to watch the episode but also being a GT TDI driver I learnt one thing at the golfmkv.com gtg on the weekend

On the up and down hill twisty bits the GT, GTI and R32 were all pretty much all evenly matched.

In third gear the TDI was on par with the R32, much to the confusion of Fatty_Boomba who was still in his R32 honeymoon period.

But the turbo lag in my car can be a real bitch and the rev range being much shorter sometimes between gear selection you are either off boost or revving too high so it does have it's short comings.

You know I wish I had an exhaust sound and never will but accelerating up a hill in 5th is the best.

There are many ways to skin a cat, I just chose the clatter over the burble

[gregozedobe]

I just like the fact that we have the option to choose - in many vehicles you don't have much of a choice.

I agree with cogdoc, have a good test drive and just buy the one that you like the most. And just because someone chooses something different to what I chose doesn't mean mine is better than theirs (or vice versa), just that they have different criteria.

For most people on forums like this cars are largely an emotional purchase rather than a rational economic decision. Otherwise we would all buy 1-2 year old cheap, small petrol buzz boxes that are much cheaper when you look at the "whole of life" cost ie when you start considering depreciation, servicing, insurance, tyres, cost of std ULP vs diesel or 98 octane unleaded then it is just as well we like our (expensive but fun) cars

[Jaymz]

Don't know why people keep on comparing N/A petrol cars to turbo diesel cars ...... to be fair it should have been 2.0 turbo petrol to 2.0 turbo diesel and then all the supposed diesel advantages just dissappear ....

We all know a GTI would have killed the TDI in all aspects but fuel consumption and even then it would have been close. In the city a TDI trying to keep up to a GTI will use in excess of 8l/100km which is pretty much what a GTI will use at the same speeds. Even over a 1000kms of cruising the cost of fuel will be less than $20 difference and it would have been so much more fun in a GTI.

I say get over this turbo-diesel thing and wake up to the real world of forced induction ..... turbo petrol cars ......

BTW ... I thought this was TGA's best effort yet.

Them's fighting words for sure . 8L/100 not on your life. I have over 200hp and still average roughly 6L/100, what's your average?

And as for the fun factor, your kidding aren't you? Diesel's produce more usable torque down low than a turbo petrol engine of the same size will ever produce. And you can't argue with the Stigs performance

I agree it was a good fun little test between the petrol and diesel variants of the same car which have similar power etc, and the same buyer type, though it wasnt really conclusive, they glossed over what the actual savings were (about $5!!) and letting down tyres didnt really help the matter.

Interesting that it was faster around the track too.

Not sure that testing it against a GTI is a comparisosn though, 2 very different buyers there, would have liked to see the GT TDI vs the GTI as performance wise there is the power v torque argument going on. Economy wise around town, a car is only as economical as the driver, I can get 6.0l if i get a good run of lights in and out of the city, but it takes some time for the engine to warm up in comparison to the petrol version for the short runs.


Horses for coarses i say, ive been a diesel man for a long time and when they released the GT with the 125kw in it i had no option but to buy it.

Yeh i agree, re-match against the GTI anyday. Hell i will even donate my car

[Sharkie]

Um .... Jamie

I get about 8l (city) average from 165kw/350NM@2500rmin so no torque advantage at all to a diesel ..... difference is I can rev to 7000rmin ...

and for the Golfs ....
GT TDI chipped = 143kw/380NM @ 2500rmin
GTI chipped = 188kw/411NM @ 2800rmin
GTI Pirelli chipped 229kw/435NM @ 2800rmin

all 2.0 turbos ....... no low down benefit at all here for the TDIs...

Don't get me wrong I like the TDI's, plan on getting a Caravelle 2.8TDI, but this whole TDI thing is a bit overated.

I personally like something that revs out and delivers power all the way through and believe in each to their own...... but do yourself a favour and drive a modded GTI .... it will blow your mind.

Oh and the Stig drove a 2.0FSI N/A model .....

[Timbo]

There were two more obvious models to compare -- the two GT models. Would have been fairly close, in $ terms, I reckon.

I like both our cars -- they're both good drives but in different ways. And neither gives too much shock at the bowser

[Greg Roles]

[QUOTE=Sharkie;240352]Um .... Jamie

I get about 8l (city) average from 165kw/350NM@2500rmin so no torque advantage at all to a diesel ..... difference is I can rev to 7000rmin ...

and for the Golfs ....
GT TDI chipped = 143kw/380NM @ 2500rmin
GTI chipped = 188kw/411NM @ 2800rmin
GTI Pirelli chipped 229kw/435NM @ 2800rmin

[QUOTE]

Have to agree with Jaymz, I'm in the 6's all the time, and I don't drive for economy!

Also I'm afraid you've been mislead on the torque figures. Jaymz is beyond that for sure, and my stock GT TDI dynoed 357nm at the wheels, which is about 385nm at the crank! STOCK. Probably why I can upset WRX's and the like, which amazes the hell out of me.

Debate all you want, in the real world there's a lot less difference than any figures would predict, as benough has already noticed.

[Sharkie]

3 last things ....

Dyno figures for torque are not what they seem. There is a multiplication effect by the gearbox so a different formula need to be used to determine crank torque. Your 357NM atw is probably close to the 350NM quoted atf figure.

Diesels have a very narrow power/torque band. GT TDI (stock) makes max torque from 1750-2500rmin. GTI (stock) makes max torque from 1800-5000rmin !!!!! Obviously chipped vehicles changes the peaks and plato's slightly.

In the real world, in rolling runs, provided you can restrict speed to the range of say 3rd gear so the TDI does not have to change they will be very evenly matched. Include a gearchange and a longer run and the petrol turbo's would be gone not even to mention the mayhem from a standing start ....

And lastly .... .... as the motor manufacturers get braver with the reliability of their turbo petrol vehicles the playing field levels out even more. A4 2.0t now makes 350NM @ 1800rmin stock .... Mazda MPS makes 380NM stock etc etc etc.

[gldgti]

3 last things ....
Mazda MPS makes 380NM stock etc etc etc.

those thing's will only last you 100,000km before they crap out though.

[RhysQ]

those thing's will only last you 100,000km before they crap out though.

and where'd you hear that??

i always seem to hear this ridiculous comment pop up when a small factory car (generally a hatch) pumps out big numbers. i'm guessing its the p*ssed off V8 drivers starting these rumours to stop people buying them

i heard the same thing about the Astra Turbo and the XR5 Turbo....