Aesthetics: VW Jetta TDI and 1.8T

[Weapon_R]

Quick question - what are the easiest ways to differentiate a 1.8T from a TDI without badging - specifically just looking at the interior or exterior.

My friend's parents just bought one for him and he doesn't know what model it is, it has no badging.

[Illusionsir]

lol well is it a diesel motor or gas? that will give it away right away!

[Weapon_R]

Ok I found it that it is gas...but there are two gas engines.

[Weapon_R]

He paid 24,500+tax. I'm pretty sure its not the 1.8T

[VWhooligan]

Is this a gimmick?

From looks alone, there are no visual cues.

You can however hear the difference, the TDI sounds like a diesel, and well the 1.8t sounds like a gas. Also, why not pop the hood?

Could be a 2.0 too

[VWhooligan]

Well the 1.8t stats at $26,000 new plus tax.

Was it new or used. If it was new, then that must be a 2.0

[Weapon_R]

I only found out it was a gas powered vehicle after I posted the thread.

It costed 24,500+tax and other charges and is brand new.

[Roaring G60]

2.slow

[nismodrifter]

shit....that much for a 2.slow????? damn....

note to self: never ever buy a new car in my life

[Khyron]

It's a 2.0 if it has no badging, but check under the hood. 1.8T is one of the ugliest engines ever made BTW.

And shit I hope someone knew what kind it was (invoice etc) before he goes to gas up! :rofl:

Khyron

[nickyh]

Looking at the dealership paperwork should be the clue...

[sputnik]

i would have rather gotten a slightly used 1.8T GTI than a new 2.0 jetta...

[rice_eater]

look for the turbine...you see it it's turbo...you don't well it isnt...

[max_boost]

I don't get it
How can you not know? What did the salesguy tell them? :rofl:
Here's a VW and just take it?! haha

[Weapon_R]

Ok for all the smartasses who have decided to reply:

Look at the original post. I'm asking about LOOKS, nothing more. I am not asking about engine, sound, dealership paper, or anything else. The question was, looking at a 2003 Jetta, is there any way to tell what model it is.

[maximus]

By looks alone I believe there are no clues. The only thing I could think of would be wheels. I don't know what wheels came on the TDI or the 1.8T but there are few choices out there and you can always upgrade at the dealer. I think the 2.0L comes with hubcaps. But ya there is no difference in styling. The only thing I can think of is the Jetta Wolfsberg. It will have small sign on the fender. Ashaved rear usually means 2.OL as the 1.8T show it proudly.

And for those that are dissing the 2.0L its not that bad. Sure compared to the 1.8T it's not that great but I bet most of the people calling it a 2.slow have never even driven one. Its got some go if you know how to drive it. Don't forget its a version of the 93-98 GTi engine and nobody was complaining then......

[itsnotaDUB]

lol, you tell em' Max

[VWhooligan]

Originally posted by rice_eater
look for the turbine...you see it it's turbo...you don't well it isnt...


have you ever seen the engine of the 1.8t? you can't see the turbo from the top, or at least i've never been able to on mine.

[hjr]

the TDi and 1.8T have badging on the right rear of the trunk. the 2.0L 8v does not. Depending on the model of car you get you can expect different wheels, so that really doesnt count. the GTI has its own badging too with the 1.8t or VR6 on the trunk along with the gti badge. other than that is hard to tell. they are all basically the same.

[Weapon_R]

I'm very sure its a 2.0. He said the only thing it says on the back is the word Jetta, no model #.

[Akagi Redsuns]

Originally posted by maximus
snip..........And for those that are dissing the 2.0L its not that bad. Sure compared to the 1.8T it's not that great but I bet most of the people calling it a 2.slow have never even driven one. Its got some go if you know how to drive it. Don't forget its a version of the 93-98 GTi engine and nobody was complaining then......

Not bad compared to what? The engine excels at nothing. No power, some torque, no fuel economy, reminds me of the base engine that came in my dad's Corsica.

I drove a 2.slow loaner car when my friends 2000 VW Jetta GLX was in the shop (for like the 5 time). Might be because I was spoiled by the VR6 power, but man was that car just sllllooowww....and that's with a 5-speed. How do you drive it fast? Shifting at redline with the foot planted on the gas didn't work.

Don't forget, back in 93-98, I don't think it was propelling a heavy car as the MKIV Jetta....at least I hope it wasn't.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Akagi Redsuns


Not bad compared to what? The engine excels at nothing. No power, some torque, no fuel economy, reminds me of the base engine that came in my dad's Corsica.

I drove a 2.slow loaner car when my friends 2000 VW Jetta GLX was in the shop (for like the 5 time). Might be because I was spoiled by the VR6 power, but man was that car just sllllooowww....and that's with a 5-speed. How do you drive it fast? Shifting at redline with the foot planted on the gas didn't work.

Don't forget, back in 93-98, I don't think it was propelling a heavy car as the MKIV Jetta....at least I hope it wasn't.

Not everyone needs or wants the most HP possible out there. That engine is the base version. Compare it to alot of the other base versions out there from other manufacturers and see. It DOES have torque and it DOES have power. It probably dosn't feel like it when you step from a VR6 into it, anybody can tell you that. Just because a car dosn't push out 300 hp dosn't make it slow. The torque it has makes up for the lower HP numbers, like most smaller european engines.

Slamming on the gas and shifting at redline is NOT how you drive all cars. The 2.0L is not tuned to be driven on a track. I havn't seen the dyno charts but I'm willing to bet that the torque and hp drop off before redline. If so why drive it to redline? And for some reason I think that they respond better to easing the throttle rather than slamming on the gas and flooring it. Same for my old jetta, maybe thats just me though.

And yes, the MK4 are heavier than the MK3. But bottom line is for a 4cyl engine, the 2.OL is very good, especailly when pulling all that weight. I drove my brothers for a whole week, not just one day, and it is sporty and fun which is what golfs are meant to be. However he does have coilovers so that might make a slight difference to body roll and such but I was quite surprised. Obviously its not a VR6 or a T but it holds its own. Everyone makes it sound like its slower than a bus.

2.0L = :bigpimp:

[5.9 R/T]

I think the 2.0 is a dog.

[tegdream]

Originally posted by 5.9 R/T
I think the 2.0 is a dog.

i think the girls in ur sig are dogs

[Moe Man]

yo tell them max.........listen if it has 15" rims it is a 2.0 any biger it is a 1.8t or VR6 plane and simple

[hjr]

Originally posted by maximus


Not everyone needs or wants the most HP possible out there. That engine is the base version. Compare it to alot of the other base versions out there from other manufacturers and see. It DOES have torque and it DOES have power. It probably dosn't feel like it when you step from a VR6 into it, anybody can tell you that. Just because a car dosn't push out 300 hp dosn't make it slow. The torque it has makes up for the lower HP numbers, like most smaller european engines.

Slamming on the gas and shifting at redline is NOT how you drive all cars. The 2.0L is not tuned to be driven on a track. I havn't seen the dyno charts but I'm willing to bet that the torque and hp drop off before redline. If so why drive it to redline? And for some reason I think that they respond better to easing the throttle rather than slamming on the gas and flooring it. Same for my old jetta, maybe thats just me though.

And yes, the MK4 are heavier than the MK3. But bottom line is for a 4cyl engine, the 2.OL is very good, especailly when pulling all that weight. I drove my brothers for a whole week, not just one day, and it is sporty and fun which is what golfs are meant to be. However he does have coilovers so that might make a slight difference to body roll and such but I was quite surprised. Obviously its not a VR6 or a T but it holds its own. Everyone makes it sound like its slower than a bus.

2.0L = :bigpimp: no, its slow. its not a great engine and needs to be upgraded or completely scraped. If honda, toyota, nissan... can make a good, reasonably powered 16v engine for base model cars, why cant VW! Damn 8v shite...

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Moe Man
yo tell them max.........listen if it has 15" rims it is a 2.0 any biger it is a 1.8t or VR6 plane and simple

My 1.8T came with 15s - they are now my winters. However, if it has hubcaps, I think it's safe to say its a 2.0.

2.0 is a rock solid engine, except that some of them drink a lot of oil (like a quart every 2000 miles).

Khyron

[nismodrifter]

tdi also comes with 15s.....

[maximus]

Originally posted by hjr
no, its slow. its not a great engine and needs to be upgraded or completely scraped. If honda, toyota, nissan... can make a good, reasonably powered 16v engine for base model cars, why cant VW! Damn 8v shite...

You've gotta be kidding me right?? 16v are usually better than 8v but Toyota's??. So you actually think that the 1.6 16v from the Toyota Tercel is better than the 2.0L? Thanks because thats the most I've laughed in a long time! My friend has a tercel 16v. I didn't know they were untill he wanted me to see if he really needed the stuff the dealership said he did. As soon as I told him he thought he was the shit because my jetta was a regular 91 8v and he drives the snot out of that car. I'm sure most people know where this is headed and that car should be called a box. I could beat that car in my jetta driving normally. The 2.0L is 100x better than that piece, don't ask me how I know.

I don't know much about Honda but I know that the new honda civic HX comes with a 1.7L SOHC. It make some good HP for a 1.7L (I think around 105) but I would line up a 2.0L against it any day and I'll put money on it that it wins; its called torque.

Basically, the 2.0L is very suitable for VWs base model. Car manufacturers have to cater to everyone. Because we don't have the Polo or Lupo here, the 2.0L is the entry level VW for people who just want a good reliable german engineered vehicle thats fun to drive and dosn't sound like its falling apart on Calgary's shitty streets . If we had the polo or lupo I bet you would see the 2.0L go to the waste side, or, better yet, find its home in a Polo or Lupo (that would be hot!!!) But for people just wanting a car its perfect and its pretty good value too. I say that because the standard of the rest of the car's engineering is pretty high as well. I mean 4wheel disc on a base model, you don't need it, but it sure is nice when you see that the Toyota Celica, a sports car no less, comes with rear drums. Don't get me started on that though.

Anyway this is a good discussion. Apologies to weaponR for jacking the thread but I think we answered your question anyway.
:thumbsup:

[James]

:rofl:.....ya pop the hood, the engines all say what they are right on them, the only other thing i can think of is the wheels, but with enough money you can pretty much get any style of wheel on a VW so that wont be a dead giveaway.

[bart]

how about the tach? redline on a tdi is 4750rpm. the speedo on the tdi goes up to 220, 2004's its 260. 2.0 rpm and speed are higher than tdi.

the other thing is sound, does it make a knocking sound? lol

oh ya and last thing, when the trip computer reaches a 1000km, it means its a tdi ahaha, but that might take you a couple of weeks to figure out.

[Akagi Redsuns]

Originally posted by maximus


You've gotta be kidding me right?? 16v are usually better than 8v but Toyota's??. So you actually think that the 1.6 16v from the Toyota Tercel is better than the 2.0L? ........snip


Now now, let's do a fair comparison now. The Jetta starts at a MRSP of $24,520 so comparison to a Tercel that is not even being made currently is not exactly fair. I do know that the current Corolla 1.8L 16V is WAY better than the Jetta 2.0L. Get our head outta the sand.

I do think that the VW 2.slow base engine falls behind the base engines found in the Mazda 3, Toyota Corolla and Nissan Sentra.....etc....should I even go into the EcoTec that is offered in the J-bodies? :)

Let's do a little comparsion shall we? See how the VW 2.0 does spec wise against the above mentioned cars. All the stats are taken from the Manufactere's Canadian website and the FuelEconomy figures are for the 5-speed manuals. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.

VW 2.0 (found in the Jetta and Golf)
Max. power output: 115 hp @ 5200 rpm
Max. torque: 122 lb. ft. @ 2600 rpm
Fuel Economy, City/Highway : 9.6L/100km, 6.9L/100km


Nissan Sentra 1.8L
Horsepower – 126 hp @ 6000 rpm S S
Torque – 129 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm
Fuel Economy, City/Highway: 8.5L/100km, 6.1L/100km


Toyota Corolla 1.8L
Horsepower :130 hp@ 6000 rpm
Torque: 125 ft/lbs@ 4200 rpm
Fuel Economy, City/Highway: 7.1L/100km, 5.3L/100km


Mazda 3 2.0L
Horsepower,148 @ 6500 rpm
Torque, 135 lb. ft. @ 4500 rpm
Fuel Economy, City/Highway : 8.5L/100km, 6.2L/100km


Of course this is taking taking the specs of the cars and not the feel, sound and powerband of the cars, but specwise.....the VW is not exactly sitting too well. Consider that the other 3 cars can be had for thousands of dollars LESS than the base Jetta.....sorta makes you wonder why VW doesn't step up and make a better base engine? The 1.8T, 1.9TDi and VR6 are wonderfull engines that offer something the most other cars can't........but the 2.0L??? I dunno, that engine bothers me for some reason. I figure a economy car engine should excel at something, be it low end torque, fuel economy, sounds....something. Anyways, there is my 2 cents....I am sure I will get a retort from the VW guys.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Akagi Redsuns


... No power, some torque, no fuel economy,....


Let me quote you from earlier on. Do your findings support what you said?? Don't forget that HP is not the be-all end-all. There is always driveline loss that is not accounted for in these numbers. Then like you said there is feel of the car, handling, etc.

However this does support my position. The 2.0L is a comprable base model car. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is the best car out there. If you call the 2.0L engine sub-standard then why arn't those other engines sub-standard as well? If the 2.0L sucks a$$ so much then so do those other base engines. All that seperates them is a few approx 10-15 horsepower at most, not significant by any means. And I have driven in the corolla. It may be a bit better than a 2.0L. My friends dad bought it brand new and he got the old tercel (they love toyota), and let me say its not all that its cracked up to be. The VW 16v engines are far superior and 10-15yrs sooner but we're not discussing that right now.

I don't see all other entry level cars like Hondas or domestics on your list. Looking at that list though I think it shows that the 2.0L is close to other entry level vehicles. I don't know why people harp on the 2.0L so harshly when these other ones are similar. Eg: If the gas milage is soo bad like you said then what about the other ones you posted?

Price is a different story. If you want to compare price then you must look at the COMPLETE package; everything not only the engine. If these cars are thousnads cheaper what extras do you get? With overall price, fit and finish plays a role too. Some base models are particularly bland, interior especially.

Bottom line is that VW already has some amazing engines in the TDI, 1.8T, and VR6. Think about it from VWs position. If you made a 150HP base model why would people upgrade to the 1.8T with 180HP? If HP is all your looking for than by all means you have the choice of picking one of the other options. Like I said before, if you just want a car then the 2.0L is comparable to all other base line models. So you must think that the Europeans are fools by having options on newer cars like 1.6L engines?

[Akagi Redsuns]

Ok agreed, the VW's 2.0L engine is average and comperable to the rest. I guess my main gripe is that if I am spending that kind of money, I would think that it would get more power (like 130ish) and have better fuel economy along with the German engineering and soild build quality (as long as it's not the Jetta GLX it seems), especially when other manufacturer's are doing just that. Just my feelings when I was in the new car market and was shopping around and comparing prices and specs and testdrives.

Europe is a TOTALLY different market than here. They have 1.0, 1.3, 1.6L....etc, engines and deisels are rampant because of one major reason.....the price they pay for fuel and in some cases, taxes that are based on engine displacement. Jack up the price of fuel here in Canada to a couple of dollars per liter and see how many SUVs and performance cars stay on the road. Not a whole lot. Instead you will see a ton of cars sporting those small engines and boasting fuel economy. So I don't think they are fools for having 1.6L engines, it is smart and economical for thier world and market. If I was given a choice to scarfice some HP for a lot of fuel economy....I would do it, more so if I was paying what they are paying for gas. Only on the daily driver though, for my weekend performance car I would scarifice fuel economy for more power...heehe. Yeah I am a selfish and want the best of both worlds :)

[bart]

35% of new cars sold in europe are diesel. this is because of the high tax on gasoline there. i go every summer, this summer, after going through a few countries, italy has the highest gasoline price in europe. i think its something like 1.4Euro per liter. thats about 2 bucks here.

diesel there is cheaper. also, insurance there is based on engine size, the bigger your engine, the more you pay for your car. another reason gasoline is expensive there, well, because the poorest quality you can get there is 94 octane. you should smell all those 1.6L cars which dont need that gasoline, lol. if you do have a fast car, shell sells premium gasoline, its 99 octane.

we will be getting more diesels here soon, once we get 'euro' diesel. stay tuned, i'm trying to start a trend, lol.

[Moe Man]

hp dont mean shit bud......i have raced my sis 2002 civic and it didnt come close to my golf and i have the 1.8l

and go look at the interior in a golf compared to any of thoses car you compared above......hahaha quality is far BEYOND a VWs quality

[Khyron]

Ok, HP to weight then. My bike only has 100 hp but it will beat most cars. :D I thought the Hyundai Accent would be completely gutless till I saw it weighs like 2200 pounds.

I do agree the 2.0 VW engine is old, crude and will be retired in the next year or two.

Khyron

[Team_Mclaren]

y the fuck would u compare a Greman VW to a fuckin japanese toyota??? It's two different classes. Im not saying that the toyota is bad but People are willing to pay more for European cause their high quality. I have never driven a 2.0 before but i'll take that over any base model Jap cars. Simply becuase its VW. enough said

[bart]

remember the test? when slamming a door on a car - the quieter it slams, the better the car.

lol

[Akagi Redsuns]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren
y the fuck would u compare a Greman VW to a fuckin japanese toyota??? It's two different classes. Im not saying that the toyota is bad but People are willing to pay more for European cause their high quality. I have never driven a 2.0 before but i'll take that over any base model Jap cars. Simply becuase its VW. enough said

LOL, I love statements like these. Head is so far buried in the sand you don't know which way is up. Reminds me of some of those ricer guys that think that the "Type-R" sticker on your DX Civic makes thier car better and faster. No matter how many times you own3d them on the street, they are still thinking thier car is the great and if they had better tires or didn't have that pesky boost leak they would pulled majorily on you. So sad.

Never driven a 2.0L before but yet you will pass up any Japanese base model car for it? STFU already. Drive a 2.0L then pass judgement.

BTW, tell my buddy how "high quality" his $32K, Jetta GLX is. 2nd gear grind, coilpack failure, window regulator failure, rear brakes replaced at 12,000kms, numerous interior rattles and now a chattering clutch to add to the list. Now if I had your attitude I would think all VWs are crap....but they are not. I have seen some Passats that are totally reliable so I can't pass that judgement even though I know of many people with issues with thier "high quality" VWs.

[lam-boy]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren
y the fuck would u compare a Greman VW to a fuckin japanese toyota??? It's two different classes. Im not saying that the toyota is bad but People are willing to pay more for European cause their high quality. I have never driven a 2.0 before but i'll take that over any base model Jap cars. Simply becuase its VW. enough said

:rolleyes: good call!

[Moe Man]

Originally posted by Akagi Redsuns


LOL, I love statements like these. Head is so far buried in the sand you don't know which way is up. Reminds me of some of those ricer guys that think that the "Type-R" sticker on your DX Civic makes thier car better and faster. No matter how many times you own3d them on the street, they are still thinking thier car is the great and if they had better tires or didn't have that pesky boost leak they would pulled majorily on you. So sad.

Never driven a 2.0L before but yet you will pass up any Japanese base model car for it? STFU already. Drive a 2.0L then pass judgement.

BTW, tell my buddy how "high quality" his $32K, Jetta GLX is. 2nd gear grind, coilpack failure, window regulator failure, rear brakes replaced at 12,000kms, numerous interior rattles and now a chattering clutch to add to the list. Now if I had your attitude I would think all VWs are crap....but they are not. I have seen some Passats that are totally reliable so I can't pass that judgement even though I know of many people with issues with thier "high quality" VWs.

you must be a total moron......look at BMW and benz...thoses think are the most unrelable cars on the road but look a the quality...jap cars are so reliable because they have nottin in them for them to repair :confused:

oh ya and passats are the most unrelable cars vw has made.and every company has made a car that is very unrelable

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Moe Man


you must be a total moron......look at BMW and benz...thoses think are the most unrelable cars on the road but look a the quality...jap cars are so reliable because they have nottin in them for them to repair :confused:



And you must be a complete moron if you think that the engineering that goes into a VW is on par with a BMW or Mercedes.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren
y the fuck would u compare a Greman VW to a fuckin japanese toyota??? It's two different classes. Im not saying that the toyota is bad but People are willing to pay more for European cause their high quality. I have never driven a 2.0 before but i'll take that over any base model Jap cars. Simply becuase its VW. enough said

I think this is somewhat (maybe without the profanities) the consumer group VW was hoping to get with the base 2.0L. To get the consumers that appreciate european engineering, because of its relaibility and performance rather than reliability alone, but maybe don't have the money to purchase the VR6. To make the cost of the base model cheaper they simply used the existing engine rather than spend tons of money engineering an engine that produces 20-30 more HP thus increasing the cost and therefore totally missing the sector of the market they intended to get. Believe it or not there are still people out there buying cars, be it BMW or Honda or Merc even VW, based solely on the symbol on the hood.

The reason why VW didn't make a 16v engine in my opinion, is because they engineer 16v's for serious power. The MK3 in europe came in 16v form that could potentially produce 170 HP. They actually detuned it to 150HP. Why? Because then the sales for the VR6 would drop dramatically because why would people pay thousands more for a car with the same power. I think that they are right in staggering their engine output to satisfy the diverse consumer group. I bet people like us hard core dubbers that pick apart the VWs are a substantially small portion of their sales.


Originally posted by Khyron
I do agree the 2.0 VW engine is old, crude and will be retired in the next year or two.

Khyron
Obviously it will be retired in the next couple years since they are not putting it the new MKV that are coming out possibly as early as late 2005. The engines are all going to change with the base still not a 16v. Does that mean it sucks? No because it will be producing around 150HP. Oh and for the guy that likes 16v as base model engines, like I said above their 16v engines are serious power, too good to be put in base models. Hows a 200HP 2.0L 16v sound?? It will be the middle engine on the MKV.

Oh and as far reliability goes, I know some people that have had bad experienes with VWs but also alot that have had really good experiencs with them. Same with BMW. I think that goes for all cars. And don't forget everyone comments on the bad stuff. The only problem my bro's had with the 2.OL was a heater core done under warrenty and both oxygen sensors with only 55,000kms on the car. Not bad I'd say but he was pissing and moaning when he had to pay for one of the Oxygen sensors not under warrenty somewhere around $200. You really can't complain about that but people still will.

Hey Akagi, if you want performance and fuel economy the answer is right infront of you TDI!! what are you waiting for?? :tongue: Don't forget that those efficiency numbers are for normal driving. Not saying the 2.0L is efficient, but the way I drive those numbers mean absolutely nothing. Its a good refernce point. I calculated my 16vs and its around 11L/100km, and thats 11L of premium baby!! Let me ask you this. What do you think of Merc. bringing in the A 140 to NA that only produces 82 HP? Its probably also geared to broaden Mercedes' consumer group.

Hey Bart dosn't Europe use a different octane reading? I thought I read somewhere that there 99 was like equivalent to our 94 or something, but I could be wrong. I think it will take more than an increase in gas prices to stop those damn SUVs on the road. Gas prices here are inelastic. It will take a huge change in price to drop demand enough to make the car manufacturers bring in the smaller, more economical engines. I would rather have lower gas prices and see those SUVs on the streets than be stuck driving a 1.2L thats for sure!

[Akagi Redsuns]

Originally posted by Moe Man


you must be a total moron......look at BMW and benz...thoses think are the most unrelable cars on the road but look a the quality.........snip

I am sure the owners of the current gen M3 are appericiate of the great quality as thier cars are in the shop with a blown motor. Doesn't quality and reliability go hand in hand? How can something be of high quality and not reliable? I don't get it? :confused:


Maximus: I have thought long and hard about getting a TDi, but I am afraid of the issues that they seem to have, the clogged intake due to the EGR being the main one. I would have considered an MKII Jetta TD though. A bit simpler and still have oommph, awesome fuel economy and less things to go wrong.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Akagi Redsuns


Maximus: I have thought long and hard about getting a TDi, but I am afraid of the issues that they seem to have, the clogged intake due to the EGR being the main one. I would have considered an MKII Jetta TD though. A bit simpler and still have oommph, awesome fuel economy and less things to go wrong.

Can you elaborate on the TDi problems? I have narrowed my focus down to one of these and i'm extremely interested in taking one for a test drive. Pending on the ability to sell my car, i'd most likely be getting one of these, but it seems that the VW's are still plagued with a lot of problems.

[nismodrifter]

weapon r: check out www.tdiclub.com

you can find out pretty much everything you need to know about these cars on that site (especially read over the FAQ....it answers alot of questions)

[Akagi Redsuns]

Some issues are described in this section of the TDi FAQ at tdiclub ( http://www.tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-8.html )

The issues I know of are the Turbo VNT mechasim getting stuck in a position and the EGR and intake manifold having sooting problems to the extend that they need to be cleaned out because it severly restricts airflow. Oh yeah and in the older models, the MAF tend to be unreliable. I believe there is a Audi one that most people upgrade to.

If you don't mind middling around and working on the car, it doesn't seem too bad. But I wanted something that I didn't have to look after, just drive in and go. So I had to pass up on it. I did like the feel of it though and the turbo whistle are loud in the TDi :)

[Moe Man]

quality is how good the car is in general the sec you buy it


has notting to do with longterm tests and how good the car is 10 years later

[Grexx]

Originally posted by Moe Man
quality is how good the car is in general the sec you buy it


has notting to do with longterm tests and how good the car is 10 years later

Hey Moe Man,

What's the Definition of German Engineering?

[Moe Man]

ya shuvvvlaaxxxxxeeeennnnnnburnvits

[Grexx]

Originally posted by Moe Man
ya shuvvvlaaxxxxxeeeennnnnnburnvits

Does that mean PEACE OF SHIT????

Blah Blah Blah

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by bart

diesel there is cheaper. also, insurance there is based on engine size, the bigger your engine, the more you pay for your car. another reason gasoline is expensive there, well, because the poorest quality you can get there is 94 octane. you should smell all those 1.6L cars which dont need that gasoline, lol. if you do have a fast car, shell sells premium gasoline, its 99 octane. That's 94 RON. 94 RON is about the same as 89 CLC octane over here.

[bart]

never heard of RON or CLC, where can i read up more on that?

[Akagi Redsuns]

copied from my handy archives.....dunno where I got it from though :(

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Octane Rating

The motor octane rating, referred to as MON (motor octane number), is the best rating to use when selecting fuel for your race or high compression engine. When testing MON, the fuel is heated to 300° F and the intake air is heated to 100° F. The test engine is a single cylinder 4 cycle engine that is run at 900 rpm. Ignition timing is varied with compression ratio. Engine load is varied during test.

Research Octane Rating

Known as RON (research octane rating). Tested at 600 rpm with a fixed timing of 13° BTDC. The fuel temp is not controlled at all and the intake air temp is varied with barometric pressure. This is done to covert everything to a SAE standard day, which is 60° F, 0% Humidity, and 29.92 inches barometric pressure. The RON should not be used when selecting fuel for a race or high performance engine. The RON will always be higher than the MON.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and AFAIK, the CLC rating is the average of the 2, so (RON+MON)/2=CLC, basically the octane rating you find at the gas pumps intself.