High Mileage Scirocco vs Alfa Giulietta

[Jmeister]

Hi there,

I think the fact that I'm posting in a Scirocco forum goes to indicate where my heart lies on this but basically for the same cash (about £7.5k) I could purchase a Giulietta with 50k mileage or a Scirocco with 90-100k.

As Alfa's have a bad rep for reliability and VWs have a good one, does this basically mean the two cars would be similar in terms of repair costs as it takes a lot more for a Scirocco to break down? or am I making this up?

If it helps the exact cars I'm considering are

Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0 Diesel JTDm Veloce 170BHP
VW Scirocco 1.4 Petrol TSI

I know you guys don't necessarily care about Alfas but the 0-60 is exactly the same at 8 seconds which is the number that matters to me.

I really want a Scirocco, someone help me justify this haha

[Cuprabob]

Obviously you'll get a totally unbiased view on here. Just make sure you do a bit of research on the 1.4 twin charger engine as it's not got the best reputation for reliability and some owners have had major issues with them, especially those earlier that 2011.

[greg7728]

Which version tsi is it and what year? Has the roc got fsh? The early tsi 160's suffered with a few issues (search this forum) so if going for a high miles make sure has the service history. I would always say if u have a good service history, and belts/tensions etc changed at the relevant intervals (chain pulled engine - tensioner can fail on the tsi - may be worth checking it has been changed) - I'm not a fan of alfas- VW is generally good but I would make sure service history etc is all up to speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greg7728]

Also worth noting I have the tsi 160 - dsg clutch pack caused me an issue but sorted under warranty and good will - if it's dsg (pre 2011) make sure u give it a good drive make sure no slipping between 1st and 2nd. Mine has been fine other than that. Such an awesome car to drive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jmeister]

Well I would only be looking at the 1.4 160bhp because it's cheaper to insure... some places won't even insure under 25s on the 2.0 (I'm 23)

Most of the ones in budget are 2009-2010 but theres one 2011 but it's 123k miles!

[greg7728]

There is a 122bhp 1.4tsi which would be cheaper to insure than the 160 - which one are u looking at (the one ur comparing against the Alfa )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greg7728]

The 160 (twin charged) is the one that tended to have more issues. Again, if has fsh should be fine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jmeister]

the 160 is the one i would get.... the 122 just isn't fast enough

[blower]

You would be better off going for the 2.0 TDI - far more reliable.

The 1.4 twincharger is great when its working but as above there are issues on pre-2012 engines.
My advice is to avoid anything that's pre mid 2010 - that date is critical as it was the changeover date for the injector revision.
You will also avoid the engines that have piston problems in 2009.

Also you would be better off avoiding DSG - the clutch packs are known to fail prematurely and they have been revised many times - it appears the latest 2014/15 revision is working well - but time will tell.

[Jmeister]

I much prefer manual to DSG anyway, so that's not a problem... so would a 2.0 TDI be a reliable car despite high mileage? is there anything that tends to go wrong with them? If I can find someone willing to insure me for a reasonable price i could possibly justify it but atm most places quote around 2k as I only passed my test in August... probably worth getting some no claims before I get a Scirocco then

[greg7728]

The scirocco tsi 160 is a group 28 and the tdi 140 is from memory a group 24 so should be cheaper to insure. Diesel high miles isn't as much of an issue as with petrol, I would do a quick aggregator (comparison site) quote on a scirocco tdi 140 - see what comes out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jmeister]

The scirocco tsi 160 is a group 28 and the tdi 140 is from memory a group 24 so should be cheaper to insure. Diesel high miles isn't as much of an issue as with petrol, I would do a quick aggregator (comparison site) quote on a scirocco tdi 140 - see what comes out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's slower though... 0-60 in 9.3 seconds rather than 8 which is really what I'm looking for

I'll have a look though

[greg7728]

Well, the remaps are quite good on these, so why not own it for a year, earn the ncd then do a remap to being the bhp up. Once u have a years ownership and ncd under ur belt u can switch to a modified insurer more easily. That'd be where I would be at, save up through the year and then go all out with a remap, perhaps induction kit, exhaust, all of which would add to the bhp. If u do a quote on the 140 and it's reasonable, maybe go for a drive in one and see if it's better than u think, given u only recently passed a 0-60 time doesn't really gauge speed very well, u might find that it works for u.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SPEEDDRV]

So you are saying Rocco 2.0 TDI 140hp is slow... OMG. My Rocco is probably laughing at you right now.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheers

[Mr OCD]

Buying a cheap Mk3 Scirocco isn't a great idea as you'll be digging through a lot of crap before you find something remotely decent so higher risk of buying a pup, as realistically £7500 is pretty much the entry level figure for owning a Scirocco so it is unlikely to be a good example of one. If you really want one I'd suggest saving another £1k-£1500 and buying a good early 2008-2009 example for around £8500-£9000.

A high mileage 1.4 TSi petrol isn't a great idea either... given all the issues that are well known with the pre-2010 cars...

If going high mileage because of budget you would be much better off going with the base line 2.0 TDi 140 with a full service history.

But if do decide to buy the 1.4 then make sure you buy from trade and have a good warranty behind it.

In the real world the 8.0 0-60 on the 1.4 doesn't mean a great deal... it needs working hard and the 2.0 TDI whilst slower from standing start has a nice spread of use-able power and is a nicer drive and imho is the better engine.