Mechanical Differences TDI

[Garry74]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there actually any mechanical differences between the 170 tdi and the 140 tdi bluemotion. I know the bluemotion has the start stop and the extra gubbins that go with it. But what about the rest of the mechanics? Is the 170 just a cpu remap?

[maisbitt]

170 definitely has a bigger turbo, and I think (but not sure) the injectors are different. The 2 engines sound completely different under load, the 170 sounding so much better (and not at all like a diesel). The 170 weighs 20Kg more than the 140 GT (pre-bluemotion), I don't think that will all be the turbo and the chrome exhaust tips (exhaust system different too?).

If you're trying to decide whether to buy a 140 and remap, or get a 170 - get the 170. Of the £750ish price difference, you'll see half of it back at trade-in (making it cheaper than most remaps) and insurance premium differences between between stock 140 and stock 170 are very small, whereas most insurance companies will add minimum of £100 a year to someones premium for the remap.

[Garry74]

Lol. Read me like a book. Unfortunately I only decided I might want a 170 when it was to late. Build week was last week.

Nevermind, If I get a remap i'd be going for a DTUK tuning box, extra £10 a month on the insurance making it the same as it would be for a 170.

[maisbitt]

My 170TDI costs me £12 a year more to insure than my old 140 did. IMO, I really can't see the point in the 140GT within the Roc line-up. The 170 costs 3% more, has a tiny fuel penalty over the 140, huge real user performance gains (overtaking etc) and negligible insurance implications for most - so the only real advantage is the blue-motion that'll help with stop-start crawling city traffic. If you're grid-locked all the time, you really shouldn't buy a diesel anyway as you'll probably have no end of DPF issues.

Price difference between a 170TDI and a non-GT 140 makes more sense when deciding which model to go for.

I got a 140GT Roc before the 170 was out, and that extra £750ish you'll pay for the 170 over the 140GT is the best money you'd spend on that car.

[Garry74]

Trouble was by the time i got all the extras i wanted it was getting to expesive. I had a test drive in both cars and liked them both.

[maisbitt]

I try and leave the extras alone as much as I can, they add very little to the used value, so I had to ask myself whether I really wanted all those extras to live with losing so much on them. My dealer talked me out of getting leather. He said it would only add £300 to the trade in value of a 3 year old car, and it costs £1700 new.

It can be more cost effective to buy a 2.0TSI than a 1.4TSI (160) with all the GT bits specced in if you think of the cost of ownership only (e.g. purchase price minus resell/part-ex price) because of the low residual value of options on a car.

In the end I just opted for

1. Parking sensors (if they save 1 bump they've paid for themselves and the aftermarket options are nowheer near as good as factory fit with visual display in RCD.

2. Metallic paint (not a fan of the red - the bumpers look a completely different shade) and about 70% of the Rocs around my way are white.

I fitted in the R pedals and gearstick, as well as the sliding cup holder from the Golf (that cupholder recess on the Roc cheapens the interior IMO).

So are you getting a 140 (standard) or a 140GT? If standard, which options did you go for?

[Garry74]

Getting the GT, Candy white, DSG, folding mirrors, winter pack, rear parking sensors, cruise control, mud flaps and mats.