[toureos]

Anyone wondering whether to go petrol or diesel may be interested in the opinion of Honest John in the Daily Telegraph. On the other hand if you already have a TDI you probably aren't............ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/5313732/Honest-John-petrol-versus-diesel-debate-and-the-rise-in-used-values.html

 

[Lucari]

I'd always go for the diesel. Its such a smoother drive than the petrol, lots of torque and decent fuel consumption. When Wifey drives mine, we get about 600 miles out the tank. With my lead foot, its not as good but still reasonable.

I also love doing just under 2000 revs at 70 mph. Nice and quiet.

 

[nail-z-gull]

It always boils down to personal preference. There is no right or wrong, it all depends on what you want out of the car, and your circumstances.

Personally, every diesel I've ever driven sounds like a tractor. It's petrol all the way for me.

 

[Lucari]

That is the down side of the diesel. It does sound like an old taxi when starting up. Hardly the coolest image with the roof down. Still love it tho'.

 

[Daneel]

My 2.0T burns Oil. and not just a little bit - but not enough to exceed the VAG technical bulletin about the issue. I'm not the only one. Audi & VW forums are full of people with the same issue - some more, some less. I loose about 1 quart every 6000 miles - but top off with 1/4 quart when ever it needs it.

supposedly the 2.0T was rated the best engine in the world three years running. but the oil issue bothers me....

IMHO

http://wardsauto.com/reports/2009/tenbest/best_engines_2009_081205/

edit - i think it might be 4 years now...

 

[Rathbod]

That is the down side of the diesel. It does sound like an old taxi when starting up

Personally I do not have a problem with my Eos diesel, it does not sound like "old tractors" in fact my neighbour could not believe it was a diesel when he was looking over it. Coming back from the pictures with my son and daughter last night (28 and 25 respectively) my son was also questioning if it was a diesel because of the speeds we where doing, down the back country lanes home.

It drives well and I even with a heavy foot I am still getting in excess of 500 miles to a tank.

As Nail has already mentioned it comes down to personal choice.

(by the way the file was the new Star Trek and if you are planning to go and see it, highly recommended, damm good film)

Derek

 

[kipperjet]

Are you sure that you are talking about the same engine Daneel? The EA888 is totally different to the EA113 that VW try to con people [like me! ] with.

 

[neh321]

Nail-z-gull is quite right here. It all boils down to personal preference and there is no 'better' or 'right'.

If you like to rev your engine and use the gearbox then you wouldn't be happy with a diesel, but to be honest most people don't drive like that. In normal everyday use most people would be hard-pushed to tell the difference unless they were told what they were driving. Modern diesels are not nearly as noisy as they used to be, except on start-up, and the performance is on a par with if not better than an equivalent petrol; diesel just delivers it in a different way. And the economy of a diesel is in a different league.

You can see from my signature at the bottom which I prefer though!

 

[Eosman]

To sum up a diesel in one word - TORQUE. The superior fuel consumption is merely a bonus.

 

[SiJ2000]

But the WARD says the 2.0TFSI is the engine of the year... Thats good enough for me!

For other reasons (environment/tax etc), I would probably have got the 2.0 diesel if I thought more about it!

 

[kipperjet]

Which year for which engine? 2009 Eos has a different engine to 2007 Eos in the US!

 

[jonty007]

When I was buying a previous car (Skoda) the dealer talked me out of a diesel engine by explaining that they're not as cheap as they seem to be. You can get blinkered by the fuel economy & cheaper road tax, but when you factor in the more expensive purchase price, servicing & fuel costs, unless you're doing in excess of 30,000 miles per year a petrol is cheaper to run.

Not being one to believe dealers, I put together a spreadsheet with all the factors in (miles per year/fuel costs/servicing/ initial purhase cost etc) and found that for thr 8-10,000 miles I do, for this particular model it would take 14 years before I would see the cost benefits of the diesels mpg.

Since then I have always chosen petrol, but I do like the torque you get with a good diesel.

 

[SiJ2000]

They are talking about the Turbo FSI and not the new TSI... They are very different!

 

[pacemaker1000]

i must admit to being a deisel hater, saying that if i had to do 30,000 miles a year and pay the fuel bill i would probably have one. but NOT an EOS, its not that type of car neither is the audi tt deisel i saw today which made me laugh.
tbh for high milage cars your better off with a big comfy car not a sports car and definately not a convertible!
new technology proves we were duped into deisels as a cheap option, check out the new merc petrol that beats the deisel for mpg
if your that tight go for the 1.4 tsfi and banish the smelly rattly deisels for tractors
ps i drive a deisel for work and have to use a glove every time to put fuel in and the state around the pumps and on your shoes is enough to ban the stuff

 

[Dobbo]

I have the 2.0 TDi and I have to say that the economy has been a disappointment. When I do a long journey it's fine, between 45 - 49 mpg. However, I do a lot of short journeys (not so short that I have particulate problems) and for the 12,000 miles I have done the average has been 38mpg. This is 2mpg better than my old Rover 75 2.0 TDi Estate which is if course much bigger than the Eos.

 

[davidp]

I drove both the diesel and 2.0T before buying and found the diesel too noisy and harsh whereas the 2.0T sounded so sweet. I understand the newer common rail diesel is quieter though.
Its a shame VW don't fit a decent diesel engine like BMW, the 120d series engine is impressive 175 bhp, over 50 mpg and almost as quick as the Eos 2.0T, not as nice looking as the Eos though and only a rag top.

 

[Blessed_Badger]

I drove both the diesel and 2.0T before buying and found the diesel too noisy and harsh whereas the 2.0T sounded so sweet. I understand the newer common rail diesel is quieter though.
Its a shame VW don't fit a decent diesel engine like BMW, the 120d series engine is impressive 175 bhp, over 50 mpg and almost as quick as the Eos 2.0T, not as nice looking as the Eos though and only a rag top.

I actually traded in a BMW 120D (hatch not conv) for the Eos 2.0T (petrol). Personally (and as lots have said it is a personal thing!) I much prefer the VW 2.0T and would never go back to a diesel (unless in a 4x4). I bought the BMW because of the promise of petrol like performance and lack of typical diesel 'side-effects'. In truth the BMW was much better than all other diesels but still had the tell-tail noises and 'shudders' and just never felt that quick. It also never got near 50mpg and I only ever got as much as 45mpg if I drove incredibly carefully.

Part of the reason for getting the Eos was the engine, which I'd had in a Golf GTI '07 a few years ago. It really is one of the sweetest engines I've driven. Quick when you want it, pull all over the rev range and incredibly versatile. And it's quite easy to get low 30's mpg should you need to. Factor in the petrol price difference, purchase price and service costs, and as others have said, you'd really need to do quite some miles over quite some time to make it financially sensible to get the diesel. And as far as I can tell, the financial reason is the only reason to ever get a diesel!

 

[SiJ2000]

My brother in law has a 120d and he keeps saying it is quicker than the EOS 2.0T by about 0.2 seconds 0-62!

I don't mind though

 

[Blessed_Badger]

My brother in law has a 120d and he keeps saying it is quicker than the EOS 2.0T by about 0.2 seconds 0-62!

I don't mind though

He is right about the manufact. quoted 0-62 times but, according to Whatcar's actual tests the Eos 2.0T's 0-62 is also 7.5 secs. VW are notorious for underestimating performance with their cars, where as I'm pretty sure BMW go the other way! Anyway, with that argument a draw, what else does he say the 120D beats the Eos at. From experience the interior of the BMW (although high quality) is very bland and dull, and quite depressingly dark actually and there is no comparison in external looks. So apart from saving a few quid a week in petrol can't see why he'd be showing off about his BM???