5th Jan 2008, 09:52

I think the point is that the performance in the TDI is easily accessible, whereas in the petrol you'd have to thrash the nuts off it to get the performance (albeit less so in the petrol turbo 2.0T FSI).

Just my 2p.

10th Jan 2008, 11:12

I bought into all the diesel hype and actually own an A3 TDI (140) and have to say that it feels quicker than it actually is.

The torque delivery feels good (once you have overcome the turbo lag) but this does not translate into breakneck speed.

You can only drive the TDI quickly once the turbo spools up (at about 1800-2000 rpm) and it is all over by 4500rpm. Whilst you are busy snatching for another gear the petrol equivalent is just getting into its stride and disappearing into the distance.

I average 42mpg from my TDI. If I "give it some beans" this figure can plummet rapidly to the high 20's. I used to own a Mk1 A3 1.8T which averaged 33mpg on the same route and never dropped below 23mpg even when pressing on. For the extra power and the way this was delivered I think that 11mpg is a small price to pay.

I have a friend that owns a 2.0 TFSI (197bhp) his car can leave mine for dust in every situation. He also averages 32mpg in everyday driving.

Yes, Audi make a 170bhp TDI, they also make a better 2.0 TFSI that delivers just as much torque as the beefier TDI.

Just my 2 penneth, but I think to get the best of both worlds you cannot beat a turbo petrol. They deliver more mid-range speed than a diesel (look at the 30-70 through the gears, not just the individual in gear times) and better fuel economy than a non turbo.

For what it is worth I also think that Captain Clio was right, the performance of the TDI is comparable to a 1.6 - but only off the line. Once the TDI is rolling it will leave the 1.6 trailing in a cloud of diesel smoke.

2nd Mar 2008, 17:31

I can't agree more with the last post.

As part of the review there has been a comparison with a 1.6 petrol. I can't speak about the Clio and really wouldn't want to. However, the 1.6 petrol A3 I can as I had this as a brief replacement while my 2.0 TDI was serviced. I drove 60 miles up the motorway and it struggled up moderate hills and ate petrol. Just what you need! I don't believe that there can be all that much improvement in that even with more performance-oriented cars.

Someone else mentioned that the A3 creaks. Well I have driven mine pretty hard for a year and never experienced this. This was from a BMW driver. However we all know that the BMW is not a complete car as they are built without indicators.

3rd Mar 2008, 11:46

Why do 182 owners think they have good cars. Their bland, girly, unimaginative, give the impression to people you don't have much money, they fall to peices, loose value, have no luxuries what so ever and 0-60 in 7 seconds is hardly what I would call a performance car.

14th May 2008, 16:42

I've just part ex my Subaru Impreza WRX 2.5 turbo 2006 model for an A3 TDI sport, and the tdi is definately more fun. 0-60 is not better but 50 to 70 is awesome... that's awesome.

21st Aug 2008, 12:40

It's not all about straight line speed, braking etc. The Clio in its class destroys just about any car like for like. As for its 0-60mph, you will find it's closer to 6.5 secs. Go to http://www.evo.co.uk

Get your facts right...

22nd Dec 2009, 10:30

It seems we have a Clio Fanboi. Different strokes for different folks. We have two diesels (a 2.5 diesel van, and a 1.4 diesel 106), and two petrols (a 1.6 MX5 and an 270bhp RX7 rotary). They do different things, and I love them for different things. I love diesel torque. I'd never try and tow anything with my RX7, but my van could tow things all day, including a broken down Clio for example. The 106 diesel has no performance, but is quiet, comfy and does 60mpg round town. The MX5 is a hoot just about anywhere, despite not having bags of power. The RX7 is silly fun, but doesn't get used much as I average 18mpg in it.

Powerful diesels are all about being able to drive rapidly without exerting loads of effort. You can easily hustle a quick diesel, just keeping it in that comfy high torque zone, whereas to keep your petrol around that zone you're screaming its little nuts off. Fun in the MX5 on the weekend, not so fun when commuting to work.

25th Jan 2010, 07:03

The point is exactly as mentioned above. Yes a performance petrol car is quicker outright, but to access the performance, you have to use the whole rev range, so 9 times out of 10 when driving the car, you are not extracting this performance. If you did, the car wouldn't last long, whereas in a diesel with the torque available, you can extract the "book figures" for acceleration etc time and time again without wringing the thing's neck.

I love petrol cars, but also appreciate the easy performance of a good torquey diesel. This is why my other half thinks the A3 TDI is quicker than my BMW 325i, due to the fact she generally will only be using up to 4K rpm in the Beemer, which isn't where the power is, but she's always benefiting from the torque in the Audi.

26th Jan 2010, 03:14

Actually, just to point out, how would using a cars full rev range wear it out? If a car is well maintained, then there is no reason it would wear out, in fact it is good for engines to be revved hard every so often, it keeps them young and healthy. Hopefully you don't drive everywhere with your hair on fire, so therefore a decent petrol doesn't need thrashing all the time, and has ample power around town etc.

One other thing is diesels always feel faster than they actually are, are more expensive to service (modern ones), and wear clutches out like nobodies business due to all the torque being at the bottom of the rev range.

On the open road, you're more likely to use all the revs to make the drive exciting etc. So a good petrol will leave any diesel for dead. Oh and one other thing, diesel engines are heavy, so an equivalent petrol will also handle better, due to a lighter front end.

Did you ever see the test on Top Gear where they had the new M5 and 535d (the twin turbo 3L diesel 5 series), they took them both round the track, with the M5 setting the pace, and the 535d keeping up and slipstreaming I might add, the 535d got worse fuel economy than the M5!

Bear in mind the 535d has 286bhp vs the m5's 5L V10 507bhp, and also similar levels of torque.

My point being, if you're after a performance car, buy a decent petrol in the first place, if you want economy, buy a smaller petrol or an older diesel, as they are much more reliable than the miserable fail rate of modern diesels.