Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thinking of placing a order for a new GT 170 OR GT 140 which one would you choose.

I have had a GT TDI 140 Already. NO seems to have any in yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,063 Posts
Ask yourself if you need more performance. If the answer is yes then go for the 170. In my case, the answer is definately no, the 140 TDI is more than enough for me. No doubt some will say get the 140 and chip it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
170 and chip it?
Same here but will the turbo on the 170 be able to handle more than 200brake?

I know the 140 tdi and the 150mk4 doesn't like going over 200brake without a turbo change.

Tam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
VW Driver mag has details of GT 170 on pg 13 of May 2006.
Major change is the use of piezo triggered injectors. But overall the review seems to be less than impressed with the power delivery. (0-60 8.2s, 170ps @ 4.2k rpm, 258 lbft between 1750-2500rpm)

Evo also mentioned it in last months edition, but had more focus on the TSI 1.4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Isn't the 170 just the 140 with a mild remap? Or does it use some new hardware to help take it that little bit higher?
As in the post just above your's, the 170 TDI has Piezo Injectors.

Modifying the 170 may not be as straight forward as an older TDI - yet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
I had a look round a Seat Leon FR with the 170 TDI and it seems quieter than the other TDIs i have herd....granted this was at idle, but the engine was cold....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Where ever you look you get different answers, but there is about ?1000 difference from one to the other. the web sites i have looked on seem to talk more about the 1.4 tsi
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
I'd choose a 3Dr GT 140 overall. Cheaper to own and run, possibly lower kerb weight, and probably not a lot in it performance wise after remapping both cars.

Pferdest?rken*140
Engine cubic capacity2000
Fuel Consumption
Urban39.8mpg - 7.4l/100km
Extra-urban58.9mpg - 4.8l/100km
Combined49.6mpg - 5.7l/100km
Engine emissions154g/km
Engine noise levels72.0dB
Engine maximum Speed**126mph - 203km/h
Engine acceleration 0-62mph9.3secs
Maximum output PS140
at RPM4000
Maximum torque236 lbs.ft / 320 Nm
at RPM1750
Insurance group rating13

vs

Pferdest?rken*170
Engine cubic capacity1968
Fuel Consumption
Urban35.8mpg - 7.9l/100km
Extra-urban36.5mpg - 5.0l/100km
Combined46.3mpg - 6.1l/100km
Engine emissions160g/km
Engine noise levels73.0dB
Engine maximum Speed**136mph - 220km/h
Engine acceleration 0-62mph8.2secs
Maximum output PS170
at RPM4200
Maximum torque258 lbs.ft / 350 Nm
at RPM1750
Insurance group ratingn/a

Think there's a cockup on the VW site for 170's extra urban figure. Insurance group will be higher for GT 170.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
I might just change my mind - Just been to the local dealer and they had a GT 170 in black. Top billing. The new front grill looks good, as did the 17" alloys. Nice GT logo on the steering wheel too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Don't forget the MK6 will be out next year, so whatever you buy will be worth less than you expect when you come to sell it!

I just sold mine and was really disappointed.

BTW:[:p] Honda Civics ARE better than Golfs![:p]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
I'd go for the 170 bhp gt, for the 1k premium, you get the extra power, maybe a little less than a remap will give on a 140, but a decent remap is ?500, you get decent 17"s , 4-500 extra on the 140ps model and the gti brakes, dunno what else you get but seems good to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
What ever car you buy will be worth less and if you kept waiting for the newest model you would never buy a car.

I have a 140 4motion and I thought about a remap to 185hp but this car in standard trim is fast enough,The new 170 uses more fuel and is hardly any faster 0-60 and in this country top speed means nothing and costs more ,I have seen a road test on the 170 and they were not overly impressed with the new 170 engine,They were impressed with the new petrol twincharger though and I like the idea of an engine that has good torque and can rev to 7000 and does reasonable mpg without the diesel shortcomings of a narrow powerband,noisy,more costly to buy etc also the cost of diesel is more I can see diesel sales loosing out too these new high powered smaller capacity engines.

I hope you enjoy your new Honda and time will tell how that fares in a couple of years.

Golfs have always retained a very high used value as do some Hondas .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
The only cosmetic difference between the 140PS and 170PS is that the 170PS models including the 170PS TSI get twin exhaust pipes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I hope you enjoy your new Honda and time will tell how that fares in a couple of years.

Golfs have always retained a very high used value as do some Hondas .
Thanks 4MOTION, believe me the MK5 residuals aren't great. Mine lost ?9K+ in 20 months. There are just too many 2.0TDI's on the road also available cheap from car supermarkets & second hand. Also, the well reported cost cutting measures to the interior trim, etc. Residuals are a good few % lower than Glasses predicted a few years ago.

Whereas the MK4 came out in '98 and lasted until 2004, that's a 6 year lifespan (somebody's gonna correct me on that, I'm sure!) When the new MK6 comes out next year, the MK5 will be 3 years old. The Residual Values that were set by the motor trade didn't take into account that the model would be superceded so early in it's production. I'd expect the used value of the car will be "re-aligned" as the release date of the MK6 grows closer......

Bear in mind that my new Civic cost about ?3k less than my Golf did, and is generally better specced apart from the Satnav (that didn't hold any extra value when I came to sell the Golf either!) It feels better put together, is quieter & more economical, smoother acceleration with a better ration gearbox, blah, blah, blah and has received universal praise by the motoring press. I think that I'll feel much less agrieved with the amount that I get back for the car when I come to sell it in 3 or so years, than I did when I sold my Golf MK5 last month. (I know that some will disagree, so here's an article to consider..... http://www.carpages.co.uk/honda/honda-civic-29-09-05.asp and another one... http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14133-1918045,00.html )

I felt very short changed with my MK5. Loved the performance, hated the build quality & reliability. As an early adopter of the car, I felt like a bit of a guinea pig for the rest of VW's customers as the faults started to appear. That said, I've just bought another new model, so I obviously haven't learnt anything!

I'll shut up now.

;o)

Damian

p.s I'm selling the 16" VW Imola alloy wheels & Bridgestone tyres for the MK5 here... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=001&item=110004159534&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top