DarkBahamut
Member
Registered: 4th Jun 06
Location: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by muppetsport
quote:
Originally posted by DarkBahamut
The TSI isnt that good IMO. If your only talking about 1.4's then ok, but if you want power then its silly to only look at 1.4's. For example, the 2.0L in the Golf GT is only 0.3 seconds slower to 62mph then the 1.4 TSI, the 2.0L has much much better MPG (20% more around town) and the 2.0L makes around 45% more torque than the TSI does, plus the 2.0L puts out less emissions meaning it falls into a cheaper tax band. The 1.4 TSI seems like a waste of time to me.
but its a 1.4 cheap tax, cheaper insurance. fast as feck. i fail to understand how these are not great selling points of it?
Tax on new cars is based on emissions, not engine size or power. Tax on the 1.4 TSI (CO2 175 g/km - Band E) would be £150 per year, tax on the 2.0L (CO2 160 g/km - Band D) would be £125 per year.
Also, insurance companies arent as stupid as people think, it might only be a 1.4, but they are going to know it pushes out power, so its insurance wouldnt be much if any cheaper than the 2.0L either.
The only thing going for the 1.4 TSI is that its a whole 0.3 seconds faster to 62 and for that 0.3 seconds you lose 25% of your mpg, lose the 45% torque gain of the 2.0 and pay more for road tax. Those arent really good selling points IMO.
[Edited on 10-07-2006 by DarkBahamut]
|
