On Feb 25, 8:40*pm, Chris Bartram
wrote:
JackH wrote:
In fact not one of the VAG TDIs I've had (and there have been a few
now), have lagged like you've described, bar when the usual MAF issue
rears its head.

I've now owned 4, and driven others regularly- between us we've had a
75bhp 3-pot 1.4, 90, 110 and 130 1.9s, and a 140PD 2.0. They've all
performed well for the technology they had, and all pulled from below 1500.

Chris Bartram wrote:

I had one of those Mk4 Golf TDis and ran it for two years from new.
Experience tells me that you're deluding yourself. It doesn't pull at
all until it gets to 2500rpm then as usual it's all over by 4000 rpm.
How narrow does a power band have to be for the dieselistas?

It must have been ****ed.

Nah, it's just that diseasel drivers don't have a clue about driving
since all they are focussed on is MPG. They're even too dense to work
out that the extra cost of a diesel and the extra cost of diesel means
they'll not see a return on their capital this side of 100,000 miles.

JackH wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:04 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
It's smooth, comfortable, quiet, costs £125 a year to tax, and as I've
already said, pulls from sod all cleanly right through the rev range
with none of the 'narrow power band' issues some diesels seem to be
saddled with.

I had one of those Mk4 Golf TDis and ran it for two years from new.
Experience tells me that you're deluding yourself.

Experience tells me you're either exaggerating about how bad the one
you had was, or you actually had one with issues.

What model / BHP was it?

It was a red one. Other than that who GAF? It was a Golf, and an estate,
and a diesel. The three most boring things on the face of the planet.

JackH wrote:

Not so with the current one, which is a 90bhp.

When the MAF played up on that, it felt like it kept cutting the turbo
in and out fairly violently, and you'd end up going up a hill and just
maintaining your speed rather than making any progress.

Well, my MAF wasn't utterly ****ed- no fault codes or CEL, it just gave
a low output on VCDS logging. Car felt *much* faster with a new one though.

On Feb 25, 9:15*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:04 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
It's smooth, comfortable, quiet, costs 125 a year to tax, and as I've
already said, pulls from sod all cleanly right through the rev range
with none of the 'narrow power band' issues some diesels seem to be
saddled with.

I had one of those Mk4 Golf TDis and ran it for two years from new.
Experience tells me that you're deluding yourself.

Experience tells me you're either exaggerating about how bad the one
you had was, or you actually had one with issues.

What model / BHP was it?

It was a red one. Other than that who GAF? It was a Golf, and an estate,
and a diesel. The three most boring things on the face of the planet.

Bored again, I see...

--
JackH

On Feb 25, 9:25*pm, Chris Bartram
wrote:
JackH wrote:
Not so with the current one, which is a 90bhp.

When the MAF played up on that, it felt like it kept cutting the turbo
in and out fairly violently, and you'd end up going up a hill and just
maintaining your speed rather than making any progress.

Well, my MAF wasn't utterly ****ed- no fault codes or CEL, it just gave
a low output on VCDS logging. Car felt *much* faster with a new one though.

FWIW, they rarely throw up any fault codes when they go, and I've seen
them where the car has been more like you described, as in it just
seems to lose its edge power wise rather than act like above.

--
JackH

JackH wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:15 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:04 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
It's smooth, comfortable, quiet, costs 125 a year to tax, and as I've
already said, pulls from sod all cleanly right through the rev range
with none of the 'narrow power band' issues some diesels seem to be
saddled with.

I had one of those Mk4 Golf TDis and ran it for two years from new.
Experience tells me that you're deluding yourself.

Experience tells me you're either exaggerating about how bad the one
you had was, or you actually had one with issues.

What model / BHP was it?

It was a red one. Other than that who GAF? It was a Golf, and an estate,
and a diesel. The three most boring things on the face of the planet.

Bored again, I see...

Bored of VAG ****e, yes. Ford actually make more interesting cars.

I mena look at you in other parts of this thread getting worked up about
130bhp. That's umm 90bhp less than the slowest of my vehicles.

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I mena look at you in other parts of this thread getting worked up about
130bhp. That's umm 90bhp less than the slowest of my vehicles.

Pfft. It's about the same as four of mine.

"Adrian" wrote:
they were saying:

I mena look at you in other parts of this thread getting worked up about
130bhp. That's umm 90bhp less than the slowest of my vehicles.

Pfft. It's about the same as four of mine.

Can I mention that my van surely wins the prize for lowest bhp/tonne?

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

On Feb 25, 9:42*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:15 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:04 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
JackH wrote:
It's smooth, comfortable, quiet, costs 125 a year to tax, and as I've
already said, pulls from sod all cleanly right through the rev range
with none of the 'narrow power band' issues some diesels seem to be
saddled with.

I had one of those Mk4 Golf TDis and ran it for two years from new.
Experience tells me that you're deluding yourself.

Experience tells me you're either exaggerating about how bad the one
you had was, or you actually had one with issues.

What model / BHP was it?

It was a red one. Other than that who GAF? It was a Golf, and an estate,
and a diesel. The three most boring things on the face of the planet.

Bored again, I see...

Bored of VAG ****e, yes.

So do as you are, and don't try / buy / drive any of it then.

Meanwhile those of us who are happy with it for the reasons stated
elsewhere will continue to do as we please in this respect.

Ford actually make more interesting cars.

Maybe, maybe not - I'm not in the market for a new car for the
foreseeable - when I am, maybe I'll take a look at what they've got to
offer.

A mate of mine funnily enough, has a 2006 Mondeo 2.2 TDCI ST thingy...
low mileage, bought from the local main dealers within the last 18
months.

The PAS has just started to play up on it... and he's now facing an
£1100 bill to get it put right

The parts to sort it are on back order for the foreseeable, which kind
of indicates it might be something affecting quite a few of these
right now.

It's that kind of thing, together with the way the 130bhp ones of
those should almost have the DMF listed as a 80k mile service item,
that puts me off certain brands, no matter how good or bad they look
in the flesh.

I mena look at you in other parts of this thread getting worked up about
130bhp.

We weren't getting worked up?

Go on, point out the bit where you reckon I was getting 'worked
up'... :-P

If anyone is familiar with a TV series called 'TV Offal', they'll
remember the regular feature whereby Victor Lewis-Smith did a feature
'This is how they sound to me'... something which poor old Mr Firth
appears to be suffering with in older age.

That's umm 90bhp less than the slowest of my vehicles.

Yes, and?

Your Exploder weighs about 4 tons (1) - that's a lot of weight for A:
the engine to move, and B: it to get round corners - tis no wonder
Firestones were blowing out on these.

thinks

Would you like a new set of tyres for that... I'm sure there'd be no
shortage of people willing to chip in and buy you a set of those for
it.

(1) That's 2 tons for the car itself, and 2 tons for the combined
weight of the chip on your shoulder and that of your swollen head.

--
JackH