Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Shopping

From everyday essentials to big purchases, swap tips and recommendations. For the best deals without the hassle, sign up for Mumsnet Moneysaver emails.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

do you know about cars? i really need some help...

26 replies

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 21:43

we've pretty much decided that the VW Sharan is the car for us. I saw this one but dismissed it as only 1.4

but when I spoke to the guy at the VW place he said that althouigh it's a 1.4 it still gives you 160bhp
now, according to the manual for my volvo v70 that is 163 bhp, but has a 2.4 litre engine

I have NO idea really what any of this means... will a 1.4 engine be enough? he said it's to do with efficiency of new engines and things like that, but I don't really understand

OP posts:

HJwantstosleep · 04/03/2012 21:51

We've got a 1.6 scenic ( so similar sized car) and it feels underpowered if that's any help

Ponders · 04/03/2012 21:52

I don't know much but I just looked it up on Parkers \link{http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/sharan/estate-2010/49300/& they say 147bhp, which is close to your man}

My car is a 2004 2.0 dti Zafira - its bhp is something like 99 & it goes like the clappers so I'd say your Sharan sounds pretty good! (& the mpg isn't bad either for that size car. My Zafira gets 40-45 depending on conditions)

sodapops · 04/03/2012 21:55

I had a 1.6 automatic Citroen C4 Grand Picasso and at times that felt sluggish. I would have thought a people carrier with a 1.4 engine would feel under powered TBH.

Ponders · 04/03/2012 21:57

\link{http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/sharan/estate-2010/49302/\this is the 2.0 tdi equivalent of yours}

bhp is lower & 0-60 is slower (emissions & insurance group are lower too but you can't have everything) so it sounds as if your 1.4 isn't under-powered

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:04

no, sorry, i'm still confused lol

if the 2.0 litre one is only 113bhp then the 1.4 must be a lot less?

although the one i'm loooking at is petrol... does that make a difference?

my very first car was a 1971 beetle. it had a 1.6 engine and did ok. i just can't imagine that a great big MPV with a 1.4 engine can be anything other than hideously sluggish, but as I say, I simply don't understand how it all works

i guess i should maybe take it for a test drive

OP posts:

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:05

do you know, i actually just joined pistonheads to ask about this, but they've been trolled or something so new members aren't allowed to post at the moment!

shocking!

gah

OP posts:

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:12

bhp is more to do with cylindery stuff than engine size - your 1.4 petrol is more vroomy (I think that's the techie term) than the 2.0 diesel

bhp tells you more about vroominess than engine size, & the 1.4 has more bhp

(I don't understand either )

stargirl1701 · 04/03/2012 22:13

It's not just the horsepower you need to think about. Power to weight ratio will have an impact on performance. It will also perform differently when fully loaded with passengers than when it is just you driving. Can you test drive first? Or something similar?

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:14

mmm so i need to test drive with some bbags of rubblke?

OP posts:

mamababa · 04/03/2012 22:19

It's also prob got a huge turbo strapped on.

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:19

as I said my 2.0 is only 98bhp (I just looked it up too) & it goes like stink, but it is a turbo diesel, & the Sharan diesel is a "common rail"

your 1.4 is "turbo supercharged" (oo-er!)

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:20

just finding the current car on parkers now so we can compare

OP posts:

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:20

yeah i like the sound of turbo supercharged!

OP posts:

malinois · 04/03/2012 22:27

thisisyesterday - petrol engines usually put out more power than an equivalent sized diesel engine as they can rev much higher. The 1.4TSI also has the advantage of both a turbocharger and a supercharger (i.e. lots of expensive spinny things to go wrong...) which gives it more power by forcing air into the engine (all diesels have a turbocharger too.)

HOWEVER, for most everyday driving, and certainly for a big heavy car like a Sharan, the power figures don't tell you very much. You need to look at the torque figure, which is the 'pulling force' that the engine can generate. This is where diesels tend to do much better - and in this case the 2.0TDI is much better than the 1.4TSI. Better fuel economy too.

Also, the 2.0TDI comes in 3 different versions with increasing amounts of power and torque. It's a bit of a cheat by VW really as the only difference is in the program they load into the computer that controls the engine allowing them to charge you thousands extra for the higher-spec versions at no extra cost to themselves.

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:30

ahhh ok thank you

yes, i can see comparing my current car with the sharan, the torque is much better

OP posts:

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:31

have you driven it yet? that's the only way to find out

I used to have an older Zafira (also 2.0dti) which I traded in for a Mazda5 diesel; but the Mazda had some acceleration flat spots (not to mention all the new diesel technology, which potentially costs 4 figures every time it goes wrong) so I traded back down to a lower mileage slightly newer Zafira, & this one never ever lets me down when overtaking etc

I just looked up the Mazda & it was 108bhp - more than the Zafira - but was also common rail (like the Sharan) & definitely had poorer acceleration than the Zaf (though cruising, esp in 6th gear, was lovely)

malinois · 04/03/2012 22:33

ponders - all modern diesels are turbodiesels and common rail, so no difference there really :)

thisisyesterday - you might like the sound of turbo-supercharging (i.e. both a turbocharger and a supercharger), but you might not like the repair bill when it all goes bang.

Personally I would go for the 2.0TDI, preferably the 170PS model - more power, torque, and much better fuel consumption than the 1.5TSI, and a very well proven and extremely reliable engine.

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:33

yes the guy said they hardly ever get any diesels in and that they're a lot more money, which potentially rules it out for us.

OP posts:

Original poster

thisisyesterday · 04/03/2012 22:35

although apparently the seat alhambra is actually the exact same car to the same spec, so maybe i can get a better deal on one of those...

oh lots to think about here!!!

i could of course go for an older model and get more power for my money, but then i wouldn't be able to have sliding doors

OP posts:

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:35

oh god, torque????

(I'm too old for this complicated stuff)

tiy, I don't know how old your Volvo is, but newer diesels (c 2008 onwards) have all that DPF nonsense & engine management & whatnot - unless you're doing motorway miles regularly you are much better off with petrol

\link{http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html\some AA advice on petrol v diesel}

(there is another one too, I'll see if I can find it)

malinois · 04/03/2012 22:40

The 1.4TSI is going to feel distinctly weedy if you are used to a V70 2.4D. That a 180bhp car that weighs much less than the Sharan.

HedleyLamarr · 04/03/2012 22:42

A 1.4l petrol engine is inadequate for the size of vehicle. The Sharon (yes, I know) is a big old tool which is better served by the diesel engine. Yes, diesel is more expensive, but more economical. Diesels usually have more torque which helps in pulling more weight. Go for the 1.9l turbodiesel, it's more suited for the size of car.

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:51

do read the AA thing I linked to before deciding, tiy

apparently the Sharan only has the 2 engines?

the Galaxy offers 1.8 & 2.0 petrol, Seat Alhambra ditto (all 3 are the same basic vehicle, Alhambra better value)

unless you'll be doing regular multiple motorway journeys you'd be better off avoiding diesel

Ponders · 04/03/2012 22:56

& fwiw the torque on my Zafira is less than the torque on the 1.4 Sharan

but it would be a close race

fatsatsuma · 05/03/2012 19:39

thisisyesterday have you seen the thread I started on touran vs sharan? It sounds like we have been considering the same car. We were very tempted by a 1.4 petrol sharan, but in the end we've decided to pay a bit more and go for a diesel.

I'm very surprised that your dealer said that they hardly ever get diesels in. We were told the opposite - and a quick look on the VW used car site suggests the same. There are very few petrols around - most newer sharans are the 2.0 diesel engine. The petrol one we were looking at was several thousand cheaper than any other sharan we've seen, which was very attractive.

We're not car experts (at all ) but we decided as other posters have said that the petrol engine was not the most economical choice, in terms of fuel consumption and resale value. We also felt that the diesel engine might be sturdier, and would cope better when the car is full and towing a trailer.

Having said all that, we did a test drive in the petrol sharan and it was a lovely smooth ride. We were very tempted. But ultimately we reckon that it was much cheaper than all the other sharans for a reason, and that it would be a false economy for us.

We're now holding out for a diesel sharan with park assist and roof rails (ie an SE) for under £20k - which is looking pretty unlikely

Flip

1 2