318i slow, but A4 120 2.0tdi 120 isn't?

Chartsengrafs

Folks,

I'm hoping to look at an A4 2.0l tdi (120 hp) this weekend. From reading threads here the model is supposed to be OK, but not as good as the 143/170 versions for possibly obvious reasons.
However if a poster asks about a BMW 318i, it is often suggested that it's a waste of time compared to the 320i. (I have a 318i, find it fine but could see why the six cylinder version would be much better considering the weight of the car etc... I'm under no illusions!)

I guess what I'm asking is the A4 (120 hp) perhaps favourable due to torque or something else? Or is it just as case of the 320i being wildly superior to the 3181?! Just purely out of interest why does one (the BMW) get more of a bad rap? I'm somewhat apprehensive about the 120 hp Audi but reports seem OK. Hope my post makes sense Thanks

pippip

Its because the A4 tdi has the torque to make up for the lack of horsepower.

Look up each cars torque.

the 318i would be compared to the A4 1.6 petrol

The best way to experience it would be to test drive both and feel first hand the difference.

Chartsengrafs

Thanks, will do. I have always driven petrol cars (and only threw torque out there as a guess) but didn't realise it would create much of a difference.
Though a 129hp same as a....isn't that VAG 1.6 105 hp or so??

colm_mcm

Its about power delivery and torque.

Flesh Gorden

The early E46 318's had a dog of an engine (1.9 litre 118bhp), the later ( 02' onwards?) ones with the 2 litre had a more respectable amount of power.

I didn't know about the difference until I was looking at a few about 5 years ago, but I'd say that's where the 318 stigma might have come from as having tried a few days apart, the difference was very noticeable.

Chartsengrafs

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

The early E46 318's had a dog of an engine (1.9 litre 118bhp), the later ( 02' onwards?) ones with the 2 litre had a more respectable amount of power.

I didn't know about the difference until I was looking at a few about 5 years ago, but I'd say that's where the 318 stigma might have come from as having tried a few days apart, the difference was very noticeable.

That would make sense, the 2litre E90 (129 bhp) should be more lively.

landmarkjohn

318i 129 bhp e90 not a slow car by any means, top speed about 130 mph plenty of poke to get yourself in trouble, we have one in family 2006 model. Upgraded from sept 2007 to 143bhp but the 320i in 2008 is making 170bhp so sure a bit of a difference but I reckon the BMW 318i would be a better drive than the Audi diesel but it's not agood comparison really

I think you are hearing comparisons between say a 2000 year 320i with a six cylinder 150bhp and similar vintage 318i with a 4 pot "dog of an engine" as mentioned in previous post, that would be chalk and cheese.

If you are doing less than 10k miles a year I would go for a petrol BMW over a diesel Audi.

Jesus.

Torque is where its at Bro

quadrifoglio verde

The audi is front wheel drive, the bmw is rear wheel drive. Front wheel drive is going to be faster than rear wheel drive if like for like figures are the same.
Also when it comes to audi, the tdi is seen as the engine of choice (although I'd prefer the 1.8 petrol) whereas when it comes to the bmw, well the e46 had some fairly decent engines in that range and probably why people on a motors forum would find a 318i awfully slow.

Foxhole Norman

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

The early E46 318's had a dog of an engine (1.9 litre 118bhp), the later ( 02' onwards?) ones with the 2 litre had a more respectable amount of power.

I didn't know about the difference until I was looking at a few about 5 years ago, but I'd say that's where the 318 stigma might have come from as having tried a few days apart, the difference was very noticeable.

BMW is very odd, the later E46 318's, 01+ had a 140hp unit and when the E90 was released it used the 129 until 2007 when they then swapped back to the 140, I don't understand going down to a weaker engine on a heavier car and then going back up.

dar83

I think some of the reason the 318i gets a bad rep is also because the people that tend to buy them have them as a 'Fisher Price my first BMW' and think they're in a sports car, so try to drive it like one.

That, and the poor engines in most of them on our roads.

Joe 90

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The audi is front wheel drive, the bmw is rear wheel drive. Front wheel drive is going to be faster than rear wheel drive if like for like figures are the same.
Also when it comes to audi, the tdi is seen as the engine of choice (although I'd prefer the 1.8 petrol) whereas when it comes to the bmw, well the e46 had some fairly decent engines in that range and probably why people on a motors forum would find a 318i awfully slow.

???

kdevitt

FWIW, I just bought an E90 318i and I love it. Very comfortable, exceptionally smooth engine for a 4 pot, plenty of poke for a family wagon, and it returned 49mpg on a return trip from Dublin to Wexford three weeks back.

jimgoose

Joe 90 wrote: »

???

I assume he's talking about lossage via the longer transmission train/diff/half-shafts. You're unlikely to notice such a thing on the road! :pac:

Frank11

Can i ask you what year yours is? Best i ever got from my 09 was 33mpg trip to Galway (8.5 l/100km).

kdevitt wrote: »

FWIW, I just bought an E90 318i and I love it. Very comfortable, exceptionally smooth engine for a 4 pot, plenty of poke for a family wagon, and it returned 49mpg on a return trip from Dublin to Wexford three weeks back.

Moneymaker

E90 318i is fine for your average motorist imo.

A proper enthusiast wants a 6 pot of course but for average A to B driving the 318 will suit just fine.

kdevitt

Frank11 wrote: »

Can i ask you what year yours is? Best i ever got from my 09 was 33mpg trip to Galway (8.5 l/100km).

Its a 2006 car - was a pleasant surprise. To be honest I got 31MPG out of my M3 on the same drive though, lots of use of cruise control and no real farting about.

Frank11

hmmmm, must be something wrong with my engine so. Thanks.

kdevitt wrote: »

Its a 2006 car - was a pleasant surprise. To be honest I got 31MPG out of my M3 on the same drive though, lots of use of cruise control and no real about.

Chimaera

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The audi is front wheel drive, the bmw is rear wheel drive. Front wheel drive is going to be faster than rear wheel drive if like for like figures are the same.
Also when it comes to audi, the tdi is seen as the engine of choice (although I'd prefer the 1.8 petrol) whereas when it comes to the bmw, well the e46 had some fairly decent engines in that range and probably why people on a motors forum would find a 318i awfully slow.

That's an over-generalisation. Yes, the RWD hardware is going to be a bit heavier, but not by much, maybe 20-30 kg. A full tank of fuel will weigh more than that.

You might find that some RWD cars are heavier than equivalent FWD models from rival manufacturers, but that's a case-by-case scenario.

A RWD car will accelerate quicker off the line than a FWD one as it has better traction. During acceleration, the weight of the car is thrown backwards: in a FWD car this takes traction away from the driven wheels; in a RWD one it adds traction to them.

And no, traction control doesn't even things up here: it can't beat physics. If you can apply more torque to the road, you go faster end of. Traction control limits power to control wheelspin, so what happens is that power is reduced to a level that can be applied with the amount of grip/traction available.

Joe 90

Chimaera wrote: »

That's an over-generalisation. Yes, the RWD hardware is going to be a bit heavier, but not by much, maybe 20-30 kg. A full tank of fuel will weigh more than that.

You might find that some RWD cars are heavier than equivalent FWD models from rival manufacturers, but that's a case-by-case scenario.

A RWD car will accelerate quicker off the line than a FWD one as it has better traction. During acceleration, the weight of the car is thrown backwards: in a FWD car this takes traction away from the driven wheels; in a RWD one it adds traction to them.

And no, traction control doesn't even things up here: it can't beat physics. If you can apply more torque to the road, you go faster end of. Traction control limits power to control wheelspin, so what happens is that power is reduced to a level that can be applied with the amount of grip/traction available.

At last, another person who realises that traction control just limits the engine output so that the wheel doesn't break traction.
Of course, if you put the engine where it should be, just behind the drivers shoulders, there is no possibility of a weight penalty. No bloody rear passengers to annoy him either.:)

jimgoose

Joe 90 wrote: »

At last, another person who realises that traction control just limits the engine output so that the wheel doesn't break traction...

What on earth do most people think it does?? :pac:

Joe 90

jimgoose wrote: »

What on earth do most people think it does?? :pac:

I reckon that most people think that it gives you more traction.

Joe 90

kdevitt wrote: »

Its a 2006 car - was a pleasant surprise. To be honest I got 31MPG out of my M3 on the same drive though, lots of use of cruise control and no real farting about.

Interesting, I just checke the Exige the other weekend and got 33MPG over a 200 mile run. There was about 10 miles of walking pace traffic, otherwise mostly 80 mph or so. It would seem that the M3 is in fact pretty economical for the potential performance.

Stainless_Steel

Jesus. wrote: »

Torque is where its at Bro

My head nearly explodes when people misunderstand torque vs power.

Leonard Hofstadter

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

My head nearly explodes when people misunderstand torque vs power.

Indeed. You don't need torque to go fast (if the car is light enough).

This fascination with low down torque fooling people into thinking that it makes a diesel 'faster' than a petrol of equivalent power never fails to amaze me.

It's completely and utterly untrue, it's just that most people are afraid to hang onto the lower gears in a petrol when accelerating and then wonder why there's no go:rolleyes:. In fact, in a wide variety of situations, a petrol can deliver maximum acceleration and get up to speed quicker than a diesel all in the one gear, for example a sprint from say 60-120 km/h can be done in just third gear in your average petrol, good luck trying to do that in a diesel.

For what it's worth to the OP, the 318i has a bad reputation to a certain extent because a BMW four cylinder petrol engine is rubbish compared to one of their wonderful silky smooth straight sixes.

A 318i will be faster than an A4 TDI 120 because it's got a little more power and as already mentioned, rear wheel drive. In practice there probably is very little between them, 9 bhp is hardly a big difference at this level.

I think however the main reason people don't recommend it however is because (and this is true) the 320i has the same sized engine (2005 onwards) but even more power and torque but there is no motor tax or mpg penalty. It's a bit silly to buy a less powerful car when you won't get a single extra mpg or pay a single cent less in car tax. This however is also 100% true for the A4 TDI 120 - the 143 and 170 bhp versions are better buys for exactly the same reason if you want an A4. Similarly with the diesel 3 series, the 316d, 318d and 320d all have the same 2.0 litre engine just tuned differently (but the diesel 3 series should be avoided at all costs if it's built after September 2007 due to the infamous timing chain problem, that said the petrols after this date are also rather unreliable).

Chimaera

Later 320i models are actually a 2.2.

Leonard Hofstadter

Chimaera wrote: »

Later 320i models are actually a 2.2.

Not the cars the OP's looking at. The 2.2 320i was only LCI E46s. It's been a 2.0 both before that and ever since, though I suppose with BMW's current nonsense it won't be long before it's just a three cylinder 1.5:rolleyes:.

Jesus.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

My head nearly explodes when people misunderstand torque vs power.

No misunderstanding here my man

Chartsengrafs

Thanks for all the comments folks, lots of food for thought. Fantastic resource as always.

corkgsxr

It must have been a phone auto correct.

He probably ment to say. If figures a the same a rwd is significantly more awesome than a equivalent fwd