Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

2011-ish passat b7 1.6tdi too slow?

  • 13-01-2022 7:28pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭ celica1994


    just wondering, considering these cars are 105bhp, are they really slow to drive in terms of do they feel slugish accelerating?



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Barrett1234


    I would take a guess say they would be sluggish enough. I have the same power in my golf which is smaller and my golf does not have loads of power but in saying that it does not feel awfully slow either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭ celica1994


    cheers, just most passats ive had were 150/170bhp, i could accept it if its great mpg tho



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭ Wildly Boaring


    Bout a 12 second 0 to 60.

    Not for me thanks



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi


    Passat has the 6 speed box as opposed to the 5 in the Golf.


    IMO they are thoroughly acceptable and will keep pace with traffic and overtake with no issues.


    They aren't a fast car but sure is a 2.0 140bhp a fast car either? No.



  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭ celica1994




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭ tanko


    Saying that a 2.0 isn’t a fast car is a bit silly, plenty of poke in them, they’re a rocket compared to a 1.6 105 bhp anyway.

    Get yourself a 2 litre OP, the 1.6 is for pensioners.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi



    They're far from a rocket.


    I'm confident that I couldn't tell the difference between the 1.6 and 2.0 in 99% of circumstances. They are both clatterboxes with a fairly narrow powerband.


    The 2.0 is marginally more lively at best.



  • Registered Users Posts: 72,776 ✭✭✭✭ colm_mcm


    Ah stop.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi


    Honest to God, i've never seen the fuss. I know your Octy is a 2.0.


    I dont think they're significantly better to the extent people shite on about them. You'd sweat it was night and day.


    The 1.6 gets around grand. It's not mega lethargic or dangerously slow.


    People get the ick because it's a 1.6, if it was a 2.0 with 110bhp nobody would bat an eye.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 72,776 ✭✭✭✭ colm_mcm


    Not saying a 2.0 140bhp Passat is a rocket by any stretch, it’s just got more low down oomph than a 1.6 and you’d definitely notice that.

    Also, would you really want to buy a 1.6 TDI from around 2011, surely the 2.0 is a safer bet?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi


    No arguement from a reliabity point of view the 2.0 is a better unit, not a bastion of reliability in itself but far far better than the 1.6.


    That being said, any 1.6 at this stage is a survivor really and probably isn't too bad. The newest units are 10 years old this year.



  • Registered Users Posts: 513 ✭✭✭ GalwayGaillimh


    Power wise it wouldnt pull the skin off a rice pudding unless you chip it up to 150Bhp



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi


    Had a look at this on Friday as the thought of it wouldn't leave me alone.


    I dont remember exactly but the 2.0 is just under 10 seconds to 60mph 9.7 or 9.8 and the 1.6 is a shade over 11, so we are talking 2 seconds sharper to 60 but both with fairly glacial times tbh.


    The 2.0 has an extra 80ish lb/ft which might be noticable, as a percentage it's considerable over the 160 ish lb/ft of the 1.6.


    Still wouldn't be dead set though, honestly. Especially with how being open to the 1.6 would open up your options when looking at cars.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭ tanko


    Glacial compared to which cars??



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,943 ✭✭✭✭ Toyotafanboi


    I suppose i'm trying to say, neither are in any way fast but lets not be acting like the 2.0 140 is a quick car. Could we say the 2.0 is slow but the 1.6 is slower?


    My 1.0 Octavia which is frequently bandied around as a slow/ lethargic vehicle and in fairness it probably is, is quicker to 60 than the 2.0 Passat.


    I know 0-60 is far from the be all and end all but it should give an idea of what's on offer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 72,776 ✭✭✭✭ colm_mcm


    They’re both 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, mainly because the Octavia is a lot lighter than a B7, like 300kg lighter.

    The Passat has a huge advantage in terms of torque, 320NM vs 200.



Advertisement