I only get 50 (ish) mpg overall. If I wanted to drive it to get any more, then I would have bought an eco car and follow grandad down the road. I do a huge mix of driving as I kayak and MTB and the other guys all have a varied range of cars. The one that usually beats me on mpg is a 1.6tdi golf, but then you don't get any sport in the mix (and it's always at the back on the side roads). I am really happy with the result, especially with the remap. Remaps and chips have never raised or lowered the mpg significantly. I always do a quick check on every tank fill. We do sometimes tickle the cars to have fun. Mine eats VRS's too, but I have not gone against a remapped one yet. We always have a laugh at the Saab diesels and the older fords creating black clouds. Never seen a mk3 Leon do this (or any MQB car). For me the FR was meant to be sporty. I have never had more than 56mpg per tank ever, and in our circles, that is damn good.
150 bhp or 184 bhp FR?
- Thread starter corkmike
- Start date
I'm happy that you are content with your 184. That was the one I was going to get at first. I ended up with the higher spec and much smoother 150 (which is 197 and even smoother now). There seems to be a misunderstanding that the 184 is a different engine to the 150. It isn't. Only difference is the size of the turbo (Yes brakes, rear sus). I have driven many of the 184's (A3, VRS, and Seat; and similar A4's set ups). Please read up on how a diesel turbo differs to a petrol one and then you will see why there are differences in how exactly the same engine reacts to the turbo. If you like the monstrous ferrari sized power hike, then take my 150 (197) for a run. It would blow the doors off your 184.
I didn't realise this was going to turn into a willy waving contest.
You seem to be comparing a remapped 150 against a standard 184, which will of course feel smoother and more powerful due to the advantageous characteristics of a remap. My car is under warranty and I therefore plan to keep it standard, at least until it expires. Shall I get a remap then and we can see whose is faster? (I am being facetious if you can't tell).
To the OP, my recommendation would be the 184. I have driven both, and much preferred the drive and the extra power.
You really need to take a little more time to read.
1. I offered you to try my car. You can wave your own willy then as you please.
2. I even offered that you understand the difference of two different sized turbos on the same engine.
3. You are the one stating that it is beneath yourself to lower to a 150 after having a more refined 184 (there's the willy again).
As a development engineer of very, very large Turbo engines (aircraft) and my understanding of engineering, I know exactly what the difference that a very simple turbo (non-variable, non-bleed) can have on a diesel engine, which is very different to a petrol engine. I even understand why virtually the same diesel engine can produce 230 bhp in the form of a bi-turbo, which essentially uses a small and a big turbo (because the turbo isn't variable), but not together.
So getting back to my point I was making above. The 150 turbo combination on the same engine is smoother as it fits more of the designed engine range. The 184 is a gutsier engine but not as refined and it is thirstier (perhaps your brilliant engineering mind will dispute this). But, if you remap the 150 (with a good map, be warned) it will produce a very smooth and very powerful combination, staying below the 200 bhp threshold (as you would need to consider differential and clutch changes beyond that in either of the turbo sizes due to no 4WD version).
The willy waving question for those driving experts like yourself: Is the 150 turbo likely to be a better drive and power delivery than the bigger 184 turbo (bigger willy again) if both were put at the same power rating, bhp?
I am intrigued to receive your response.
To the OP. I have driven both and in many different guises for more than a day and at rates a little worse than achieving 62mpg (giving it some there Schumacher). The 184 is gutsier, the 150 more refined. The 150 reacts better to a remap. The 184 has a better rear sus, and bigger (willy) brakes.
Last edited:
I am sure glad you stuck to your principals and decided NOT to argue about this.
I would hate to see what you had you say if you had decided to argue about it !!
Conversation is dead now mate.
There is a technical answer to your question, but it is technical. Involves flows, torque, turbine size, shaft speed, compressor/impeller size. As engine capacity is the same, your answer lies with those parameters. Good luck with your research.
There is a technical answer to your question, but it is technical. Involves flows, torque, turbine size, shaft speed, compressor/impeller size. As engine capacity is the same, your answer lies with those parameters. Good luck with your research.
Possibly true. Reason I am hesitant here is because I had my DPF cleaned in Nottingham for another reason (diagnostic one). Great place and cheap, done on the car. So I am not sure I may have swayed the evidence. Common sense says that what you say is true. I think it all depends on the trips you do, like involving casual regens on long trips.
However, I fully accept that these new modern versions of DPF (and exhaust system) are far more capable than the 2008-2012 versions, and can handle it. Outstanding question is "does the increased filtering block the DPF sooner than normal". Currently I am told by the trade that some cars over 100k miles are blocking. Mitigation is that if you suspect this, whoosh along to Gee Deisel and get in cleaned out for about £35.
I hope that answers your question.
https://www.geedieselservice.co.uk/
Sorry Steve,
I haven't noticed an increase in regen at all with the remap. The Chip is more brutal and raw and depending on the setting, it will cause more of an issue.
I have a 5 year old FR TDI 184, I couldn't go back to 150, also as mentioned the rear suspension and bigger front brakes are the main difference in car spec.
I see around 45-50 MPG on tank, mix of country lanes, urban and dual carriageway on my commute over 12-16 miles depending on route.
I test drove a 1.4 125 TSI once when Sales were trying to get me into one, I think I said, what about the 150 BHP about 5 times and they kept talking about the 125, sales targets became quite obvious at this point.
I see around 45-50 MPG on tank, mix of country lanes, urban and dual carriageway on my commute over 12-16 miles depending on route.
I test drove a 1.4 125 TSI once when Sales were trying to get me into one, I think I said, what about the 150 BHP about 5 times and they kept talking about the 125, sales targets became quite obvious at this point.
Deleted member 77314
Guest
SEAT Leon 184 ST (DSG) here. Beautifully smooth engine with lots of torque. This is most noticeable in second or third gears where the pickup is quite something. Terrible fuel economy for a diesel (mid to low 40's).
I have a REVO remap taking it to ~230hp. Car still drives very smoothly. Other half has a 1.4 AST (~148hp) which has always felt gutless in comparison (before and after the remap). I have occasional regens, but no more than before it was mapped. My daily commute is a 60 mile mix of town, country and dual carriageway.
Previously I had a Mk. 2 Leon with the PD140 engine, remapped to ~175hp. Lovely car but nowhere near the refinement of the Mk. 3.
I have a REVO remap taking it to ~230hp. Car still drives very smoothly. Other half has a 1.4 AST (~148hp) which has always felt gutless in comparison (before and after the remap). I have occasional regens, but no more than before it was mapped. My daily commute is a 60 mile mix of town, country and dual carriageway.
Previously I had a Mk. 2 Leon with the PD140 engine, remapped to ~175hp. Lovely car but nowhere near the refinement of the Mk. 3.
Similar threads
