How are you finding your GTD performance?

[Mark V GTD]

Yes about 10% for me too.  I have the TPMS so even the slightest pressure drop sets the warning off!

[monkeyhanger]

Those graphs show to me that the 140 unit has most of its power from much lower in the rev range. At 3k revs, the 140 is putting out 93% of its power and torque is already tailing off, whereas the 184 is only putting out 89% of peak power at 3k revs and torque isn’t noticeably tailing off until 3.5k revs and at 4k revs there is still 320Nm (84% of max) there vs 235Nm (73%) for the 140.

From that we should be driving these differently for performance. In the 140 (and possibly 170 if it has a similar graph) there seems little benefit of going over 3k revs in most circumstances, whereas you might want to keep going to closer to 4k revs in the 184 so that on the change up you are still in 3k revs territory if you are accelerating hard. Doing the same with the 140 will see your torque fall right off.

Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?

The shapes also say to me that the GTD should be far better than the old ones at around 1700rpm. I don’t find this with mine. The 170 used to pick up nicely from around 1700rpm, but my GTD seems to really pick up much closer to 2000rpm. It seems very laggy between 1700 and 1900 rpm compared to my 170, which is why I frequently find myself dropping from 6th to 5th or 4th to go from 60 to 80mph because that sh!tty bit of performance around 1700-2000rpm that I would experience in 6th at 60-70mph just isn’t worth it. Of course I am assuming that the 170 has a similar graph to the 170. Maybe the actual graph will shed some light on mine feeling sluggish at 1700-2000rpm.

[Robbo]

Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?

Might be something in that. 

It seems very laggy between 1700 and 1900 rpm compared to my 170, which is why I frequently find myself dropping from 6th to 5th or 4th to go from 60 to 80mph because that sh!tty bit of performance around 1700-2000rpm that I would experience in 6th at 60-70mph just isn’t worth it.

FWIW, I find with my 320d (E90) at 60mph, if I want proper acceleration, I'll always drop to 4th, as it just won't have the shove in 6th that is sometimes needed.   2500-3000rpm on is where it really puts the power down and changing up at 4000rpm you're then back in the sweet spot for the next gear.  Had it 2 1/2 years, over 100k on the clock and its performed like this from day 1.

Having the same power & torque as the 320, I'm expecting similar performance when I get my GTD - standing starts will be a little slower due to the FWD, but I will be disappointed if the performance is much different.  As it is a company car - I'll be finding out about the performance pretty much straight away 

It's almost as if diesels are becoming more like a petrol with the power delivery (not rpm though ) and petrols are getting closer to diesel like torque with the new generation of twin scroll turbos.

[monkeyhanger]

Diesels and petrols are getting ever closer together - just look at the fuels. We want higher Cetane in diesels to make the fuel a little more volatile and start igniting earlier in the compression/combustion cycle. In petrols we want higher RON to delay combustion for as long as possible in the compression/combustion cycle - they'll be meeting in the middle soon enough.

[monkeyhanger]

Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?

Might be something in that. 

Maybe holding onto the revs more will help keep DPF regens at bay too.

[MajorKhan]

In the GTD I think the 50+mpg is if its kept around the 1700 rpm, over 2000 rpm and mpg reduces and will not get 50+mpg. As for me I wil be pushing my GTD hard everyday...cant wait to update this forum with my real driving experience....and I currently have a bmw 320d and this car is a rocket can push revs as high as 4-4.5 and torque is there, lower revs slightly suffers.

[corgi]

In the GTD I think the 50+mpg is if its kept around the 1700 rpm, over 2000 rpm and mpg reduces and will not get 50+mpg. As for me I wil be pushing my GTD hard everyday...cant wait to update this forum with my real driving experience....and I currently have a bmw 320d and this car is a rocket can push revs as high as 4-4.5 and torque is there, lower revs slightly suffers.

The 320d is not a rocket... its 180bhp and ~1500kgs (unladed)... That's not to say they not a great car but they're no rocket. The lower rev lethargy will be, at least, partly down to the mass...

As for the comments about fuel consumption... of course you will see better fuel consumption at 1700rpm then 2000rpm. I would expect to see 50mpg or so on a motorway cruise at ~75mph in the GTD (which I'll bet is more than 2000 rpm)...

[AMarsh]

I was a bit like Monkeyhanger in being underwhelmed by performance.  Now got about 1600 miles on the clock.

I think I'm going to stop worrying about MPG and just drive the car hard, when the conditions permit.  I am unable to get much more than 45mpg on long runs when driving like a nun.  It is also taking the enjoyment away, chugging along at 1500rpm trying in vain to get 50+ mpg. 

Last week I had a bit of fun with an astra gtc of some nature (had double exhausts and a kit - I only saw that when I turned off the road and he went by) and the car felt plenty fast enough and I really enjoyed driving it.  I presume I am like everyone else and have very little power (like nothing) below 1750 rpm and I believe the gear changes in the manual prompt you to change up too quickly.  Any change in gradient of the road and you can easily find yourself below the torque band as you are in the gear you've been prompted by in the MFD, you have no pull to maintain road speed and it is frustrating as hell!! 

As an aside does anyone else's avg. consumption take quite a long time to get any information on start up?  Mine seems to take forever and I've no doubt it is correct but it always has a readout in the low to mid teens when it does fire up! 

[monkeyhanger]

80mph is 2200rpm in 6th, so scaling that down, 75 should be around 2050rpm (2062 to be precise). I got 48mpg on a 65 mile return trip to Hartlepool recently, doing a constant 80mph, so 75mph/50mpg should be doable. Downside is, that would have been 53mpg in similar conditions in the Scirocco.

[corgi]

The graphs on the previous page suggest that the torque doesn't really ramp up until you pass 1750rpm so I guess that they will feel a little soft below that...