220 CDI vs 250 Petrol
12-01-2013, 01:37 PM
#1
220 CDI vs 250 Petrol
Hi everyone.. I'm losing mind 
I was given a GLK 220 cdi last weekend as a test drive vehicle. I drove over 500km with an average 8.5 l/100km mileage (and I wasn't going easy on the throttle).
I loved it. Got it offroad a bit, had fun. But I felt like something isn't right. I'm coming from an Audi Q5 2T 211hp. The GLK 220cdi is fast, but it aint 7.1s 0-100km/h fast. So it felt awkward.
The dealership suggested I take the 250 petrol version for a drive (and we only have 220 CDI, 250 petrol and 350 petrol versions here).
So I took the 250 petrol version (207hp). I drove about 200km today. It felt really weird. 0-100 takes about 8~s (on the paper it says 7.9). However, at low speeds it does react faster than the 220 cdi. But on higher speeds (100km/h and above) it felt just the same as the 220cdi. Additionally, I took it for a "sportive" drive.
I took it to a winding road (with sharp turns). When I took a turn at speeds of 40-60km/h and dropped the tiptronic to 2nd gear - right when I turned the wheel and hit the gas paddle the vehicle only reacted after 0.5-1.5 seconds.
It didn't feel "reactive". It didn't feel "sportive" at all. Now I know. That's not SL63 or even close - but still, since I don't have the 220 cdi anymore, I can't help it but feel as if the 220cdi just felt FAR more sportive than the 250 petrol.
Now am I right? Has anyone else felt this? Has anyone else tried to decide between 220CDI and 250 Petrol versions?
Feeling helpless!!
I was given a GLK 220 cdi last weekend as a test drive vehicle. I drove over 500km with an average 8.5 l/100km mileage (and I wasn't going easy on the throttle).
I loved it. Got it offroad a bit, had fun. But I felt like something isn't right. I'm coming from an Audi Q5 2T 211hp. The GLK 220cdi is fast, but it aint 7.1s 0-100km/h fast. So it felt awkward.
The dealership suggested I take the 250 petrol version for a drive (and we only have 220 CDI, 250 petrol and 350 petrol versions here).
So I took the 250 petrol version (207hp). I drove about 200km today. It felt really weird. 0-100 takes about 8~s (on the paper it says 7.9). However, at low speeds it does react faster than the 220 cdi. But on higher speeds (100km/h and above) it felt just the same as the 220cdi. Additionally, I took it for a "sportive" drive.
I took it to a winding road (with sharp turns). When I took a turn at speeds of 40-60km/h and dropped the tiptronic to 2nd gear - right when I turned the wheel and hit the gas paddle the vehicle only reacted after 0.5-1.5 seconds.
It didn't feel "reactive". It didn't feel "sportive" at all. Now I know. That's not SL63 or even close - but still, since I don't have the 220 cdi anymore, I can't help it but feel as if the 220cdi just felt FAR more sportive than the 250 petrol.
Now am I right? Has anyone else felt this? Has anyone else tried to decide between 220CDI and 250 Petrol versions?
Feeling helpless!!
12-10-2013, 04:38 PM
#2
Senior Member
I suspect the 220 Petrol didn't feel as "sportive" because of the lack of torque. Diesels are famous for their starting torque and the 4 cylinder petrol not so much. I would compare the 220CDI to the 350 petrol for a better comparison. It will feel quite sportive even if poorer in the fuel economy. The 350 will feel like a much smoother engine too.
12-11-2013, 02:01 AM
#3
Thank you for the reply! I started to feel as if people didn't have any experience or knowledge of the "new" petrol 220 version ..
Your explanation makes sense and I believe I understand it better now.
The 350 does have a poorer consumption - and its also more expensive here. The diesel it is then
I'm giving up a 2010 audi Q5 for this. I must say audi really disappointed me (had A3 and then Q5). It appears all DSG's are faulty (someway or the other). I love my Q5, but I just can't stand its consumption (petrol - about ~13L/100km) and its faulty issues (mainly gear).
So yeah, GLK 220 cdi.
Thank again
Your explanation makes sense and I believe I understand it better now.
The 350 does have a poorer consumption - and its also more expensive here. The diesel it is then
I'm giving up a 2010 audi Q5 for this. I must say audi really disappointed me (had A3 and then Q5). It appears all DSG's are faulty (someway or the other). I love my Q5, but I just can't stand its consumption (petrol - about ~13L/100km) and its faulty issues (mainly gear).
So yeah, GLK 220 cdi.
Thank again
