General 2.0MJ 165 vs 1.4T-Jet 150

Currently reading:
General 2.0MJ 165 vs 1.4T-Jet 150

Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
171
Points
42
Location
Scottish Borders
Hey guys.

I have had a change of jobs which sees me doing a lot more miles in my own car (i estimate I will be driving anything up to 30,000 miles a year including my own mileage). I love my Bravo 1.4 T-jet 150 Dynamic, but as i get paid a mileage allowance, I want to maximise that, and the T-Jet isn't the most economical car on the road (most I've had out a tank was 40MPG)

As I said, I love my Bravo, so I fancy a diesel one. I am really drawn to the 2.0 Multijet 165 in sport trim, but am wondering about how different it will be to drive compared to my T-Jet, mainly the handling side of things (heavy diesel lump vs light petrol lump, for example. Sport spec vs dynamic. Etc)

I know that the MJ 0-60 and top speed is broadly similar to my T-Jet, but obviously I know the MJ won't be quite so rev-happy.

Hopefully the MJ should drink less fuel (T-Jet official combined ~39mpg, MJ ~55mpg) and its cheaper road tax too.

Any other insights or advice welcomed :)
 
Not wanting to offend any owners of the 2.0 multijet buuut...

When doing a lot of research, I generally found that the 2.0 was one to avoid. If you are going to get a diesel then get the 1.9 120/150 I think would be the best advice. Then you have an engine that responds very well to a remap..

The T-Jet is a super engine though, I've had the lesser powered 120 version and it's great to be honest. Having owned 8 previous cars (7 of them diesel inc. 2.4 5 Cylinder JTD Alfa 156) the petrol has actually been really good and at 42mpg it's no more expensive to run than my 1.9 CDTi Signum I had.

HTH :)
 
Yeah it does seem the 120 T-jet is a lot more economical than the 150 version.

I am afraid I am after MPG now but I dont want to lose power, which is why the 2.0MJ appeals. In normal driving, it should be a lot more economical, but still have enough power to put a huge grin on my face...
 
Depends on your budget but what about the third engine option, the Multiair? I had a Punto Evo sporting before my 150 T-Jet and found the Punto's multiair to be a bit more refined than the T-Jet and (I know it was a different car!) quite a bit better on fuel. I'm assuming the lower emissions will also mean lower tax?
 
Over the last 4000 miles I've done, I've averaged 39.8MPG in my tjet 150 (that's based on actual calculations rather than the dashboard trip). I do however put cruise on at 60mph when I'm on the motorway to improve mpg!
 
I went to the Bravo 165 sport after having a 285bhp ST thinking that it was going to be a downer but no i love the car to bits and has plenty of power when it comes to overtaking etc. It is also pretty competent on the twistys as well.
I am still trying to get it remapped when i have the cash which when having driven a smillar car with similar figures etc etc it will be frikkin awesome.

stuart
 
Depends on your budget but what about the third engine option, the Multiair? I had a Punto Evo sporting before my 150 T-Jet and found the Punto's multiair to be a bit more refined than the T-Jet and (I know it was a different car!) quite a bit better on fuel. I'm assuming the lower emissions will also mean lower tax?

+1 on that. I've driven the multi-air engine once and its light years ahead in terms of refinement. I think the t-jet is actually kind of loud for being a small petrol engine.
 
I'd certainly have a look a the 2.0. I think you'll like it :)

Not wanting to offend any owners of the 2.0 multijet buuut...

When doing a lot of research, I generally found that the 2.0 was one to avoid. If you are going to get a diesel then get the 1.9 120/150 I think would be the best advice. Then you have an engine that responds very well to a remap..

Not sure where you got that from, the 2.0 is a new engine, and the 1.9 is dated now.

2.0 is only an issue for people who still seem to think diesels are the car to go for when you do 3 mile journeys day in day out which simply isn't the case.
 
I haven't seen anywhere saying to avoid the 2.0, apart from a few 'horror' stories but you get those with every engine. Can't be that bad of an engine if it's used in Insignias and Astras.


It's a good engine but I honestly think that opel using it isn't a recommendation in itself ( they don't seem too fussy to me they just got lucky)! Plus I thought they built the engines for Opels themselves incorporating a few minor differences rather than actually buying from fiat (could be wrong though someone correct me...)
 
If you want to see some real world figures of a 1.9 150 sport then check my fuelly:

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/freebo/bravo

almost 45k miles between 1st April 2012 - 21st June 2013. Averaged 50.1mpg. All brim to brim fill ups from the moment I got it to the moment I sold it.

Only had 1 major issue and that was the Clutch/DMF. I had the car checked over when I bought it and was advised the clutch was on its way out and it finally gave in 28k miles later.

Apart from that and a woman driving into me (1 year later and still not resolved...) it was a cracking car but feel the 150 sport lacked the extras compared to that of the dynamic. From what I have heard the 165 sport have a few more nicetys compared to the 150 sport. but best to go have a look at one to compare in the flesh.
 
It's actually very confusing if you try to research it on line!

Yep, I still can't working out if the M32 gearbox is origional Fiat's or GM, but I know Fiat are leaders in Diesel engine tech (not that well published), so would assume Vauxhall / Opel use their engine with no changes and that its Fiat that make them as well.

From what I've seen on eBay with them being sold the 1.3MJ in the Panda and Corsa etc are identical.
 
Back
Top