It also meant output could be increased to 170PS.
Whilst economy dived to sub 40mpg (on the 170PD) - sorry, couldn't resist jumping onto my hobby horse....
Did Skoda do an 8v 2.0PD engine - or are you referring to the 2.0l Petrol ?
Edited by idle_chatterer on 24/03/2010 at 21:51
|
|
The 2.0 also introduced issues that were unheard of on the 1.9. Head gasket failures, porous head castings, and oil pump drive failures to name a few. Plus the same issues that affected the 1.9 (VNT mechanism gunking up, MAF failure) are still present. The sheer number of these 2.0 engines out there suggests most are fine, but I think it's fair to say they are more problematic than their older cousin.
At the risk of sounding like a hopelessly biased owner, as a 130 bhp 1.9, this is one of my favourite diesel engines. Tough, gutsy, frugal and shrugs off miles. If it was quieter, and a little bit smoother, it would be pretty much perfect for a general road going engine, IMHO. I thought this long before I ever bought one though.
A friend has the 140 bhp 2.0 in his Audi A3 and although definitely a bit punchier, it is no more refined, and he's had quite a lot of grief with it over 72,000 miles. Two head gasket failures, various intermittent power loss problems which nobody has ever really managed to get to the bottom of, the dreaded VNT failure/overboost problem, and a couple of sensor failures.
|
|
Great to have you back, DP.
The hope is that the CR diesels won't have the problems that the 2.0 PD has had - a bit early to say whether that hope is well-founded.
Meanwhile, as you say, the 1.9, especially the 130 bhp version, is a better bet secondhand.
|
|
But I thought the 2.0 was/ was now common rail?, I am aware of the introduction of the 1.6CR, which in the meantime is listed along with the 1.9 & 2.0.
I was a kinda of in the notion of snapping up on of the last 1.9 PD's in the Octavia, as per a post above, which despite being a wee bit noisy appears to be the least problematic/ most economic ........ not least for lacking a DPF.
But then the promise of an extra 10mpg with the 1.6 diesel is a kinda of appealing , specially with the way the price of fuel is heading.
Cheers
M
|
|
I'm another fan of the PD engines, DP, having driven the 1.9 and 1.4 versions... its only real let-down was the noise, but I forgave that because of the smooooth power delivery...
BTW this site has the torque and kW graphs for the petrol and diesel engines in the revamped Fabia and Roomster (half way down the photos!)... I don't like the look of the very flat top and very fast drop off... the PD engines were much more gradual...
http://news.auto.cz/dojmy/fabia-skoda-tsi-prvni-jizdni-dojmy.html
|
|
Having had both engines in the Audi A4 a lot of whts said in this thread is very true. The 1.9 AWX is a frankly unbelievable engine. I flogged mine at some rude speeds, down to the south of France and got 48mpg ! I used to have to try hard to get under 45 mpg on all but the most urban of journeys.
Meanwhile the 2.0 TDI i have now struggled with MPG till it had done at least 20K miles.
Now at 35K+ I can now get 50 mpg in ideal conditions on the motorway as long as I stay at or below 75 ish. I have heard that the TDI 170 variant is horrible on fuel although on paper it is slightly better.
To be honest the motor has never give any trouble so far, but by todays standards is quite gruff sounding externally, and I dont rememer a significant improvement over the 1.9.
The wierd thing is that although my car doesn't have a DPF some days for no apparent reason, it is really hard to get the MPG above 40, almost as though it is going through a DPF regen cycle.
The overiding thing I would say about all of the VAG PD engines is that they deliver the power with a punch that makes other similar powered CR diesels seem a bit wimpish by comparison.
|
|
I am another fan of the 1.9 PD AWX engine - a remarkable unit.
This engine probably represents the pinnacle of diesel development in terms of sheer efficiency - before the politicians moved in and ruined everything.
I sought out the "last survivor" of the AWX (Skoda Superb) and bought the best one I could afford. It's used as a towcar and long legged (occupants as well) motorway cruiser.
It fully lives up to my expectations - tows a heavy trailer with consumate ease and can do 800 miles to a tank, gently driven, unhitched. The noise, in a big body, is acceptable.
Of some particular significance is the fact that this engine (amongst very few others) outperforms a fossil fuelled power station in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Pity I'll never get another as good - I'm looking after it.
659.
|
|
I filled my AWX engined Golf's 55 litre tank in Coventry a week ago on Friday. Drove back from Coventry to sunny Hampshire, including 30 mins in stationary traffic near Oxford. Local stop-start / short run stuff over the weekend, 100 rush hour motorway miles over two days commuting, SWMBO took it on a 50 mile trip to a friend's place, I then did a round trip to Southampton on Thursday, to Southampton again Friday, then up to Oxford, and back home across country to avoid the rush hour motorways. The fuel warning light came on with 571 miles on the clock, two miles from home on Friday evening. Pulled into the next filling station, where I got 48.75 litres of diesel in the tank. That's a whisker over 53 mpg, folks.
A mix of gentle motorway, fast motorway, cross country (without sparing the horses), and short run work, with plenty of rush hour M3 car park stuff thrown in. A genu-wine 53 mpg.
100,000 miles on the clock, serviced every 10k as per VW's recommendations. No special treatment, uses less than half a litre of oil between services, and still capable of blinking the traction control light in 2nd under hard acceleration if the road is remotely bumpy or damp. It's a near perfect "real world" road car engine.
Interesting comment re the thermal efficiency, 659. I knew the PD was good in this area, but that's impressive.
Edited by DP on 29/03/2010 at 00:19
|
|
Something that DP's 1.9 PD and my 2.0 CR 170 (in the Octavia) have in common is the absence of any surge in acceleration at 2,000+ rpm, an unmistakable feature of the 2.0 PD. That surge can only use more fuel.
The Octavia has about the same fuel consumption as its predecessor, a 2.0 PD 140 Golf estate - about 46 in town, 53 on a long run, but it's much more powerful. A similarly mixed series of runs to DP's above would probably give 49-50 mpg.
|
|
The 1.9 TDI has been so successful that probably VW doesn't want to drop it. Also it's simpler, being 8 valve rather than 16. We recently bought a Touran 1.9 TDI and the insurance is lower than on the 2.0. Also the 1.9 TDI is used in VW commercial vehicles and is available as an industrial engine too. Then there's are the 2.5 litre 5-cylinder derivative used in some VW commercials and the 3-cylinder 1.4 version used in smaller Skodas and Seat's (but not not in the new Polo).
|
|
|
I agree with DP. The 130bhp 1.9 diesel is a gem. I don't know what I will do when mine finally needs replacing, got one of the last ones around. Might go back to Ford, although as the 140 cracks on they are hopefully ironing out the faults. My daughter has an 08 140 Passat with 60K hard miles and no trouble, but she is fireproof with a company car. The jury is still out on this one. Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
