So, thinline, which engine did you prefer?
659.
|
I'm here! I was lurking earlier, but most of what I was going to say has been said. I was happy with the 140 and had no trouble with it, I just wanted the 170 and when the 200 is launched I'll probably want that too!
|
I am 1.9PD fan, either in 105 or 130 bhp guise. The 105 is a cracking engine for spreading and making its torque available right across its rev range. It economical on Motorway runs and around town. The 130 feels sportier, but has shortened the torque/revs range a bit.
I dont like the 2.0. Ok its got more power (usually) but its peaky and no more refined than the 1.9. The 170 is in my opinion really unpleasant in its power delivery.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
I've got the 1.9 105 in my Golf and other half has the 2.0 170 in his Passat. I find mine underpowered at times (although I do get told that's because I don't drive it properly!)
The Passat scares me sometimes though - that's a welly load of power when all you wanted to do was pull away at a roundabout!
|
|
|
|
when the 200 is launched I'll probably want that too!
Is a 200 planned??????!
|
I have tried both now and can't decide. I am looking at the Octavia, just cause you get loads for your money, and I did like the 1.9 Tdi (105bhp). It was smooth and fairly refined and built speed quickly. However the 2.0 TDi (140bhp) was quite good as well but as Pologirl stated it dumps its power in one great lump. I am going to drive the 2 litre again tomorrow.
I am having real trouble deciding. Comes down to the money as well. I can get a much newer 1.9 TDi within my budget and not sure if I would always regret buying the lower output?
Will let you know how I get on
|
|
Not driven a 1.9, but I have spent some time driving the 2.0 TDi 140 in both a Golf and a Sharan. In both cases the engine was awful in my opinion - rough, rattly, all or nothing power delivery, and in both cases mated to a gearbox reminiscent of a Ford Transit. Hideous engine.
|
|
It seems that either they vary fron car to car or (hopefully) they've improved them recently. I drove a very noisy 2.0 TDI Golf Plus last year with sudden power surge, just as Bristol MS describes - but I've had several runs in 07-reg examples of 2.0 TDIs (Skoda, VW, Audi and SEAT) and all the 140s have been much more refined and less sudden. Fingers crossed that I'm about to get a good one....
|
Fingers crossed that I'm about to get a good one....
Sounds promising, glad to hear they may have improved them - the Golf (3dr) GT TDI I drove was an 05 plate demonstrator 2 years ago, think the Sharan that I ran for a few days (insurance job hire car) was either 06 or 56, so both pre-date the later ones you have driven . Hope you get a good one :-)
|
Had a visit last night from a friend who has driven his last 200,000 miles in a 250bhp VolvoT5 (admittedly an auto) he's had an 06 Passat 2.0 TDI 140 for the last 10 days while he waits for a new vehicle. I asked for his verdict, amongst his complaints was the power delivery - said the accelerator was 'like an on/off switch'.
Sounds like a case for try before you buy, as these characteristics appeal to people in different ways.
|
Sony - the new Q5 (X3 competitor) is to have a 2.0TDi 200PS unit.
As for on/off power you just need to learn how to use the accelerator properly! Even though I have had DSG in both the 140 and 170 I have driven both in manual form and like any high torque motor you need to temper your right foot. Get the car moving then apply more power. Ideally a change to 2nd should be made as soon as the car is moving - this is what DSG does, but doing it manually becomes tiresome.
|
Tempering your right foot is one thing, and of course absolutely necessary, but I would expect the manufacturer to see to it that whatever the engine delivers comes progressively and at least somewhere within the limits of the chassis' ability to put it down on the ground. Even if they cheat and stick a torque limiter on in the lower gears, there are solutions available. Smacks of a lack of development.
I am commenting on the comments here rather than personal experience by the way. Have not tried a 2.0 TDI engine, but have driven lots of miles in various 1.9 130's, all of which I thought were superb. Torquey, but progressive.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
thinline, you won't regret the 105hp one. we have the 100 hp in the bora and find it can really pick up it's skirts and go. yes the power does come in with a surge at 1700rpm but you can drive it any way you like. has a rough patch at 63-70 on the speedo but otherwise good. used to have a 2.0lt. petrol primera y reg so i do know what a lively engine feels like ( 80 in 3rd on a regular basis in the nissan ). jag.
|
I agree with 659 in that the 2.0 140 does nothing that the 1.9 130 / 150 could not do, for me the main reason to go for the 2.0 would be the chassis, i.e a MkV Golf drives better than a MkIV and the MkV 1.9 is only the 105.
On the otherhand if it were a Sharalambaraxy then IIRC the SEAT was available with the 1.9 130 long after the VW had the 2.0 and the Ford had the 1.9 150 up to the point that the new Galaxy was launched.
One other thing to say however is that none of these are anywhere near the top of the class for refinement, we have friends with various VAG 2.0 TDis and despite having done only 1/10th of the mileage they are nowhere near as refined as my 120k mile five year old Mondeo TDCi, and a comparable Ford/PSA TDCi/HDi, Renault DCi, BMW, Honda or Toyota would be a revelation to many PD drivers.
IMO the best TDis were perhaps the last of the pre PD 1.9s, 90 and 110s, both quite punchy in a Golf / Ibiza sized car.
|
My father-in-law is about to replace my mother-in-law's written off mkIV GT TDI 115 and is considering putting a bit extra in and picking up a mkV 2.0 TDi.
What is the score with head gasket failure on these 2.0 engines? Googling seems to produce nothing significant, apart from some problems in early Tourans, and before this thread, I'd never heard of it. The 115 was perfect from a reliability viewpoint, and the last thing he is going to want is to buy into problems.
Any info appreciated.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
Cheddar, please don't mix up engines and chassis.
DP, the 1.9 PD engine is not an inveterate head gasket blower but it's not unknown either. I'd put it as "marginal" in my assessment of this engine (although I have one of these and am prepared to accept the risk).
If you look at the 1.9 PD with the head off, you will see just how closely spaced the cylinder bores are in this engine. The reasons are the usual ones - it's easier to balance an engine with closer spacing, the engine is shorter so it more or less fits their crazy "Audi - engine 2 yards ahead of the front wheels layout" and it also represents an engine near the end of its development limit, so the bores are about as big as they will go - but..
The 2.0 is bored out by 0.5 mm. This can only make potential head gasket failure more likely, especially in conjunction with raised outputs and therefore higher cylinder pressures. This is why I flagged this as a potential problem.
659.
|
Thanks for the reply. So, essentially it's just something to watch out for rather than a known issue. That's fine. I'll explain it to him and let him make the decision. Your explanation of why you have your concerns makes perfect sense.
If you'd come back and said that they'd had a lot of failures, I'd have tried to talk him into a late mkIV 130 instead.
I have noticed that mkV Golf 2.0 TDIs seem to be a good £1500-£2000 cheaper at 3 yrs old than the mkIV 1.9 130's were, and that there doesn't seem to be the usual gap between late mkIV and early mkV residuals that you normally get when a car undergoes a major revision. Any idea why this is?
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
Cheddar please don't mix up engines and chassis.
Why? My point is that the 1.9 130 / 150 are fine though were, for instance, fitted to the Golf MkIV which is soggy. However the only 1.9 in the MkV is the 105 so a 2.0 might be the only option for some if they want a recent-ish Golf that drives well.
|
Got a 100ps PD Passat Estate. Never thought it was underpowered even when fully laden.
And it destroys tyres on a regular basis with all that torque!
|
|
No criticism but I stopped reading part way down. I'm on my second 2.0 140 Diesel, first in a Golf and now an '09 Octavia. As for power coming i too sharply I find that's controllable with your right foot!. Equally it's there when you want it. never had a problem.
|
|
I used to own a 5 speed 100ps diesel Passat. I now have a 6 speed 140hp diesel Octavia.
The Passat was very prone to spinning its tyres from a standstill,not easy to control, but the Octavia is a pussycat. I've a feeling the torque is reduced in 1st gear in the Skoda? Tyre life is much better in the Skoda as well.
|
On it's original Dunlop tyres my Passat span the front wheels. After fitting Pirelli P7s they didn't.
What make of tyres did your Passat have Glaikit?
|
|
|
|
