The saga with the in-laws car choice continues - they've cooled off on the Volvo V50 for a while, and having rejigged some finances, are now considering a new mkV Golf 2.0TDI estate.
I have been rather alarmed by some of the admittedly anecdotal evidence that I've been privy to recently with regard to this engine. One of the guys at work had HGF on his 55 plate Audi A3 2.0TDI a few months ago, and another had oil pump drive failure on a 2.0 TDI Passat. I also know of two Golfs - both on 57 plates that are in the main dealers now with HGF, and the recent post on here of a Passat needing two engine replacements inside of 25k
I know this engine is used all over the place, and only so much can be read into a few failures, but the HGF issue does seem to be quite common, as well as other stories that they're just not as tough or unfailingly reliable as the old 1.9 unit.
The driveability and grunt of this engine is beyond question, but what is the reliability really like?
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 20/07/2008 at 22:43
|
I can only speak for my Golf 2.0 TDI estate - 20,000 miles in 11 months from new and - touch wood - never missed a beat. I had the V50 on my short list - too expensive and didn't do anything that couldn't be done by the Focus on which it's based. Golfs hold their value much better than Focuses so no regrets so far.
I can't quite see why there should be a widespread problem, as this is still the PD engine which is surely the same design as the 1.9. I think the common-rail 2.0 engine will soon be fitted in the Golf, but I don't know how soon. Waiting for one of these may be an option.
I think you said the in-laws do a low mileage - in which case they should avoid the version with a DPF (and save £500) - I've seen stories, as you probably have too, of the DPF clogging up through lack of fast running and needing dealer attention.
|
|
Loads of them passed me at high speed a few weeks ago in Germany, perhaps having a look on their Forums might show if there's a problem? By the numbers I saw it would seem that there isn't!
|
I have one in my Seat Altea. Its one year old, 16k miles and has been in for a new flywheel and I am currently experiencing hesitancy at 2500 revs which unfortunately isn't showing up on diagnostic eqpt.
However although its a great engine, power and grunt, if buying again I would get the 1.9 as there is quite a sizeable difference in the fuel economy. I am now driving mine like a vicar trying to improve economy, well if thats the way I now drive I should have got the 1.9 !
|
Personally, I think they are vastly inferior to the old 1.9 PD engines. The turbos tend to give problems (odd stuttering which doesn't show on diagnostics) and various valves are prone to failure/jamming. They have a very narrow power band and are noisy with many examples having a nasty whining nature. Other encountered problems include early DMF failure (Audi A6's seem very prone to this) and the aforementioned pump issue.
The main problems is that, like many late diesel engines, few people have a clue how to fix them.
Personally, I'd forget both the 2.0 Volvo and VAG and get a D5 Volvo version which is much, much better than either.
|
|
Incidentally, don't forget the Mk V Golf is end of life this year which may have a bearing.
|
I think the 2 litre PD was a product of marketing desparation to some extent. The 1.9 litre 8 valve unit correctly maintained is a reliable unit with a specific fuel consumption virtually unmatched by any others - so what went wrong?
A variety of things, I think, not all of which apply to any one engine. The 0.5 mm bore-out required to achieve the 2 litre capacity with the same crankshaft obviously jeapardises the head gasket sealing as the bores are too close. The DPF fitted to some models is detrimental to engine efficiency (back pressure + extra fuel needed to soot-burn). I believe there have also been quality problems with valve train components. Camshaft and cam drive systems seem to be less reliable on the 2 litre unit, although I'm not sure why. Driving 2 OH camshafts with one belt can certainly give problems with wrap angles and wheel sizes.
Some of the 2 litre units have balancer shafts with a suspect drive system. It would appear that in these engines the oil pump chain drive is subject to torsionals induced by the balance weights and premature failures of the drive have occurred. I believe later engines have a geared drive to the balance shafts - perhaps someone can confirm this.
I'll hang on to my Cat III 1.9 litre AWX - I very seldom demand max power from this unit.
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 21/07/2008 at 00:24
|
pd/659
That seems to agree with many of the things I've heard in dealer's workshops - they hate the things; loads of odd problems.
Apart from the ARL; the 1.9 is making old bones with very few real issues.
|
|
|
Aren't there two different 2.0 engines -- the 8v and the 16v?
I've heard some bad things about the bored-out 8v motor, especially in DPF-equipped Superbs.
|
|
|
|
