VW 1.9TDI 130bhp.
Goes like stink !
Does 57 mpg on a run easily and not hanging about.
VED £125 a year, soon to drop to 120 as it only pumps out 125 grams of co2
Bora version will carry 4/5 people with a huge boot for luggage
Comfortable and quiet and even reliable if you find a good independant to service it.
|
|
|
|
I'm getting rather confused now. Earlier on in this thread the consensus was that turbos were more economical than non turbos. Now I'm being told to avoid the 306 TD, (TD presumably meaning turbo diesel), and go for the non turbo. The last couple of threads are confirming what I've always believed with old diesels and that is that turbos are more thirsty. Or does this just apply to the 306?
|
I have a 4 year old common rail TD. Driving calmly, 65 in a 70, 55 in a 60 and complying with all 30s and 40s I can get over 60 mpg on A/B roads and over 65mpg on Mways. If the car has a particulate filter in needs a high rev run, regularly, to keep the filter clear ie not for stop/start in town all its life!
|
|
|
I'm getting rather confused now. Earlier on in this thread the consensus was that turbos were more economical than non turbos.
We've moved on to discussing some of the older TDs and the early ones in cars were mainly indirect injection turbo diesels (the main exceptions being the VW/Audis and Austin Rovers!). Direct injection diesels are more efficient than the IDIs but the down side is that they are noisier and a little rougher, but with modern sound deadening its not that noticable these days.
The 306 unfortunately has had all three types of diesel engine in it - the normally asperated 1.9D, the IDI turbo known as the 1.9TD (or "diesel turbo" on the badge on the back), and more recently the HDi 2.0 engine which is their Direct Injection version - you will need to find out exactly which engine it is!
PS I don't know whether the HDi engine is any good mpg-wise btw!
|
|
|
. The last couple ofthreads are confirming what I've always believed with old diesels and that is that turbos are more thirsty. Or does this just apply to the 306?
>>
Agree with that, i've had a 306 td and avensis td, early model before d4d, and found them both capable of very good consumption if driven with restraint keeping the revs low and not allowing the turbo to spool too fast, say below 2500rpm.
But the 306 especially as it went like a scalded cat was too tempting to do that with and i got it down to about 35/36mpg very often.
The avensis was a 2000 model and as it didn't have a great power output anyway the consumption wasn't so bad but still a vast difference in the way it was driven.
You need a comparatively large engine without turbo to be any use at all, and that coupled with a very light car, you will struggle to find that combo, Peugeots were probably best with the 205, 106, 309 but the mk1 golf's were good too, as was Fiat's 1.9 na diesel.
A 306 which was quite heavy was horrible in NA form and most of the NA models came without PAS, not a pleasant car at all.
For real economical (by fuel consumption only) motoring overall though my choice would be older non common rail diesels, the newer may be more efficient, but a nasty fault can easily wipe out thousands of miles of fuel savings, of course if you can afford to buy newish and take advantage of (particularly the long Korean) warranties then thats different.
|
|
Had a 1998 Passat as a courtesy car last week. 320000 miles on the original engine and still started and ran nicely. Air con didn't work, sadly. Interestingly, the trip computer showed an average of 57mpg around the Devon lanes, something I found slightly annoying as I can only get 43 out of my 2003 Passat!
|
GB - I thought that the 106 only ever had the 1.4 or 1.5 NA diesel, not the 1.9?
Mind you they were very frugal engines but had no poke - had a 1.4D Metro that never gave less than 60mpg but never overtook much either!
Edited by b308 on 26/10/2008 at 10:41
|
GB - I thought that the 106 only ever had the 1.4 or 1.5 NA diesel not the 1.9?
Quite right, but the 1.5 especially wasn't a bad little runabout at all, light and nimble, and fuel figures still among the very best today, i'm very disappointed that Pug stopped making the thing, with a bit of tiddling about they would be selling in huge numbers still IMO. Much more comfortable ride than some of the newer offerings, simple mechanics, and all round visibility unobtainable now
I don't remember if that engine was ever offered with a turbo, wouldn't that have been a smashing car with either a 1.5 or 1.9 td under the bonnet.
Probably would have stolen far too many sales from various gti models, bit like the rare 205td.
Strangely enough i've just obtained a 106 zest3 petrol for my daughter, 10 years old and its still a solid motor, with the handy PAS too.
Thinking back my best mate has had lots of cars with the 1.4 and 1.5 diesels, AX, 106 and Metro's, he always found the metro's to be more sluggish than the others, bit like the XUD engine'd Rover 218's, did Peugeot make sure the units they sold to Rover didn't have the same pep somehow, or were the Rovers heavier?
Apart from the CHG on a metro he never had a moments trouble from any of them.
|
|
Think they were heavier - certainly the AX and 106 were light cars! Only problem with the Metro was rust, the engine was unbreakable!! Oh, and heavy steering!!!
Edited by b308 on 26/10/2008 at 12:09
|
|
I was going to look at an N reg 306 TD which would be an IDI therefore not so fuel efficient, so thanks for that info. Anyway the N/A 1.9 is nippy enough for me and I can live without PAS.
|
|
The VAG Group 1.9 SDi engines are pretty good if you are not in a rush and pretty economical - they can be found in a variety of cars - ones like the Fabia or Octavia SDis should come quite cheap now I'd have thought! Just watch you don't get an old taxi if you get an Octavia SDi - especially from the Brighton or Bournemouth area!
|
I had a Punto 1.7 turbo diesel new in 1997. It was great...65 to the gallon and towed my 13ft caravan at the legal speed and returned 45mpg doing it. Had to go, was on 3 yr lease. Have a 17ft van now and bought an old 2.0litre turbo diesel Suzuki Grand Vitara automatic to tow it. Good, economical, rugged and simple...and that lovely 'whoosh' when you accelerate.
T3ed
|
|
The XUD diesels never seem to run out of fuel, with the UA version getting 50+ mpg. Even my 1.9TD used to give 48 most trips, with 50+ on A-roads.
|
I had a '93 Cavalier with the 1.7 Izuzu TD engine also found in Astras etc, perhaps a late 90's Astra with this engine could prove to be a good diesel on a budget.
I recall it always felt like it would run and run and was more refined, if a a little less punchy, than the Peugeot 1.9TD units at the time and did 45mpg whether crawling through London all day or 200 miles of motorway. A colleague had a 405 1.9TD though we gravitated towards the Cav if doing a long run together, it seemed to waft along at 80 ish with little diesely thrum.
However a sign of how thing have progressed is that my Mondeo produces 50% more power and twice as much torque! Yet is even more economical.
|
Yes, I forgot about the Vauxhall offerings! Just for P's info the old Cavalier and Mk2 (?) Astras were powered by these engines which were IDIs - they started off in the Cavalier in 1.6D (NA) form which was slow but economical and then enlarged to 1.7 and then they brought out the 1.7D with a "low blow" turbo which was turbo'd but at low presssure I think - it gave useful power increase over the standard 1.7D but not as much as the 1.7TD which I think was a different engine with full turbo!
I had a low blow 1.7 in an Astra Estate which was very goodbut confusingly still labelled 1.7D! - mid to high 40s and loads of space in side - replaced it with a Vectra with their original 2.0 Di engine which was a dog (the engine, not the car!!).
Back to the old stuff, we used to tow our caravan (13') with a Maestro Clubman D which replaced a 1.6 Belmont - 45mpg towing, 60+ solo... now they were economical!!
|
|
Wow! Getting lost for choice now, thanks all.
|
|
You did ask!! ;)
Edited by b308 on 27/10/2008 at 10:39
|
I'm getting, (according to the onboard computer and over the last 10,000 km), 5.6 litres per 100 km. This eqates to a fraction over 50 mpg.
The car - a 2001, owned since new, Skoda Fabia 1.9tdi, with 126,000 km (78,000 miles +-).
It goes like stink when pushed and (says v. quietly) I've seen 190 kph, so probably 180 genuine, on a clear toll motorway, not downhill, one up, while keeping a sharp lookout for the Guardia Trafico blokes on motorbikes!
|
b308, the 1.7 n/a engine was GM's own based on the earlier 1.6, I think there was a low pressure turbo version of this at one point. The 1.7 TD was an Izuzu unit, totally different, and was a development of the 1.5TD unit used in the Nova.
The 1.7TD was quoted as 82bhp (and 129 ft/lbs) the same as the 16v 2.0Di in its first incarnation, this was later 100bhp, and was more refined that the Di.
|
|
Thanks, C, I thought it was a different engine - my boss had a Cav with the TD in it and never really got much above 40 or so mpg - the 82bhp Di engine is the one I had - it was economical (50+) but had a problem which two very expensive rebuilds didn't fix (under warranty thank goodness!) - still don't know what caused it - we got rid for the Fabia Estate TDi which was the best move I ever made car-wise!
|
Thanks C I thought it was a different engine - my boss had a Cav with the TD in it and never really got much above 40 or so mpg
A friend of mine had exactly the same engine and experience (complete with two air filters!). The Isuzu engine had much improved fuel consumption in later guises.
|
I have here with me a data sheet from Citroen, detailing the mpg figures for a range of vehicles and engines.
The figures for my XUD engined vehicle are:
1.9D : 42.2mpg @ Urban | 64.2mpg @ 56mph | 47.9mpg @ 75mph
1.9TD : 39.2mpg @ Urban | 65.7mpg @ 56mph | 45.6mpg @ 75mph
As you can see, economy wise there really isn't a lot in it at all. The NA is a little better around town and whilst blasting it, and the turbo's a little better when cruising at a steady 56mph.
The turbo is the better choice as the turbo units aren't known for failing very often on these engines and the extra acceleration is well worth having.
Edited by pendulum on 27/10/2008 at 16:49
|
|
|
|
