Folks,
my girlfriend is looking to get a new car, well new to her. Ideally a diesel from 2004 on. I was told by a friend to stay away from 2.0 ones and that 1.9's are better. I cant remember his reasoning but there was some common fault with them. I was just wondering if there was any substance to this statement and if there is anything that should be looked out for when viewing cars?
Thanks in advance.
Edited by Pugugly on 10/08/2009 at 19:55
|
I've heard far too many stories of head gasket failure on the 2.0 for my liking. The 2.0 is only an overbored 1.9 anyway, but some say there's not enough gasket material in certain places to ensure a reliable long term seal, and that the 2.0 was not designed with the same conservative approach to long term reliability as the 1.9. There have also been issues with oil pump drive failure on some engines.
I'd go the 1.9 route and then a remap from a reputable company if you want to bring power up towards 2.0 levels. You'll have to live without the six speed gearbox though.
|
|
If buying new, I'd go for a 2.0 every time, but I'm sure DP is right about buying used. The 1.9 115 and 130 bhp versions go very well, and some of them do have 6-speed gearboxes. I had a 2001 Golf 1.9 115 bhp estate with 6 speeds - excellent in every way.
|
|
|
|
It could be, assuming its the same as the peugeots, that he is warning you off the 3rd generation diesel engines.
The 1.9 is probably a first generation with a mechanical belt driven injector pump which is proven technology relied upon for decades.
The 2.0 maybe one of the later ones where a high pressure resovoir of diesel (common rail) is electronically injected into each clylinder by a microprocessor.
The later engines are quieter, smoother, quicker, cheaper to tax and fuel. However they use unproven technology such as duel mas flywheels and high pressure injector pumps which can fail at any milage resulting in an expensive repair bill.
As you can see there are pros and cons.
|
Thanks guys that has helped quite a bit. The new shape is the kind she is looking for, from 2004 on, is there anything in particular I should look out for when going to look at one?
I will get a mechanic to check any prospective prviate buy eventually but in the first instance I will go along with her.
|
Ah - the new shape (i.e. Mark V) - with many apologies to DP, who isn't normally wrong!
The Mark IV had 6 speeds with the 1.9 on some models (the 2.0 wasn't then available) but I think the Mark V 1.9s all had 5 speeds only.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a bit more complicated than that; the 1.9TDI was originally a conventional direct injection engine but was upgraded around 2000 to use Pumpe Düse (unit injector) technology. The 2.0TDI started off as a PD engine, but recently (last year or so?) has become a common-rail type (usually referred to as the 2.0TDI CR).
|
Nowt wrong with the VAG 1.9TDi as long as you avoid the painfully slow & mind numbingly dull to drive 105ps versions.
I had the mis-fortune to have one in an Audi A3 as a courtesy car recently and it couldn't even keep up with a Transit van (seriously!!).
|
Sorry, WW, I totally disagree with you about that version of the engine. It powers my current Roomie and I previously had the 100bhp version in my Fabia estate (virtually the same engine). It is an excellent engine in every way... has good economy, good acceleration when overtaking and is beautiefully flexible all the way from 1500rpm up to 4000.
Maybe if you want a boy racer car it would disappoint but otherwise its very good.
|
Re. 1.9TDIs and 6-speed gearboxes. I'm looking into buying an early VW Touran 1.9TDI, which is based on the Golf Mk 5 platform although it came out before the Mk 5. Tourans with the 1.9 engines all appear to have the 6-speed gearbox.
Re. the 2.0 engine. I'm not very familiar with it but doesn't it have 4 valves per cylinder as opposed to the 1.9 having just 2?
Edited by Sofa Spud on 11/08/2009 at 15:52
|
|
|
Sorry WW I totally disagree with you
That's OK - you're entitled to be wrong ;-)
good acceleration when overtaking
LOL! No it hasn't. It's dog slow. Honestly. It really is.
Maybe if you want a boy racer car it would disappoint
Nothing to do with wanting a boy-racer car, but don't want something at the opposite end of the spectrum either. I want something that can keep up with an old Transit van - which the 100 proved incapable of.
|
ww, no the1.9 is not dog slow. i went from a 2.0lt petrol nissan (136hp) to the 1.9 (1oohp) in a bora. the oomph of the diesel meant that overtaking was just as rapid without having to rev the nuts off the diesel. i now have a 2.0lt diesel touran which is a beast of a different colour. not much go under 1400rpm but after that a big kick up the rear.
almost wish i had gone for the 1.9 and had it mildly chipped. jag.
|
|
|
If you can't keep up with 'an old Transit' in the 100bhp one then you musn't be able to drive properly. I had the 80bhp version in an Ibiza which was plenty nippy enough and have driven the 100 bhp version in a Golf and found it perfectly acceptable.
|
If you can't keep up with 'an old Transit' in the 100bhp one then you musn't be able to drive properly.
LOL None taken! I won't pass comment on your driving skills because (a) I don't actually know anything about you and (b) I have the social ethics to be able to hold a discussion without getting all emotional & personal. It's just how I was bought up...
For the record :
The Audi A3 105PS 5 door has a power to weight ratio of 77BHP per tonne.
The Transit 140PS SWB has a power to weight ratio of 79BHP per tonne.
Comparing these figures against "bread and butter" petrol cars and it's clear just how low the power-to-weight ratio really is. E.G. the 1.6 Petrol 115ps Ford Focus has a power-to-weight ratio of 89 BHP per tonne.
But hey, if a 105PS is adequate for you then knock yourself out! Personally I can't really see the point when the 115 (or better still the 130) gives much better performance for near identical economy.....
|
But hey if a 105PS is adequate for you then knock yourself out! Personally I can't really see the point when the 115 (or better still the 130) gives much better performance for near identical economy.....
They don't have that engine in either of the cars I have (had) and quite frankly I have never needed more power than I get in the 100bhp versions, even when having to get a move on.
The fact that you are comparing power to weight ratios (on ordinary family cars!!) means I can only conclude (as I said before) that you drive your cars a lot harder than I do, and I'll stick to my previous view of you if you think that version of that engine is underpowered... ;-)
Edited by b308 on 13/08/2009 at 17:41
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to agree with the others WW, you must have driven a faulty 1.9 because it's no rocket ship but it is in no way slow.
|
I have an 105hp 1.9 in an Octavia, not as fast as the 2.0 but not slow (and I have driven both as well as 130hp 1.9s). Transits are no problem. Now the 90hp 1.9 in the previous Passat - that was lethargic.
I felt the 2.0 was too brutal in a car of this size, what is the point of the extra if the traction control stops you using it!
I guess you are looking a the power to weight ratio of an empty transit - you won't find many of them around.
Only issues we have had at work with VAG diesels have been on the 2.0s, and the 1.9s have beeen around for a lot longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
