Friend of mine wants to buy a diesel Skoda Superb.
He would like the 2.5 as this is a big car and he's not sure the 1.9 can cope but he (and I) have heard horror stories abut the 2.5 and are being assured by 'experts' that the 1.9 is the one to got go for.
Are the horror stories abut the bigger engine true and if so can the 1.9 really cope with a car of this size?
|
My uncle has the 1.9TD although its the older Supurb, it never really feels slow and always had more than enough torque to get up Snowdonia with five people in the car.
However his driving style is always what you would called 'relaxed'.
|
|
|
I have a Skoda Superd 2.0 TDi 140 BHP brilliant car plenty of power good fuel economy high 40 s generally
Had a go in the 1.9 Tdi felt it was a bit underpowered for the new car so go for the 2-0 litre.
25,000 miles plus no trouble eithier
|
|
The "taxi" firm our company used had them, old style 1.9 TDi 130s and they were all still going with well over 200k on the clock, they never felt underpowered at all, having said that I wasn't driving them, but they certainly shifted when needed to...
|
|
|
|
I had an Audi A4 Avant with the 2.5 TDI engine and it was a great combination. But this was from new, and there have been stotries on here of expensive failures at higher mileages.
Any Superb with this engine is a few years old now, as the Mark 2 isn't offered with it. The 1.9 PD seems to be more durable than the 2.0 but performance is best described as adequate. The 130 bhp version will be the best bet.
I think it depends on your friend's driving style and his budget. The 2.0 is more desirable but if buying used it needs to be newish.
Edited by Avant on 29/11/2009 at 16:35
|
|
1.9 is more reliable and much cheaper to fix. Get it remapped for a but more power, if needed.
|
|
|
|
The older 2.5V6 has a lot of horror stories.
the 2.5 5cylinder (half of the 5l V10) has a better name - which is in the skoda?
(and then there is the OLD 5 cylinder as used in the audi 100 /vw LT/T4 etcbut I don't think they ever went in the superb)
|
There were 3 basic diesels fitted to the old Superb:
1.9 litre 100 or 130 PS
2.0 litre 105 or 140 PS
2.5 litre V6. (Power irrelevant as it's so inefficient - see CO2 ratings).
The V6 should be avoided on the grounds of inefficiency and high maintenance costs - belt replacements are very expensive. It's not very reliable and uses an old Bosch rotary pump - the day-before-yesterday's technology.
The 1.9 litre PD engines are a lot better than the 2.0 unit which replaced it.
Avoid any later versions with DPFs. This is a LWB car with the soot filter at the back and it's hard to get it hot enough to regenerate.
I find the 1.9/130 (Euro III) engine very satisfactory from an economy, performance and reliability viewpoint. The car has poor handling due to its weight distribution (worse still with the V6) so I wouldn't want it with any more power anyway. It does my job perfectly though.
659.
|
Wasn't the 1.9 PD in 100, 105, 115 and 130 bhp forms.
The 2.0 was in 140 guise.
As above, 1.9 in 130bhp is more than adequate.
|
It was, but to the best of my knowledge, the only options offered in the Superb were those I've listed above. Non UK markets could be different though.
659.
|
Towards the end of it's life (when I was musing about getting one..) I recall minor engine upgrading of the 100bhp engine to 105 and then 115 in the last 12-18mths.
CBCB mentions this - I don't think Skoda actively advertised the engine upgrades - maybe to help shift stock of older ones ?
|
As above, the 1.9 PD motor in 130bhp form is a cracker for grunt and economy. Don't be fooled by the BHP numbers, what matters is the sledgehammer torque and very lively throttle response the motor delivers from 1500rpm upwards, it really pulls the car along well and gives remarkable economy by any standard, and especially in such a big car.
However, they are gruff and grumbly, even their best friend would say the engine is a little uncouth.
Edited to add a friend had the 2.5 V6 in an A6 Estate (basically the same platform and floorpan) and it was horrible, frankly. Slow, thirsty, rough and lunched the injection pump, taking the engine with it. Go for the 4-pot
Edited by craig-pd130 on 30/11/2009 at 17:44
|
|
|
|
|
I have been reading, that the new Skoda Superb goes excellently with the new 2.0 170 bhp common-rail diesel. they say it is a quieter engine than the older 2.0 140 diesel. You have to pay more unfortunately.
|
I would be very careful indeed before buying a VAG diesel with balancer shafts - as most of the 2.0 litre units now have.
It seems that, in the early units anyway, the design totally neglected the effects of the torsional oscillations induced by driving unbalanced masses at 2x engine speed. The chain driven system (as you would expect) was a complete disaster and a gear drive retrofit kit was made available. Fitting it wasn't cheap and the owner often had to pay.
Google Volkswagen BHW engine problems.
The oil pump on all of these units is driven by a hex coupling from the slave balance shaft. The torsionals hammer the coupling to bits, resulting in oil pump drive failure.
I'm pleased with my old 1.9 Superb, but given its cliff-edge depreciation and the bodged 2 litre engine design, I would not have contemplated buying a new one. The Mk2 looks set to follow the same fate - the only ones I've seen around here are taxis.
It's a shame, the quality of assembly is as good as any I've seen but VAG fail to rectify any pre-existing defects when they make a bargain basement clone. (Old Superb/Passat rain water ingress for example).
659.
|
|
659FBE. Thank you very much for your very detailed and interesting message. I have a Seat Toledo TDiSE 1.9 110 bhp which I bought new near the end of 1999. At 176,000 miles it is still running absolutely superbly with amazing economy and so much smooth torque in mid range. I know Skodas also used that engine as well as other VAG cars. Then when they changed to PD engines and now common-rail, they are very complicated. I know one of the problems is changing them because of EU emissions. It is all of course understandable, as the environment is rather important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
".... cliff-edge depreciation...."
Big saloons and hatchbacks seem fated to depreciate like this unless they're from the perceived 'quality' makes (Audi, BMW, Mercedes etc.). But the forthcoming Superb estate may fare better, as it'll surely steal a lot of sales from Volvo and some from Mercedes. Being named 'quality car of the year' by Top Gear magazine will help too.
The 170 bhp CR diesel will be the engine to go for. There seem to be a lot of scare stories about CR diesels, but isn't the TDCI engine in the Mondeo - which has served people like Humph and Cheddar so faithfully - common-rail?
|
The UK is far too badge sensitive for this to work.
The fact that most of the new Superbs are taxis (as were the old ones) will seal its fate in the UK although it may well fare better in more well-informed markets.
VAG also made the mistake of not making the estate version available from day 1. If the Superb Mk2 had established itself as a useful and cost effective workhorse, highly specified saloons might (just) have followed on the back of it. They never did offer the Mk1 as an estate which killed it in the water. With its LWB it would have made a good 7 seater.
The recession also caught the Superb Mk2 at a bad time.
Good car, well screwdrivered by Skoda. Very little chance of serious UK sales.
659.
|
I'm seriously considering the Superb Estate, once it hits the used market. Hopefully they'll depreciate horrendously.
The fact that taxi drivers use them is a positive thing for me, it usually means the car is good value and reliable. I'll have no problem driving a Skoda, if it's as good as predicted it'll be as capable as a (4-cylinder) E-Class estate but for 25% of the price.
Edited by Lou_O on 02/12/2009 at 09:01
|
I'd second the 1.9 130bhp choice in the Superb - I had one- my mistake was buying one with the tiptronic gearbox; much better with manual in that gruff, grumbly engine in my view.
It never felt lacking in power. Kickdown from the tiptronic was near-instant & impressively
catapaulted you past dawdlers. If only I'd known then what I know now about diesel engines & manufacturers in general, I'd still have it now, I'm sure.
I found the handling adequate for my needs (and ability), with rock-steady motorway manners & comfort. Ride comfort was another big plus - do make sure you avoide the 17inch 225/45 wheel/tyre combo though - simply not needed & detracts from bump absorption ability & increases tyre roar.
The only modern car I've come across where you could push the car down on its rear springs with one hand - proper luxury in the James May sense!
|
|
|
|
>>The 170 bhp CR diesel will be the engine to go for. There seem to be a lot of scare stories about CR diesels but isn't the TDCI engine in the Mondeo - which has served people like Humph and Cheddar so faithfully - common-rail?
The Superbs are great cars if you want something roomy and tough.
We are not yet seeing many VAG CR's ourselves, but reports from our local VW and Skoda dealers are that they are a lot more troublesome than the old PD's. We hear of a lot of injectors failures under warranty on the VAG CR's and odd difficult to cure problems such as lumpy idle and hesitancy which the dealers cant nail down. The DPF also giving problems and some cars are apparently more prone to problems that others, for no obvious reason. DPF's can be removed with a remap, but I suppose their might be insurance problems to deal with.
|
"The DPF also giving problems and some cars are apparently more prone to problems that others, for no obvious reason. "
There is an obvious reason - the type of trips the car does. Low mileage, pootling round town = problems.
|
"The DPF also giving problems and some cars are apparently more prone to problems that others for no obvious reason. " There is an obvious reason - the type of trips the car does. Low mileage pootling round town = problems.
No. That is an obvious reason. I said 'for no obvious reason'. In other words cars that are apparently driven identically suffer differently. Some of these cars are on fleets doing the same kind of journeys and using the same fuel and some have recurring dpf problems whereas others dont. The dealers (and me) well know that DPF's don't like short journeys.
|
The problem is that apart from a seemingly random element of DPF failure, their fitment precludes the use of a diesel vehicle under the very conditions under which the diesel engine can save the owner the most money - part load and idle.
Although I slated the handling of the Mk1 Superb above, its nose heavy design does give it excellent high speed stability (you can't throw a dart backwards) and also good traction for towing without the severe penalties of 4wd. So, for my jobs it's absolutely ideal.
I'm taking good care of the 1.9 AWX engine - it's a bit gruff but I don't think I'll get a newer one which is as useful - under the entire spectrum of operating conditions. They last well too.
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 02/12/2009 at 13:20
|
Yes, I am in and out of these cars all week long and the AWX is a good motor, we don't see many problems with them. In for a service and then out again. They are bit like a tractor in some ways, but they make a great workhorse.
Superbs are not a car to throw around a country road, they are good for cruising the highways though. If you dont need the extra rear legroom then conisder an octavia which is still roomy, but cheaper to run and handles better. The Octy estates are pretty huge.
|
When I bought my Mk1 Superb as a 2 year old, it was miles cheaper than an Octavia of the same age and condition. Better specified too. The Superb was (and probably still is) the "lemon" of the Skoda range.
I needed the Superb for the "official" tow weight and, more importantly for its own weight to do my job.
It's not at all everyone's cup of tea but as a long term bangernomic, a 4 cyl diesel Mk 1 Superb is a reasonable bet - if you have a job for it. I've been in one with 330k miles on the clock...
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 02/12/2009 at 15:42
|
|
|
|
|
