My money's on the usual oil pump drive failure.

To the OP, buy the 1.9. I wouldn't touch a 2.0 with a bargepole.

No, no connection, the first two engines were unadulterated. The first engine failed at 9k due to the oil pump, the second at 14k (i.e. 23k in total) due to failure of a cambelt tensioner bolt.

All the informed comment I've read, and in accord with several posters' comments here, slates the 2L version of the original 1.9L for its rather compromised engineering design & long term reliability.

I've had 3 1.9L 130PS VAG engined cars (an A4, A6 & a Skoda Superb) and liked the engine's 'driveability' (a vague term really, each to his own) excellent mid-range power & economy. I also had a good test drive in a 105PS 1.9L VAG in an Octavia & was most impressed (after the initial 'oh it's only 105PS, can't be much cop..' reaction prior to drive) as well. I really didn't notice the lesser bhp/torque output (even though I wasn't exactly caning it on the test drive).

Reliability wise - I can't personally say, I had no problems (bar a leaky fuel pump in warranty on the A4) with any of them ,but I bought from new & didn't exceed 25-30K. However, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that the 2L versions have been mechanically compromised by increasing from their original 1.9L size. In a nutshell, the 105PS seems to be regarded as a nice, relatively understressed version, while the 130PS is the relaible limit for output & the 2L a hideous marketing man's desire for a nice round figure riding roughshod over best engineering principles.

Yes, I'm probably conflating the 2 different 2L diesel engines - I believe though, neither were/are highly regarded & the 'marketing' bit was the need to produce a (or appear to) 'new' engine & not necessarily linked to power output. The size increase is also linked with the balancer shafts, start of the DPF era & oil pump drive failure as I understand it.