|
currently run a bora 1.9pd 100hp. due to change in the next 6mths. will likely stick with vw diesel so what are the pros and cons of 1.9 v 2.0 . am i better to get the 1.9 and lightly chip it or get a 2.0. for the extra power or stick with the bog standard 1.9 and go slower ? jag.
Edited by Pugugly on 19/08/2008 at 18:15
|
I posted something on here a while back asking about the 2.0 unit, as my in-laws were considering a new Golf estate, but had heard lots of horror stories about the 2.0 unit.
The sheer number of them in use suggests that most are OK, but there are, in my opinion, enough reports of head gasket failures to imply that the engine is more prone to this problem than most. There are also issues with the oil pump drive failing on some engines. My VW dealer tech friend tells me they aren't a patch on the 1.9, and personally thinks VAG diesel engine development peaked with the 130 bhp incarnation of the 1.9.
The thing is, everyone says the 1.9 is a bulletproof thing given correct servicing with the correct oil. My father-in-law currently has a 2003 mkIV Golf TDI PD130 which has 135,000 miles on it and still absolutely flies. Apart from a MAF sensor and a minor oil leak from a perished seal, the engine hasn't given a moment's trouble. Can still do 55 mpg as well.
That said, the Volvo V50 2.0d they have just bought really shows up the PD's shortcomings in the NVH department. Actually, the PSA/Ford 2.0 diesel is a smooth, gutsy peach of a thing. First time I've driven one in anger. Not as frugal as the PD or as gutsy right at the bottom of the rev range, but a much nicer engine all round. I wonder if it will be as reliable as the old 1.9 VAG unit though?
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 19/08/2008 at 09:39
|
|
|
New or second hand?
Cant comment on the new CR units though none of the PDs are very refined (friends have A3 and A4 with the 2.0 140, both are very gruff and rumbly), the 1.9 seems to have a better reputation for reliability than the 2.0 and a 1.9 130 performs as well as a 2.0 140.
Must say though try a non VAG diesel, it might be a revelation, for instance a Ford/Peug 2.0 (C-Max/Focus/407/307/308/V50 etc) or Renault 1.9/2.0 are light years ahead in refinement.
|
jag - you might want to as search on this forum for my experiences with a Passat 2.0TDi.
The main reason I chose the 2.0 (140PS) was that the 1.9 was rated at 105PS, which seemed a retrograde step from previous 115 and 130 versions. Incidentally, I have owned from new (Sept 2000) an Audi A4 115 which still performs as new, so there's nothing much wrong with the 1.9 engine.
The 2.0 is a nice engine, giving lots of power and excellent economy. Crusing in 6th gear is very relaxed yet the car will still accelerate strongly and doesn't seem to notice motorway inclines. But, as other posters have noted, it's not the most refined unit at low speeds.
|
I am no expert but when I began to look at Golf Pluses a few month ago I read all the reviews written about when they came out, circa 2005, and all the reviews were raving about the 1.9.
I dug further and then found numerous long-term tests and, to my surprise, several of the reviews were referring to the noise from the VW diesels, how they rumble or are argicultural and not refined. Some went on to say that the VW engines were far behind the diesels from Ford and others in terms of refinement and economy.
Hope this helps.
|
|
1.9 is slow and noisy. 2.0 is less slow but just as noisy. Therefore get the 2.0.
|
The 130 PS 1.9 engine gets my vote.
I was able, by a strange set of circumstances to tow my heavy trailer with my own car (above engine) followed by an old Passat with the 140 PS 2.0 engine fitted. The cars are of similar weight (mine is a Skoda Superb, so perhaps a little bit heavier) but this is necessarily a sample of one of each. I regret to say I didn't bother changing the trailer number plate for the second test and didn't get caught.
In almost every respect the 1.9 was better. You need to develop boost very quickly with a trailer on the back and the 2.0 seemed to take a lot longer to do this and tended to "bog down" at lowish revs before it got going. I wonder if the 2.0 has a larger turbocharger with more inertia.
It would have been interesting to organise an unhitched race on private ground (out of the question), but my feeling is that the smaller engine would win hands down at lower engine speeds. In my book, this represents useful perfomance as opposed to "text book" (or marketing) figures.
659.
|
|
|
Neither of my 2.0s have been noisy inside the cabin and this is where it matters, it is certainly no noisier on the outside than my neighbours Focus 2.0TDCi, or a number of BMW 118/120s, 320s I have been next to.
I have found the 170 more refined than the 140 and DSG equipped cars more refined than the manual versions.
The 1.9 105 will still do the job more than adequately. It's not as refined, but it gets better mpg.
Edited by daveyjp on 19/08/2008 at 12:10
|
thanks for the replies. as stated in op i have a 1.9pd 100hp bora. the engine is certainly man enough for the car and is onlt a bit rough between 63-70 on the speedo.
was thinking of a touran in the future which is a bit bulkier and heavier than the bora hence the query as to suitability of the 1.9 . keep your opinions coming. tia. jag.
|
Not tried the 2.0, got a 1.9 105BHP in a 06 Golf and seems to run OK. Currently 32K returning 50/52 MPG.
|
|
The 2.0 BMW unit is on a different planet to the PD - I've driven both. I like the 1.9d 105 bhp (as featured in the Roomie) it is quick, responsive and reasonably frugal, but ultimately noisier. The BMW unit is far smoother, quieter and more economical even when thrashed.
Edited by Pugugly on 19/08/2008 at 18:42
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on how you drive and whether you're buying new or used.
I have no regrets going for the 2.0 TDI (140) in my Golf V estate. Two cars before that I had a Golf IV estate with the 115 bhp 1.9 engine which did a great job - but the 2.0 is much livelier. True, there is a sudden onrush of power at about 2,000 rpm which can be offputting on a test drive, but believe me you soon get used to it and can overcome it by steady use of the accelerator.
If you drive slowly and for economy, the 1.9 will do you fine, but if you like to get a move on you'll work the 1.9 harder than the 2.0 for the same result, and little difference in economy.
If you are buying new you can reasonably expect (unless you're unlucky) plenty of trouble-free miles from either engine: but from the stories on this forum high-mileage 2.0s have had some problems - I can't understand why since both are PD engines.
In the near future VW will put the common-rail 2.0 engine into the Golf - this is already in some Audis but is too new to comment on regarding reliability. I'm sure I've read somewhere (maybe here!) that the new engine doesn't have quite the same lusty acceleration as the PD. But if the engine test was new and tight, it wouldn't have anyway,
|
Micheal R
Please define slow and for that matter please tell me what is fast and under what conditions.
My 130 TDI would give your heavy lump of a car a pasting on the motorway and by the time you have stopped for yet more fuel, I would have long gone !
You do talk some rubbish but then maybe it's your age !
|
|
Dont worry about MR - he's convinced you need 200bhp to overtake safely(!)
|
I ran a 2002 model 1.9l 100ps Passat diesel estate. for over 110,000 miles.It was neither slow or noisy (from the inside anyway) and certainly would have outperformed my current petrol 2l 140hp Hyundai Coupe on long hills.
|
I have a 2002 A4 1.9 130 and my Dad has a 2006 A4 2.0 170. From driving both it is evident that the 2.0 has more torque at higher revs than the 1.9, which I find runs out of useful beans at about 3,000 revs. Having said that, the amount of low down grunt means that you dont need to do any more, whereas the 2.0 doesnt seem as responsive low down.
The 1.9 is quieter side by side, but the 2.0 doesnt rock the car when you start or turn it off. The 1.9 is far more frugal, I return 50-55 normally where the 2.0 can barely manage 45 most of the time.
Reliability, only time will tell. I have 145,000 on the clock now and all is, and has, been well. My Dads has 49,000 and has had a bit of clutch judder and the EML light coming on and cutting power until restarted. None have occurred again.
Of course, all of the comparisions are against a 130 1.9 and 2.0 170, both on 6 speed boxes. I doubt the 2.0 140 will be any better than the 1.9 130 and therefore, due to its proven reliability record and driveability, the 1.9 is the one I would go for.
Edited by bbroomlea{P} on 19/08/2008 at 22:55
|
|
pugugly, not interested in bmw, was only looking for comparisons between a 100 hp 1.9 and the 136 hp 2.0 . as stated the 100 hp has enough go in the bora but is the extra cost of the 2.0 justified in the touran. jag.
|
Yes, particularly in the Touran as it's heavier than a Golf. You'd have to work the 100 bhp 1.9 hard to get decent performance, at the expense of economy. Those who say that it's less true of the 1.9 130 bhp engine have a point, but it's now relevant only if you're buying used.
Putting it into perspective, of the three cars in our household (Golf V 2.0 TDI estate, new-model Mini Cooper and Y-reg BMW Z3 2.2) the Golf is still the quickest off the mark and (obviously) far the most economical - although the BMW has more power higher up the rev range.
Edited by Avant on 20/08/2008 at 20:53
|
Ran an 07 2.0 TDi Jetta Sport for 14 months and 52,000 miles.
I loved the drive but didn't love the following:
42mpg
Litre of oil every 6,000 miles @ £14 a litre
Blown Intercooler pipes
Blown Turbo
Front tyres lasted 18,000miles (rears lasted 50,000miles!)
Not driven the 1.9 so can't compare. This was my second 2.0TDi. I ran a 53 plate A3 for 7 months and 12,000 miles with no problems.
|
They clearly do vary don't they!
Mine will be a year old on Friday (i.e. a year since delivery) - only 21,000 miles but average 48 mpg (usually 52-53 on a long run), no engine problems (or any others) so far, touch wood, and front tyres still have 4 mm on them.
|
|
|
|
