Hi guys,

I have just bought myself a 56 reg Octavia VRS TDI. Absoloutley love the car but have no idea wether it is a PD or CR. I have read a few posts on hear with people commenting that its bad news if you have the PD engine. Whats the difference, and if I have a PD engine should I be worried or look out for any problems??

Cheers

Andy

This thread may help you a little bit:

http://briskoda.net/octavia-ii/vrs-cr-vs-pd/118968/

The CR only came out on an 08 plate

so at 56 plate I would say it is a PD

Anyone any news on the economy front to report yet between the 2

Cant comment on that front but I went for a W reg 2.0 perol Astra to now what I think is a PD VRS and love the economy plus the extra power. Can i ask for much more!!!

Anyone any news on the economy front to report yet between the 2

The official consumption figures suggest the CR is more economical than the PD by a couple of mpg; this is borne out by comments posted by CR users.

I am still puzzled though, the MK1 was brilliant of fuel so how did they managed to loose around 10 MPG when they brought out the MK2, with the same engines all be it different power outputs

Hi guys,

I have just bought myself a 56 reg Octavia VRS TDI. Absoloutley love the car but have no idea wether it is a PD or CR. I have read a few posts on hear with people commenting that its bad news if you have the PD engine. Whats the difference, and if I have a PD engine should I be worried or look out for any problems??

Cheers

Andy

Welcome and congratulations on your excellent purchase. I'm sure you will soon get used to the tsunami of torque from the PD170 engine; enjoy.

There isn't much wrong with the PD engine and early gremlins with the DPF and exhaust gas pressure sensor should have been sorted on your car already. It would be worth checking with your dealer that it has had the 26E6 campaign upgrade. PS> do a search for more info if needed.

As for differences between the PD and CR engine, personally I would want to stick with the PD engine (for as long as I can) based on the info in this thread;- http://briskoda.net/reference-materials/why-move-common-rail-cr-what-wrong-pump-duse-pd/141359/

I am still puzzled though, the MK1 was brilliant of fuel so how did they managed to loose around 10 MPG when they brought out the MK2, with the same engines all be it different power outputs

as i understand it the pd130 and pd160 are basically the same engine

where as the pd140 and pd170 are basically the same but are some what different to the earlier engines

how did they managed to loose around 10 MPG

DPF. During regen diesel is pumped in to burn off the soot. Great idea, eh? :rotz:

I am still puzzled though, the MK1 was brilliant of fuel so how did they managed to loose around 10 MPG when they brought out the MK2, with the same engines all be it different power outputs

I don't think they did.

There wasn't any overlap in terms of exactly the same engine in both to make a direct comparison , and the Mk2 is a heavier car.

Mk1 had three 1.9 tdi engines to choose from.

90bhp 8v non-PD

110 bhp 8v non-PD

130 bhp 8v PD

Until recently the Mk2 had

1.9 105 bhp 8v PD

2.0 140 bhp 16v PD

2.0 170 bhp 16v PD

I had a Mk1 with the 110bhp engine and it was about 5-7 mpg more efficient than the PD140 Mk2 I have now but that's to be expected given the extra performance.

I've driven a PD105 engined Mk2 and that was noticably better on fuel and would have been a match for the Mk1 on economy terms (if a smidge slower).

That's probably the closest I think you'd get to a direct comparison , or a PD130 Mk1 vs a PD140 Mk2 which have very similar figures on paper

as i understand it the pd130 and pd160 are basically the same engine

where as the pd140 and pd170 are basically the same but are some what different to the earlier engines

The essential difference being 0.1L in cubic capacity 1.9L vs 2.0L

In all the 60,000 miles I did in my PD105 MkII, I averaged around 54mpg, mostly motorway commuting, some around town, some country b roads, some very high speed on french autoroutes. I think that is very good indeed. That's the real brim to brim figure, the dash display was 9% higher.

If I drove sensibly on my motorway commute I could get a real 60mpg and if I drove very, very sensibly and got lucky with trafic I could on occasion squeeze that to a real 64 - 65mpg.

In just over a week of owning my PD170 VRS I've only averaged 48mpg (on the dash display). I just hope the dash display figure is nearer the brim to brim figure than it was on the PD105!

Bet you notice a difference in performance though, wega3k.

As for differences between the PD and CR engine, personally I would want to stick with the PD engine (for as long as I can) based on the info in this thread;- http://briskoda.net/reference-materials/why-move-common-rail-cr-what-wrong-pump-duse-pd/141359/

I know that's YHO and You are very respected on here Mr B. Please don't knock it until you've owned it !

Well personally at the time of placing my order I was lucky "I did" have the choice of PD or CR

and I can honestly say that I am glad that I waited and went for the "newer - quieter less tax less CO2 same performance" CR engine

have you seen the new Audi tv ad ?

Bet you notice a difference in performance though, wega3k.

Yup! I always felt my PD105 was quicker than the figures suggested but the torque from the PD170 is awesome.

In a nutshell, the CR is better all-round than the PD.

PD owners are now resigned to years of bitterness and whining.:P

Will Skoda be changing all there engines to CR soon ???

Will Skoda be changing all there engines to CR soon ???

do a search for CR140 theres being a couple of threads on the subject

Had both the PD140 and the CR170 and I prefer the 170. It's quieter and seems more responsive but that could just be my imagination.