1.9Tdi vs 2.0Tdi differences, also when to buy...

[briflech]

Hi all, I have not owned a Skoda before and am about to take the plunge. I am after a 2005/2006 model diesel estate. I have the following questions:

- Exactly when did the facelift 2005ish version come in? I see some advertised as 2005 cars but am concencerned that some may be older models I don't want to get ripped off! The parkers guide is confusing as it seems to give different cut off dates! Is there anything I can spot instantly to differentiate between the two?

- I see that the 1.9 is approx 109bhp and the 2.0 140bhp. Lots of 'owners' reviews of people with the 1.9 always seem to wish they had purchased the 2.0! What is the MPG AND cost difference like? Are the 2.0TDi's rarer?

- Also, any kind of mileage 'milestones' that I need to be aware of before I buy? (ie cambelt etc). What I don't want to do is find a nice 40k miles example and then find I need to spend another £300+ on a cambelt!).

Thanks in advance for any help for my search. These skoda octavia estates with lowish mileage seem to be thin on the ground...

[Evening Star]

If you want decent performance & good economy then go for the 140PD engine, I've got a VW Golf with the 140PD engine in it and whilst it's noisy at startup & stationary, when it's going along it's not too bad & at speed it's quiet.

I've just been to Minehead for the Somerset CAMRA beer festival, filled up the tank, went down & back 365 miles at between 70 & 80mph and it's only used just a tad over 50% tank.

The new CR engines are quieter still when starting up & almost to petrol standards when going along.

[Dr Zoidberg]

The Mk2 octavia came on sale in 2004. I think there may have been some 04 plates but definitely 54 plate ones.

There are two diesel engines available in older Mk2s - a 1.9 PD105 engine with a 5 speed gearbox or the 2.0 PD140 with a six speed.

Obviously your fuel consumption will vary with the type of journeys you do , but it's certainly possible to get 50mpg from the 2.0TDI and on similar journeys the 1.9 should get you 10% improvement. The downside is an 11.5s 0-60 instead of 9.5 or thereabouts in the bigger engined car.

The cambelt is due at 80k miles in the 2.0. There is also an age limit which I can't remember. The 1.9 is probably the same but worth checking. If you are after an earlier Mk2 then you'd want the belt to have been done by now or for the price to reflect this.

There was also some overlap with the Mk1 octavia that was still on general sale into 2005 (and much later in taxi spec). That had a few diesel engines , all 1.9. The oldest two are 90 and 110bhp (pre-PD) with a 5 speed gearbox or a PD130 with a six speed.

If you are after an 05 or 06 car then the vast majority will be Mk2s , but as you say there aren't all that many low mileage diesel estates out there.

[Justa]

real shame that they didn't put the 1.9 130 PD TDI engine in the Octavia

my fave VAG tdi engine...

[Evening Star]

Oh when to buy one? Around about the next number plate change.

[riph72]

I have the 2.0TDi 4x4 version of the estate and I normally get 50mpg+ on motorways, although I do drive like an old woman

[briflech]

Thanks for your help everyone.

I think the 2.0 will be the one to find ;-) I am prepared to wait for the right care.

[PumpeDuse]

just factor in the mechanical problems that occur with the 2.0 litre.

[briflech]

Tell me more ;-)

If the 1.9 is cheaper to service/less hassle etc etc then I will go with it, no question.

[PumpeDuse]

the 1.9 has been around for yonks and is pretty much bullet proof. The 2.0 litre's have been known to suffer from porous heads. Have a search, I am sure you'll come across other issues.

[Keith Lard]

just factor in the mechanical problems that occur with the 2.0 litre.

Thats a little unfair on the 2.0 I think. The 1.9 can also break down!

My 2.0 has done 70k and everything is original. There were issues with cylinder heads on early cars in the VW range, along with turbos and the DMF can all give trouble but I am glad I picked the 2.0 over the 1.9.

[PumpeDuse]

Thats a little unfair on the 2.0 I think. The 1.9 can also break down!

My 2.0 has done 70k and everything is original. There were issues with cylinder heads on early cars in the VW range, along with turbos and the DMF can all give trouble but I am glad I picked the 2.0 over the 1.9.

Sorry not being unfair on it, just a word to the wise about the porous heads. They may have sorted it on later models, but if I was in the market for one I'd certainly do a little research. The 2.0 140ps is a stonking engine, very quick, hard to drive sedately. The 1.9 has plenty of go through the gears and is very driveable with great economy.

[durhamfisher]

Hi all, I have not owned a Skoda before and am about to take the plunge. I am after a 2005/2006 model diesel estate. I have the following questions:

- Exactly when did the facelift 2005ish version come in? I see some advertised as 2005 cars but am concencerned that some may be older models I don't want to get ripped off! The parkers guide is confusing as it seems to give different cut off dates! Is there anything I can spot instantly to differentiate between the two?

rear light clusters are different between the Mark 1 and Mark 2.

[cheezemonkhai]

Sorry not being unfair on it, just a word to the wise about the porous heads.

Which IIRC didn't affect any skoda as it had been sorted by the time they got this engine.

They may have sorted it on later models, but if I was in the market for one I'd certainly do a little research. The 2.0 140ps is a stonking engine, very quick, hard to drive sedately. The 1.9 has plenty of go through the gears and is very driveable with great economy.

The DMF etc issues effect both engines and tbh the PD140 is a quieter quieter engine IMHO.

[Burnsey]

The 1.9tdi is cheaper, more economical and has reasonable performance for everyday driving.

The 1.9tdi doesn't have a dpf. At the time I was looking there was nearly a £1,000 difference in price between a 1.9 and 2.0 tdi, so went for the 1.9tdi. It's also at least one group lower in the insurance stakes, and slightly cheaper in road tax. So basically you have to decide if you want a more expensive more sophisticated engine or something rather more agricultural.

Maybe try to have a test drive in a 1.9 and then a 2.0.

The one thing I do notice is that at motorway speeds the 1.9 (5 speed) suffers a fairly quickly decreasing fuel economy as speed rises. Anything say at 70 and it's down to 50mpg, whereas sit at 60 and you'll get 60+mpg. Mine has never been below 45mpg for a tank though, and thats a 60:40 mix of town/Aroad

[Dr Zoidberg]

There was no DPF on the PD140 a few years back.

What there is , is a turbo that is more prone to failure than the 1.9

[silkysteve]

There was no DPF on the PD140 a few years back.

What there is , is a turbo that is more prone to failure than the 1.9

Mine's lasted over 138,000 miles, so maybe I'm due a premature failure;)