... and what was the engine-code for this PD140-engine(s)?

Olit

Edited 15 September, 200916 yr by olit
Answered! :-)

From memory late 06, early 07 (ours is March 07) and the engine code is BMM.

For future reference Parkers is a veritable goldmine of car info.

Click here to go straight to the answer (2nd October 2006 to be precise.)

Niall

BMM is 8v with DPF versus the BKD of the other 2.0 TDI in normal Octys

BMM is 8v with DPF versus the BKD of the other 2.0 TDI in normal Octys

Correct!

OK. Thanks!

By the way - The Parker-site states that the 4x4 uses a 16V engine. But as the model is produced from oct 2006 -oct 2008, it should have the 8V BMM as stated by Skomaz. The BMM uses a Siemens ECU and DPF.

I was hoping to find that it used the more tuneable Bosch ECU/non-DPF/16V/ BKD (or AZV), after reading what Devonmikeyboy have done to his BKD. I think the 4x4 would have been a good platform for such a engine!

Olit

Edited 15 September, 200916 yr by olit
'

There clearly is a reason, but why are three 3 versions of the 2.0TDI PD Engine?

According to Wikipedia there are two 16 valve units, developing 140PS (the BKD) and 136PS (the AZV), and an 8 valve unit developing 140PS (BMM). Despite different number of valves and power outputs all three develop 320 N·m of torque.

Where all three available in the UK? I understand that different tax regulations in countries can result in

slightly different engine specs, but the 8 valve, 16 valve change seems especially odd as they where available at the same time. Where they specific to certain models, and if so, why?

8 valvers tend to be more torquey low down than 16 valvers so maybe it was thought that this was better suited to the 4x4 and Scout. Also my guess is that the 4x4 needed a dpf to meet emissions regs due to increased weight and hence its fitment.

So the 16 Valve units don't have DPFs and the 8 valve unit does. Given the issues in getting DPFs and unit injectors to work together I suppose I can understand a big change like this.

It's a sign the development in engine technology that they can achieve the same output figures with such different heads. Many years ago I had a Scirocco with the 1.8 litre 8 valve injected engine used in the Golf GTI and remember wishing for the 16 valve version for the extra 24 bhp. Now the 8 valve 16 valve difference appears negligible (I'm sure the Turbo helps).

I don't think knowing there where three versions of this engine would have made any difference when I bought my Octavia, but I'm now very curious about the differences between these three engines, and the two 16 valve units in particular.

So the 16 Valve units don't have DPFs and the 8 valve unit does. Given the issues in getting DPFs and unit injectors to work together I suppose I can understand a big change like this.

It's a sign the development in engine technology that they can achieve the same output figures with such different heads. Many years ago I had a Scirocco with the 1.8 litre 8 valve injected engine used in the Golf GTI and remember wishing for the 16 valve version for the extra 24 bhp. Now the 8 valve 16 valve difference appears negligible (I'm sure the Turbo helps).

I don't think knowing there where three versions of this engine would have made any difference when I bought my Octavia, but I'm now very curious about the differences between these three engines, and the two 16 valve units in particular.

Yes and no...

The 16 valve unit doesn;t get a DPF unless it's the PD170 in the Vrs.

As for the old 8v and 16v VW units in the Golf and Scirroco, the 16 valve unit gave it's power higher up the rev range which meant the 8 valver was the better day-to-day unit when not revving the nuts off it. I've driven both on a track and the 8 valver was punchier lower down, the 16 valver only coming into it's own on the long straights.

The above was one of the reasons why Mercedes steered away from 16 vlave heads for a long time, sticking with 12 valves as a happy medium.