Hi all I am new to this so bear with me, I am thinking of buying a 2005 Skoda Superb 2.0 Diesel TDi Elegance 4 Dr but it has 88000 miles on the clock. Can you tell me if this is too high a mileage or are these things built to go forever its going for around £6000. Your opinions on this would be great

Probably just about ready for a new DPF - lots of money. Use the search facility to see what the problems are.

If you have a job for a diesel Superb get a 1.9.

rotodiesel.

Hi there is a skoda tdi elegance for sale on ebay...being sold in fareham hants.....unfortunately it might be a little high for your budgetand distance wise, but it only has around 14k miles on the clock i think.....so basically new....wouldnt mind it myself !! but i already have a superb tdi 140, which i have owned from brand new.

All superbs have their problems....some minor, some a little more expensive....if i was in your position, i would look around for something with low ownership and low miles and of course full service history. It might be a tall order, but they are out there.

Rotodiesel prefers the 130tdi lump..and the 1.9 tdi of course doesnt come with the dpf, which in his opinion and maybe others on this forum say its a better engine alround..but the 140tdi facelift does have a few more things going for it...for example a redesigned grill, rear brake lights, indicators on the wing mirrors, maybe different alloys, a different instrumentation ( white ) as opposed to green, which in my opinion is clearer to read, and made the model a little more up market compared to the older type of superb. Hence rotodiesels mentioning of the stalin grill

As rotodiesel mentions the dpf, which some people say becomes blocked, causing problems, i can vouch for myself i have had no issues with my tdi 140 whatsoever...then again im a bit of a service freak, servicing it way above the manufacturer's specifications, and its for that reason i feel the car has given me no problems at all.And of course superbs can go on for high mileages, but that also depends on the servicing side.

But then again, you might be lucky to find an edition 100 with all the toys with the1.9tdi lump in it...so keep looking and let us know what you decide on eventually. Iknow the threads on here can be quite alarming, what with this and that going wrong, but that applies to all cars, not just the skoda brand...even VW and AUDI have same forum members and same old threads and occasional moans with the members car.

We are skoda superb owners with a particular liking of our individual model ...and we all share and help with info....i myself have had a lot of help through reading the question and help side on the forum...so best of luck on what you decide to go for

Thanks for the info so far what I do know about the car is that it used to be a lease car not sure of a full service history yet but it does have loads of receipts for things done to it one major thing in my eyes was the cambelt at 81000 miles. I have also just found out it's an automatic which I am unsure about as I have never driven an automatic in my life. I am going to see the car at the weekend so if anybody has any idea of questions I should be asking then please let me know as it would help me out alot thanks again and fingers crossed that it's in decent shape

ps what's a DPF??????

Don't buy an auto unless you have only one leg - in which case buy something else.

DPF = diesel particulate filter = soot trap in the exhaust.

These are troublesome on Superbs and best avoided (by buying a 1.9) and experience is indicating that replacement is needed at just under 100k miles. They're not cheap. They can also give a whole heap of other problems in general use if you don't drive the car as VAG think you should. You really should do a Forum search.

Never buy a car because it's there. Get your specification fully determined and find the best example which meets it - there are loads of cars out there.

rotodiesel.

..The PD140 also costs slightly more to tax and must have more regular oil changes because apparent "sludging" can occur inside the engine which causes oil pump failure, then in turn knackers the engine. PD130 = reliability, PD140 = rigourous servicing, higher road tax, DPF (can fail causing big expense, also hampers performance and doesnt reduce emissions, as these engines emit more co2 than the PD130s, resulting in higher road tax).

To sum up, the only advantage is an extra 10bhp, whoopy doo.

PD engines are not generally prone to "sludging" if the oil is changed reasonably frequently and as specified by type.

There are no differences between the 1.9 and 2.0 litre units which would make the latter more sludge prone.

The oil pump drive failures on the 2.0 are due to poor design - this part of the engine is significntly different to the pump drive on the 1.9.

If you were to put 10 of these engines of the same build on a dynamometer test bed, you would see a spread of more than a 10 BHP difference in their outputs. The torque curves of the two engines are slightly different, which makes the 2.0 unit feel different to drive, but I'm not convinced that the actual power output is meaningfully greater at all - 2.0 litres and 140 BHP make good marketing speak.

The higher fuel consumption, greater emissions and lower reliability make the 2.0 engine a poor buy - you could get a 1.9 for less money. How often do you require maximum output from these engines? You bought a diesel for economy - otherwise there's no point.

The auto boxes are unreliable and will need expensive attention before most of the other bits.

rotodiesel.

Hi personally i wouldnt worry about a higher mileage - i bought mine with 176k and is now sitting at 229k!

there is one in my area that has covered 320k and as long as these cars are serviced properly they seem to run forever

autoexpress report last year stated that 140 bhp was better than 130 more refined i own one from new a 140 .some briskoda members who run 130 bhps say that dpf is at fault that is not the case many other makes can have a problem if doing short runs on unbranded diesel fuel it is noted that a owner has gone to superb mk11 forum and stated that new 140 is a LEMON this cant be true so dont be put buying a140 6spd.

The 2.0/140 engine is more refined than the 1.9/130 because it has twin Lanchester balancer shafts.

Unfortunately when they designed this feature they screwed up the oil pump drive (which is from the slave balancer shaft) and initially messed up the whole engine by using a chain drive instead of gears. There was even a re-work kit for the chain balancer BHW engine to convert it to gear drive - usually at the customer's expense. (Thanks VAG, customer always comes first...).

As the Skoda brand always get the last of any engine developments (sell any new designs for a lot more money in an Audi first) I don't think the Superb got any of the chain driven balancer engines. The oil pump drive problem remains, though. They won't fix it now because the PD design is dead.

If I'm buying an engine with my own money, I'd rather have one which works reasonably well all of the time than one....

rotodiesel.

Go for the 1.9 130 ours has done nearly 190,000 and still going strong, it had a new duel mass flywheel at 150,000, and that was about the only major expense since I bought it new in 03 and her indoors has had it for the last 3 years

You could always get it chipped

I have a Superb Elegance 2.0/140bhp that is just 3 years old with 25k on the clock. Earlier this week I took it for its first MOT (at a Skoda workshop) and the tester said to me "Very nice car but you have a BSS engine which is prone to oil pump failure - the drive cog shears" - hence my studying this thread. I think he also mentioned a "D" shaped key shaped key between the cog and drive shaft that is the cause of the failure

I see that rotodiesel mentions the the BHW engine code - so are I assume that there are at least two types of engine with the problem

From this thread and other forums, it seems to me that that there can be 2 forms of failure - the one I have described above and the other concerning whether it is a chain drive on the cog or a geared coupling.

Can anyone shed any light on this and if so, which engine codes have have which potential problems

All of the 2.0 litre PDs have a potential problem with the oil pump drive.

Some of the early 2.0 engines (BHW) had chain driven balancer shafts and were unfit for purpose - VAG made a mod kit.

The problem with driving balancer shafts is that, by their very function, they introduce torsional stress in the drive - they are an unbalanced load. Anyone knows that a chain is the last thing you would use for this - except, it seems VAG who made quite a few engines like this. The Audi brigade will tell you what has happened to them and what it cost to fix.

With Skoda at the bottom of the pile, as far as I can ascertain, no chain driven 2.0 engines ever went into the Superb - they had the gear drive by then. The oil pump drive, which is subjected to the torsionals caused by the balance weights - remains a serious weakness.

On the 1.9, a chain drives the oil pump and nothing else. Consequently it's a nice smooth drive and the chain lasts as long as the engine. I can't help you with 2.0 engine codes as it was off my radar as soon as I saw what the drive arrangements were. The DPF fitment put it below the horizon...

rotodiesel.

Not sure about the chain Roto, but the 2.0 fitted to the Superb 1 does suffer the oil pump spline failure, I know a lad with a 56 plate Elegance whose been victim of it, took the turbo with it, or in his words....£2.50 part cost £1000 in the end to sort out at an indy garage.

But the general opinion is, if you want a reliable engine buy a 1.9, not a 2.0 sadly, and this is one of the stuff up reason's I've not bought a Passat yet, once I've got some data about the 2.0 CR I might have the confidence to lay some folding down on one.

Are the 2.0 CRD 140 and 170 a different engine entirely?

Not sure about the chain Roto, but the 2.0 fitted to the Superb 1 does suffer the oil pump spline failure, I know a lad with a 56 plate Elegance whose been victim of it, took the turbo with it, or in his words....£2.50 part cost £1000 in the end to sort out at an indy garage.

But the general opinion is, if you want a reliable engine buy a 1.9, not a 2.0 sadly, and this is one of the stuff up reason's I've not bought a Passat yet, once I've got some data about the 2.0 CR I might have the confidence to lay some folding down on one.

What is this £2.50 part and what needs to be done? I may be replacing the cam belt and water pump soon, is it something that can be done at the same time? Will this repair last or will it have to be repaired again after some time?

What is this £2.50 part and what needs to be done? I may be replacing the cam belt and water pump soon, is it something that can be done at the same time? Will this repair last or will it have to be repaired again after some time?

I'll ask for you, I don't see him that often to talk to, but when he said about it I was under the illusion it was a drive spindle that rounds itself off and then in turn stops driving the pump, I'm not sure where it is in the engine, my guess is it'll be a sump off job to do it, he was on about having a shaft made up out of tungsten to ensure it won't happen again, the more I read about the 2.0 PD engine the more it looks like a desperate upgrade for VAG to shout about at the time until the CR's arrived, I'm trying to get info on the CR engine myself, as I'm not spending 15k on a car that's gonna cost a fortune when the warranty expires, also looking in the old brochure, the 1.9 was 10% more economic than the 2.0 as well, and thats before you start putting a spud in the exhaust (dpf)

The part is a hex bar which acts as a coupling piece between the slave balancer shaft and the oil pump rotor. Repair is not easy because the sump has to be removed to get at it and because the hollow centre of the pump shaft which takes the coupling piece tends to wear oversize with rounded corners.

Crappy design. PSA make a far better job of this detail on their HDi engines - pity about the rest of the car though...

If you are buying a Mk1 Superb - and they should go for peanuts now, I would think very carefully indeed before buying a 2.0 diesel.

rotodiesel.

PD engines are not generally prone to "sludging" if the oil is changed reasonably frequently and as specified by type.

There are no differences between the 1.9 and 2.0 litre units which would make the latter more sludge prone.

The oil pump drive failures on the 2.0 are due to poor design - this part of the engine is significntly different to the pump drive on the 1.9.

If you were to put 10 of these engines of the same build on a dynamometer test bed, you would see a spread of more than a 10 BHP difference in their outputs. The torque curves of the two engines are slightly different, which makes the 2.0 unit feel different to drive, but I'm not convinced that the actual power output is meaningfully greater at all - 2.0 litres and 140 BHP make good marketing speak.

The higher fuel consumption, greater emissions and lower reliability make the 2.0 engine a poor buy - you could get a 1.9 for less money. How often do you require maximum output from these engines? You bought a diesel for economy - otherwise there's no point.

The auto boxes are unreliable and will need expensive attention before most of the other bits.

rotodiesel.

the 2.0 is common rail, so will have post and pre-injection which are great for noise reduction and cleaning the DPF but terrible for the engine longevity...

Good old 1.9 engines are pump-duese, with no post-injection capabilities, hence not being suitable for DPF technology. The reason for 2.0 being higher CO2 is because of higher exhaust backpressures (DPF) and retarded injection timings for lower oxides of nitrogen in tailpipe. Needed for euro 4 and 5. :p

All Mk1 Superbs with 4 cyl diesels use PD (unit injector) fuel systems. No CR engines were ever fitted to these cars.

The PD system uses pilot injection (see Bosch manual) but cannot inject later in the cycle when the exhaust valve is open in order to burn off a DPF. This is because the injector cam will have run out of lift at this point in the cycle.

This limitation and the cost of the unit injector fuel system in relation to its flexibility has caused VAG to switch to CR in order to meet tighter emissions standards. Bosch never achieved high volumes with this system because VAG were the only takers. In terms of absolute efficiency, a PD engine without a DPF cannot be bettered.

rotodiesel.