1.6 CR TDI

[silkysteve]

I'm not quite sure why people seem against buying a 1.9TDi now because it's being phased out. I'm more minded to think grab one quick whilst you still can.

For one, the economy is far better in the 1.6. For two, the 1.6 is simply more refined.

[vwcabriolet1971]

My wife & I have a MK6 1.6TDI 105ps and have just taken delivery of 1.9PD TDI Octavia . Prior to this we had a MK4 GT TDI Bosch high presure pump ( not PD). The MK4 Golf did 142K miles without too many problems and was a joy to drive. Bags of torque at low revs and very economical - ave about 54mpg but as a experiment did 650 miles at 60mph and got 68mpg ( 2wks worth of work journeys) . I then road tested the 2.0TDI 110bhp Golf MK6 and quite liked it . Then ordered the 1.6TDI Golf MK6 as the 2.0TDI 110 was no longer available. Was very disappointed with lack of low down urge from the 1.6TDI. We then ordered the 1.9 PD TDI Octavia ( could have ordered the 1.6TDI) . No more stalling, just as economical and enjoyable to drive.So comparison between the two engines - the 1.6TDI is very smooth & quiet but is gutless at low revs, the 1.9PD is not so smooth or quiet but has bags of "OOOOPH" at low revs and in the real world is just as economical.

You pays your money and have a choice ! It's a shame we can't have the best of both engines.

Edited 15 March, 2010 by vwcabriolet1971

[mat06]

I really, really can’t understand why anybody would want the old PD engines. I test drove both the 1.9PD and the 2.0PD and I hated them. It wasn’t just the uncomfortable level of noise, but the vibrations from the engine at traffic lights etc that annoyed me. In this day and age of modern diesels you shouldn’t have to put up with that level of refinement. Also, what is this obsession with the low down torque? Both PD test drives gave me the impression of a budget diesel engine compared to other makes on the market. I then finally test drove a 1.6CR and found it much more civilised, refined and petrol like and in contrast to the others gave the impression of a well built smooth car.

So let’s be honest and open minded here – the CR engines are far superior to any PD engines in the Skoda range.

[Phil_P]

I really, really can’t understand why anybody would want the old PD engines. I test drove both the 1.9PD and the 2.0PD and I hated them. It wasn’t just the uncomfortable level of noise, but the vibrations from the engine at traffic lights etc that annoyed me. In this day and age of modern diesels you shouldn’t have to put up with that level of refinement. Also, what is this obsession with the low down torque? Both PD test drives gave me the impression of a budget diesel engine compared to other makes on the market. I then finally test drove a 1.6CR and found it much more civilised, refined and petrol like and in contrast to the others gave the impression of a well built smooth car.

So let’s be honest and open minded here – the CR engines are far superior to any PD engines in the Skoda range.

Again, I haven't driven a CR to compare, but I really don't recognise my car (or the demonstrator I test dove) from your description above. It isn't that noisy and I can't feel any vibration when stationary.

[psycholist]

If you could order the 1.6CR without a DPF and had only driven petrol engined cars before the 1.6CR wins hands down over the 1.9PD. It already wins in just about every other category anyway. The complaint about the CR seems to be more that if your driving style is set for diesel engines you won't get the best out of it without changing your driving style - It just doesn't feel right to have to rev a diesel to get acceleration but the fuel economy figures don't lie.

[broere]

Have driven my 1.6 CR for 10.000km now, had an atmospheric 1.9 diesel (68 bhp) before. The old engine practically couldn't stall, had torque at very low revs (and at higher revs nothing at all...). A typical diesel engine. (it lasted for over 220000 miles, and the engine was still going strong, everything else was worn)

The new CR needs some revving before you get away, otherwise you can easily stall the engine (did it even yesterday). But once it gets past let's say 1700-1800 revs, it pulls strongly. It's like driving a petrol engine, really. I find the power more than sufficiant. Of course, buying a 1.6 diesel means you don't have the money (or the need) for the 2.0 with over 140 bhp. So, don't come complaining afterwards that you can't drag-race those cars...

I am very happy with the engine and its economy (getting around 50 mpg during last winter, with a lot of stop and start trafic and not much A-roads). I see that, when my two sons drive it, my average gets up to 45 mpg, but they have no explanation for it. Before I gave my keys, we agreed that every one pays his own bills. A warm engine is very good for the mpg too, and simply following the trafic means you can easily get to 55 mpg, I am sure.

[Cauliflower]

Again, I haven't driven a CR to compare, but I really don't recognise my car (or the demonstrator I test dove) from your description above. It isn't that noisy and I can't feel any vibration when stationary.

Me too, the new 1.6 TDI CR is quieter and smoother, but I really question the sensitivity (if not sanity) of people who describe the 1.9 TDI PD as 'agricultural'...I mean, have you ever driven a modern, top-end John Deere? I have and would love to share your thinking, then arrange to get you a shrink.

The bottom line on this topic is the concern over performance for people who enjoy driving. My contention stands that if so many people who have actually driven the 1.6TDI CR have so many qualifications and caveats to make over the engine's performance, then it is enough to make someone who likes their performance reconsider a potential purchase and test drive it carefully and thoroughly.

People like me who enjoy driving their cars don't race away from the lights in the manner some posters would like to denigrate us, we just appreciate 'shifting it a bit' when the mood takes.

[xman]

Also, what is this obsession with the low down torque?

If the 1.6CR has similar characteristics to my previous Corsa Cdti (also CR turbo) and by all accounts it looks like it does, then getting stressed when pulling away at roundabouts etc would rule it out for me. (see my previous post regarding stalling, lack of guts and £££ accidents as a result)

For heavens sake, even my lowly 1.2 HTP Fabia has far more torque at 1000 rpm than that award winning GM CR diesel...

Edited 15 March, 2010 by xman

[silkysteve]

Also, what is this obsession with the low down torque?

I think it's just something that's become a bit of an urban myth even to people with experience of diesel cars.

I've owned lots of diesels and driven many more - none of them has had this now legendary "low down torque". They've all been gutless until the turbo cuts in to some degree. They've got better over the years, but it's still there. This most noticible improvement has been in the area of the torque curve. Early turbo diesels gave you a big kick at 2,500rpm and and died to almost nothing after just over 3,000rpm. My 1.6D is pulling like a train from below 2,000 to over 4,000. You just have to give it a bit of welly and leave it in a lower gear for longer.

If you think about it, the 1.9 is bound to give you better torque from a standing start as it has more raw material in the way of capacity. That is, until the better turbo charger of the 1.6 kicks in. The paper figures bear this out.

[silkysteve]

[quote name='xman' date='15 March 2010 - 18:48' timestamp='1268678920' post='1925743'

For heavens sake, even my lowly 1.2 HTP Fabia has far more torque at 1000 rpm than that award winning GM CR diesel...

For heavens sake indeed. That may be the case until my turbo cuts in and shows it a smokeless clean pair of heels, thanks to the DPF.

[Raglits]

If the 1.6CR has similar characteristics to my previous Corsa Cdti (also CR turbo) and by all accounts it looks like it does, then getting stressed when pulling away at roundabouts etc would rule it out for me. (see my previous post regarding stalling, lack of guts and £££ accidents as a result)

For heavens sake, even my lowly 1.2 HTP Fabia has far more torque at 1000 rpm than that award winning GM CR diesel...

I had a 1.3 Corsa diesel as my hire car on holiday last year and was pleasantly surprised by how good it was (the engine, not the car)... Yes, you have to rev it a bit to pull away, but no more so than any small petrol I've driven

I've owned/driven diesels for about 9 years now, and prefer the newer CR diesels as they have a broader torque curve than the older engines which completely ran out of puff at low revs, Sure the CR peak torque might not be quite as high, but it's not far off and lasts longer...

Edited 15 March, 2010 by Raglits

[mhajnal]

I currently have a 2.0PD TDI hatchback. I do enjoy the power but not the noise it makes. Having said that the noise settles as the engine warms up. My PCP runs out in June and I wanted to replace it with 2.0CR TDI. I was told by the dealer it would come with CR engine as I opted for curtain airbags which make it a factory order and all of those would come with the new engine. That was about a week ago.

I went order one today and had to find out that 2.0CR engine is still not available. Unless you buy a VRS.

I finally did order an estate 1.6CR TDI Elegance with a DSG gearbox and some other extras (DSG is a 7speed gearbox).

I am a little bit worried as I could only test drive a 1.9PD TDI DSG before I made my decision. I noticed that is not as powerful as the 2.0PD TDI but was not disappointing either.

Does any of you have one with a DSG?

Although it's already on order I'd still like to hear what you think.

[niki.milligan]

We are doing regular daily 50 mile round trips to work - 25 miles rural, 25 miles urban, and getting a reasonably respectable 45 mpg in our 1.6 CR Estate.

I would agree that the 1.6 CR isn't a mover and shaker in 1st and 2nd, but overall I have to say I love mine! Nice smooth drive.

Only negative comment - which is why I came on here tonight for an info hunt, is that I find the new headrests REALLY uncomfortable. If I sit comfortably then my head is pushed so far forward that my natural line of sight is the middle of the steering wheel, so am constantly straining eyes looking upward to see the road ahead. And yes, I do have it adjusted as per instructions in the manual, with top lined up with top of head. Hubby finds it fine 'cause he's a sloucher whose head never goes near the headrest

[Dr Zoidberg]

Only negative comment - which is why I came on here tonight for an info hunt, is that I find the new headrests REALLY uncomfortable. If I sit comfortably then my head is pushed so far forward that my natural line of sight is the middle of the steering wheel, so am constantly straining eyes looking upward to see the road ahead.

The headrests in the rear seats are a different shape to the one in the front , but they are interchangeable.

In my Octavia I swapped them over and found them to be more comfortable - could be worth a try.