1.6 TDI common rail engine

[moley]

My current and previous Octavia combi's have been powered by the 1.9 PD 105bhp engine. Overall I've been pleased with this engine, OK it might not be the best diesel, but it does what I need, I've had no problems and they have returned an average of 53mpg.

Assuming my business turnover doesn't change in the next 12 months I will be changing the car next March / April. I will be staying with Skoda unless another manufacturer comes up with a car that is a better overall package than the Octavia elegance combi.

I am considering the 1.6 CR diesel engine next time because it is also 105 bhp and on paper gives a similar performance, with a lower Co2 (lower tax band) and better mpg.

My problem is that I have been reading comments of Golf 1.6 CR owners, where they are achieving nothing like the mpg stated in the official figures, in fact lower mpg than the old 1.9 PD engine.

If anyone has the new 1.6 CR engine in an Octavia I would be interested to know how the performance and mpg compares to the old 1.9 PD.

[Ecomatters]

My current and previous Octavia combi's have been powered by the 1.9 PD 105bhp engine. Overall I've been pleased with this engine, OK it might not be the best diesel, but it does what I need, I've had no problems and they have returned an average of 53mpg.

Assuming my business turnover doesn't change in the next 12 months I will be changing the car next March / April. I will be staying with Skoda unless another manufacturer comes up with a car that is a better overall package than the Octavia elegance combi.

I am considering the 1.6 CR diesel engine next time because it is also 105 bhp and on paper gives a similar performance, with a lower Co2 (lower tax band) and better mpg.

My problem is that I have been reading comments of Golf 1.6 CR owners, where they are achieving nothing like the mpg stated in the official figures, in fact lower mpg than the old 1.9 PD engine.

If anyone has the new 1.6 CR engine in an Octavia I would be interested to know how the performance and mpg compares to the old 1.9 PD.

I have driven my new 1.6 CR elegance hatch for about 500 miles, i have to say it takes a bit getting use to. It drives like a petrol, you do need to rev it to about 2300 rpm to feel the surge of power in low gears. Once the power kicks in it's fast. If you just follow the gear changing indication on the screen you may feel under power. At motorway speed, overtaking is nothing like my previous Mondeo(130 bhp), you just need to give it a good rev. The good things I like: it is very refined, you can hardly hear the engine noise at any speed. my average mpg is 53, that's for half urban and half motorway. of course it's still running in, it will get better later on.

[Evening Star]

According to some sources here, there should be a 140bhp CR diesel available in the next quarter. So that should be a lot better than the 1,6CR in performance terms.

If it's a good as what it should be, I think the 1,6CR may have a short existence, in all but the lower specced cars.

[Kyle]

There was a review on here a little while ago but can't find it....

[jlwah]

According to some sources here, there should be a 140bhp CR diesel available in the next quarter. So that should be a lot better than the 1,6CR in performance terms.

If it's a good as what it should be, I think the 1,6CR may have a short existence, in all but the lower specced cars.

Taken from the MY2011 notification:

2.0 TDI CR 140bhp Manual and DSG and manual 4x4 – Wk22/2010

2.0 TDI CR 140bhp 4x4 DSG - Wk45/2010 (Scout and 4x4 models)

[Evening Star]

I wonder which version of the DSG boxes will be fitted to them, 6 or 7-Speed?

7-Speed would probably make for some serious fuel economy figures!

[Raglits]

I wonder which version of the DSG boxes will be fitted to them, 6 or 7-Speed?

7-Speed would probably make for some serious fuel economy figures!

I suspect it'll be the 6 speed though. The 7 speed can't handle as much torque as the 6 speed can it? I'd have thought that the diesel would overpower the 7 speed unless they've changed that too

[Matt Bodycombe]

All the reviews i have read of the 1.6 CR have been that the engine is a bit sluggish. I guess it is dependent on your driving style but I would wait for the 2.0 personally.

[theandywaite]

My dad has the 1.6cr and it's very impressive. OK, it's nothing like my Petrol vRS, but it's certainly not as sluggish as it looks on paper.

It won't suit anyone who drives round like their pants are on fire, but it's brisk enough to keep up with the pace on most roads and it never feels like you have to really thrash it to get anywhere.

[Cauliflower]

Moley, seriously, go test drive.

I can't speak about economy, but after years of diesel ownership including the venerable VW 1.9 in various guises, I just found the 1.6TDi CR performance smooth, quiet (by diesel standards) but totally lacklustre by comparison - not dangerously wanting by any means but, dare I say it, not really enjoyable to punt around in.

I'm still of the opinion that it may be to do with gearing rather than the engine. Given similar driver experiences posted on various sites and the potential DPF/cambelt liabilities, I decided to give it a miss this time round.

However, there are no doubt 1.6TDi CR drivers who will read this post and be ready to pile in with opinions to the contrary so, as I said, best go test drive.

[vwcabriolet1971]

I ordered and bought a 2009 MK6 Golf 1.6CR TDI . I originally road tested the 2.0L CR TDI 110bhp and was quite happy with that and tried to order that engine . Was then told the 110bhp engine was discontinued and was replaced by the 105bhp 1.6 CR TDI engine which had similar torque characteristics but with 5bhp down. Based on this I ordered the 1.6 CR Golf. Within a short space of time I regretted this due to the lack of urge (torque ) at low revs.If I had the choice again I would order the 2.0 CR 140bhp model. The lack of low down torque from the 1.6CR engine was the reason why I ordered a 1.9PD Octavia rather than the newer 1.6 CR version . I have not regretted this decision. I agree that the newer CR engines are much more refined and quieter but once on the move there is not a lot in it . It's only about town and low speed that the PD engine is noticeably less refined .Both vehicles have not yet covered much mileage but already I can get better fuel consumption from the 1.9 PD Octavia. ( running in at 70mph on the level over 250 mile trip I got 57mpg on the computer). This agreed with the fuel gauge reading of quite a bit less than 1/2 tank. I know this is very approximate but the very best I can get from my Golf is 54mpg at a steady 65/70mph driving in a very gentle "economy" style . I used to get at least 60mpg driving a MK4 Golf TDI 110 bhp model in the same "economy" style.

Edited 2 May, 2010 by vwcabriolet1971

[LaceSensor]

Im driving one tommorow will get back to you

doing a comparison on the 1.6CR and 1.4 TSi and my CR vRS

[LaceSensor]

Hi there

Tried this today. Was smooth and refined but to me felt a bit lacking in punch, and you had to give it some right foot to get into the usable torque range.

I am a bit biased as I drive the CR vRS right now, but for me, depending how many miles your doing, fuel/cash price calculations may favour the 1.4TSi

For me, if it was simply between the 1.4 TSi and the 1.6 CR, I would prefer to drive the 1.4 TSi

[doggebreth]

I have now done over 10,000 miles in a 1.6 Tdi Octavia. I previously owned the 1.9 Tdi.

The refinement of the newer engine is unquestionably better. After 10,000 miles the expected improvement in performance and mpg is also now evident. I still don't think it quite matches the power of the 1.9 in real life and it is no more economical though this has now improved to match the older engine.

I am very happy with the choice I made - the road tax difference still provides a running cost benefit overall in comparison to the older car - but more importantly it is very enjoyable to drive. As another reviewer suggested its characteristics seem more akin to a petrol engine.

[silkysteve]

According to some sources here, there should be a 140bhp CR diesel available in the next quarter. So that should be a lot better than the 1,6CR in performance terms.

If it's a good as what it should be, I think the 1,6CR may have a short existence, in all but the lower specced cars.

No offfense, but that's a load of horse droppings. If that were the case, the 1.9 would have been dropped in favour of the 2.0 long ago. The fact is, they both co-existed even in the top spec models. There's now even more reason to get a 1.6 as it's better than the 1.9 (yes, really, it is) and a much lower tax band than the 2.0CR is likely to be.

[Cauliflower]

No offfense, but that's a load of horse droppings. If that were the case, the 1.9 would have been dropped in favour of the 2.0 long ago. The fact is, they both co-existed even in the top spec models. There's now even more reason to get a 1.6 as it's better than the 1.9 (yes, really, it is) and a much lower tax band than the 2.0CR is likely to be.

Matter of opinion. The 1.6 is the only option going forward for diesel afficionados (which I am normally). Let's see if VW tinker with the engine or gearing. Gawd knows they need to...

[Raglits]

Matter of opinion. The 1.6 is the only option going forward for diesel afficionados (which I am normally). Let's see if VW tinker with the engine or gearing. Gawd knows they need to...

In your opinion... One of my colleagues has this engine in an Elegance estate and absolutely loves it, I was talking to him yesterday and asked him if it was sluggish low down etc (after I asked him when he was going to get a proper engine and suspension ) and he said he couldn't fault the car in any way, and the icing on the cake is the 58mpg he's averaging

[broere]

On another thread, I wrote this: 'My 1.6 tdi has about 15000km now. It averages 48mpg. I do a lot of driving in and around town. When I do 120 km/h on cruise control, I average an impressive 59mpg. It won't win any races, but for me the car is quick enough. I love it.'

I know it isn't the fastest car in town, but then I would have bought a VRS, wouldn't I?