I Know this might sound a stupid question or i've just got my thick head on, but whats the difference between the PD&CR engines in the VRS diesels in power/ torque delivery i'm just about to buy one, but tow a caravan so low down torque is more important than top end power. Thanks

I don't think I'd want to tow a caravan with a PD170 (I've got one). I'd get a CR170 for that. Smoother throttle response and easier to drive under load at low revs. I really like the PD170, but they're slightly idiosyncratic.

I don't think I'd want to tow a caravan with a PD170 (I've got one). I'd get a CR170 for that. Smoother throttle response and easier to drive under load at low revs. I really like the PD170, but they're slightly idiosyncratic.

What is it about Skoda drivers? -out comes a new engine and it is the best thing since sliced bread. The PD engine was thought to be the bees knees and suddenly now its the CR because its new. What are the benefits of the CR because performance wise etc I see none-ok its quieter. My wife has a Golf with the 1.6 CR engine and compared with the old 1.9 PD its flat. Quiet yes but no guts!

I would not like to tow with this car or a Skoda with same engine. I towed with the 1.9PD and it pulled like a train.

What has this to do with the topic?

The question was about the 170 versions, not the 1.6 vs the 1.9...

Both the 170 versions have more than enough torque to tow a caravan, but the smoother power delivery of the CR would doubtless be of benefit... It is not a gutless engine low down by any stretch of the imagination. I have only driven CR engined cars since 2004 and prefer the power delivery compared to PD lumps.

You don't buy a 105 horsepower engine for performance so what's the problem? My colleague swears by his and if I didn't want the extra performance of the larger engines then it would be on my shortlist.

I would agree with the towing comments with the PD170. There is not much below 1800rpm and then it all comes in one lump. This would not be good characteristics for towing a caravan. The smoother delivery of the CR shoudl be better in this regard.

I suspect you may be able to get that "tuned" out.

Yes we have the pd170 in our VRS octy and the cr170 in our Superb and i'd much rather tow with the CR engine its a much better package ie smoother quieter and better on fuel

What has this to do with the topic?......

Well mate its all a matter of opinion-I have mine and you can have yours. As far as the point is concerned I think the PD is a better engine than the CR. I was merely using the PD 1.9 compared with the CR 1.6 as an example of the difference in the two engines albeit same horsepower.Seems to me that once a new engine comes out some think it has to be better. Not always the case!

I used to have a Fabia vRS

I now have a vRS Octavia CR 170

The difference is huge..The PD 130 had a punch but it was rattly, noisy and smoked a lot. Still a good engine as you rightly say........

The CR does none of these and is a better engine

Its smooth, powerful and quiet..really quiet.

May I respectfully suggest Morganic, that you drive the 170 CR.

You will then be able to give an accurate opinion

Well mate its all a matter of opinion-I have mine and you can have yours. As far as the point is concerned I think the PD is a better engine than the CR. I was merely using the PD 1.9 compared with the CR 1.6 as an example of the difference in the two engines albeit same horsepower.Seems to me that once a new engine comes out some think it has to be better. Not always the case!

You're right, we can both have our opinions, but at least I was comparing the two engines that the topic was referring too.

I prefer the more linear power delivery of a CR engine, that doesn't necessarily make it a "better" engine but equally I wasn't being that negative against the PD engine. As a driver who spends most of his time on the motorway, I prefer an engine that doesn't run out of oomph 400 revs after the power actually kicks in... The 1.6CR is not a powerhouse, it is not meant to be, but in real terms I don't feel that it is much slower than the 1.9 whilst providing a quieter smoother drive.

Point taken- thanks. It just seems to me that when something new appears it must be better -like DMF's,ESP and DPF's. !!!!!!!!. I agree the 1.6 is quiet and smooth but not very responsive given it has the same power output as the 1.9.

Now, we may be agreeing on something DPFs are a pain in tha ar5e as far as I'm concerned(and I'm unlikely to be hit with the problem of it getting clogged due to my driving pattern), but until someone comes up with a better way of meeting the emissions targets on diesels I fear we are stuck with them.

ESP I would generally class as a good thing, especially if it's one you can switch off when on a track day.

However, I assume you're referring to the potential cost of the dodgy Teves units, which is not actually VAGs fault (other manufactuers are experiencing the same issue), but VAG (and others) should be doing more to assist in replacing these units with improved ones and passing the cost to the manufactuer of said units and not the poor sod who's vehicle has been affected.

DMFs? Well, I've never had an issue with one, but if I do I will probably agree with you that the improved smoothness wasn't worth the hassle or cost

Having gone through 1.9PD and 2.0PD on Audi's, tried a 170 PD on a VRS Octy and now own a 170 CR, IMHO I think the CR is miles ahead in refinement, noise, vibration, and power delivery over the PD. The PD is dare I say it "old"(er) technology and markedly more agricultural than the CR. The magazines seem to agree as well..............

That said, the PD is a great engine but choice of the two has got to be the CR.

That said, the PD is a great engine but choice of the two has got to be the CR.

Ditto

Ditto

Agreed!

Having owned a PD130 and a 140, my new CR is streets ahead.

Already getting 49mpg

having driven the PD170 on a test drive and owning a CR170 i think i'd best describe it as this, on the test drive in the PD G/F sat in the back of the estate, salesman says "Go on give it some welly" so i put my foot to the floor nothing for a fraction of a second then the G/F nearly ends up in the boot due to the sudden hit of power, in the CR can put my foot to the floor doing the same speeds and she doesnt notice the accelleration, so much smoother much more like a petrol in delivery of power.

It is easier to control the ensuing wheelspin as well (to some degree). SWMBO also didn't like the 'neck snap' as the PD power/torque cuts in sharply.

Not necessarily a good thing, but SWMBO is also happier to drive the CR vRS because it is more progressive.

Also having gone from a PD 130 Fabia to the Octavia VRS CR I agree with the statements on refinement etc - it's miles ahead but that linear power deliver does make it feel a bit gutless as it's lost that old school 'shove'. You feel like you have to rev it to make it go, and with only 4500 rpm to play with this can be annoying sometimes. A remap is on the cards once warranty is almost up to back fill the torque is feels like it doesn't have. Then again the Fabia was mapped hence that was proper gutsy, if not particularly clutch / flywheel friendly.

it is FAR quieter than the PD though. Mate of mine's dad has a PD140 and he got in mine and asked "are you sure this is a diesel and not the petrol?" - the difference in noise and vibration is that pronounced.

It appears that the people complaining about the "lack of shove" in the 170CR are people who've recently changed from a PD... My last 4 cars have been common rail diesels so it doesn't feel strange to me (the car before that was an old school, pre-PD 110bhp VAG TDI). I wouldn't say the CR170 is exactly short of torque low down, but it would appear that it's not as much as the older PD engine.

As someone who's never driven a PD engine for any length of time, test drove a PD140 A4 Avant in 2005, all I can say is I wasn't impressed with the delivery of that engine (which is why I went for the X-Type instead of the A4).

Maybe it grows on you over time, but I would be amazed if in real life driving situations there's actually much between the cars with regards to overall acceleration, sure, maybe the PD gains a few feet at the start, but surely the flatter torque curve of the CR means it'll claim that back... Or am I missing something here?

Edited 8 May, 201016 yr by Raglits

It appears that the people complaining about the "lack of shove" in the 170CR are people who've recently changed from a PD... My last 4 cars have been common rail diesels so it doesn't feel strange to me (the car before that was an old school, pre-PD 110bhp VAG TDI). I wouldn't say the CR170 is exactly short of torque low down, but it would appear that it's not as much as the older PD engine.

As someone who's never driven a PD engine for any length of time, test drove a PD140 A4 Avant in 2005, all I can say is I wasn't impressed with the delivery of that engine (which is why I went for the X-Type instead of the A4).

Maybe it grows on you over time, but I would be amazed if in real life driving situations there's actually much between the cars with regards to overall acceleration, sure, maybe the PD gains a few feet at the start, but surely the flatter torque curve of the CR means it'll claim that back... Or am I missing something here?

I think you are right in your observation.

In suspose the benefit of the 'shove' of the PD is that it makes you feel you are going faster than you actually are. The coarser nature of the power delivery from the PD just makes me smile although it is not the best for speed as most of it ends up in wheelspin.