hi all newbie here, this is my first post, so be gentle with me.....

thinking of buying a vrs diesel, there are 2 types of engine, older are pd and from 08 are cr ??? would i be correct in saying that the pd is not a common rail engine ?? what are the pro and cons of both engines ?? was thinking about getting a pd varient, but if its 'tractor technoligy' i might hang on until i can afford a cr, is the pd still a good engine despite all the noise ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=differences+between+Common+Rail+and+PD

There is a TDI club and Brisky Thread

Although just to clarify, no PD isn't common rail, in that there isn't a single fuel rail to the injectors under massive pressure, but it was seen as an alternative option to common rail.

Edited 3 June, 201016 yr by cheezemonkhai

hi all newbie here, this is my first post, so be gentle with me.....

thinking of buying a vrs diesel, there are 2 types of engine, older are pd and from 08 are cr ??? would i be correct in saying that the pd is not a common rail engine ?? what are the pro and cons of both engines ?? was thinking about getting a pd varient, but if its 'tractor technoligy' i might hang on until i can afford a cr, is the pd still a good engine despite all the noise ?

Welcome to Briskoda

You've opened the huge can of worms there ...

Yes ...

CR are Common Rail ... modern quiet efficient, smooth (almost like a petrol)

PD = Pumpe Duse (German for Unit Injectors) ... louder, a surge of grunt, but very popular on here with a loyal fanbase

Nothing wrong with either of them ... sits back & waits for the CR v PD fightclub

hello and welcome i like my fabia which is a pd lots of mid range grunt

Welcome to Briskoda

You've opened the huge can of worms there ...

Yes ...

CR are Common Rail ... modern quiet efficient, smooth (almost like a petrol)

PD = Pumpe Duse (German for Unit Injectors) ... louder, a surge of grunt, but very popular on here with a loyal fanbase

Nothing wrong with either of them ... sits back & waits for the CR v PD fightclub

sorry dont want to cause inhouse fighting on these car forums, i know how passianate peole can get ! anyways, im on my 2nd oilburner, currently got a vectra sri 1.9cdti 150bhp, which is fine, previous to that i had a 2.0 tdi mondeo, which was a total nightmare, just dont want to go backwards from common rail to 'tractor technology ' if you know what i mean...

If you are buying new I think most if not all models are now being built with CR.

Weve just managed to get one of the last PD's which Im pleased about. We will do a lot of miles in the car & its proven if not old technology. Ive heard a couple of expensive stories of replacement injectors & associated parts on higher mileage Audis with CR but like all things it may only be a couple of bad ones.

To add to your last point we had a couple of Ford Diesels a few years ago, one of the last Escorts & then a Mondeo. Both were very troublesome ones they had got to around 50K. Interestingly the Vectra that followed with the exception of the fuel tank working loose was mechanically trouble free to 80K, Our last Skoda weve just sold at 165K & apart from a turbo at around 120K it ran faultlessly & it was given a very hard life including a remap at 8K.

Pd or Cr its a personal thing but try both as I gather the CR is a softer drive than the PD, If you love the kick when the torque comes in & want less gear changing get the PD, If you want a diesel that is more like a Petrol car to drive get the CR

I've had both of the 170(ha!) engines and yes the CR is smoother and yes the PD is punchy.

Both however are beasts, they both pull like trains and then when you're done accelerating your looking at the sharp end of 145mph.

Its somewhere in the middle where they are at home though, pulling out to overtake is nice and safe and easy as you're not out there long ! 30 to 70 in 7.6 which is only 1.2 slower than a GTi and 1.6 quicker than a 140, 1.8 quicker than a Focus Diesel.

The real world difference is the quietness of the CR over the PD and the difference in the MPG. Thrash the PD about and the worst you'll see is 36mpg whereas the CR will be around 40. Be not as lead footed and the CR will easily return 50 to 55mpg whereas the PD will be 40-45mpg.

Now the PD engine saw various mpg figures depnding on make of car it went in, and even in the same car model, ask any A4 170 driver.

So... both are cracking engines and you'll be smiling all the time whilst behind the wheel. IMO though hang on for a CR as engines are developed for very good reasons. perhaps look at the year 1 ownership costs of a PD over a CR, it might mean that you'll be able to afford a CR now as it'll be cheaper to run. MPG and Tax.

Either way, enjoy.

Well thanks guys, i am in a real dilemma now!!! Really really want one now.....

The only prob is i can just about stretch to a 07plate with 78k on the clock, at £8500,{my vectra is a 08/57plate, with low miles and ive still got to find 1500 quid !}

cant really stretch to a cr version but could possibly next year. if i waited till next year, my vectra will be losing money like nobodies business while i am waiting !!!!

i quite like my vectra, its pretty quick, good looking, comfortable, good mpg the only prob is.....er....its a bit dull and boring to drive ! i really really like vrs, its got good kit, all at a reasonable price i aint worried about the badge, its nice to be a bit different at times ! A wolf in sheep’s clothing and that is something i really like in a car !!!

Edited 4 June, 201016 yr by studmuffin

Attached is my earlier post on this topic

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.

Hi Studmuffin (now that's something I never thought I'd say !!! )

I owned an 07 PD vRS and loved it !, it was my company car and then I bought it, so must have been fairly happy !

Get a good one (should be possible even with limited funds) and you will have a great car. I now have the CR which others have said is smoother etc, but nowt wrong with your choice.

Hi studmuffin, only you can decide this but the PD is not tractor technology as a lot of new tractors now use 4 valves per cylinder and common rail engines, it is just that VW thought that PD technology was the way to go and developed that, other manufacturers went the other way and developed CR technology. VW have just decided that they want to go the CR route too as it is an easier means to get to the new emissions regulations that are gradually coming in with the Diesel Filter (DPF) being better suited to and been developed in conjunction with the CR engines. True the CR is smoother running and possibly gives better mpg, the PD is slightly less refined and a bit more punchy in its power and torque delivery. the best thing to do is try out a PD engined car, which you can afford now while your Vectra still has some value, and see if the refinement is adequate for you and the engine characteristics are what you would be happy with. Go out, try one and enjoy it!!! I can almost guarantee your face will be like these emoticons.

Ian

is 78k high mileage for a 07 plate VRS?

well yeah. I'd want to be paying at least 500 quid less than that for the Octavia.

Edited 4 June, 201016 yr by wega3k

In answer to the original question, about 3 million decibels. The CR wins for me everytime...had both but prefer the CR.

You know what this thread is missing ? Babs with the "diesel is *rap argument....

In answer to the original question, about 3 million decibels. The CR wins for me everytime...had both but prefer the CR.

You know what this thread is missing ? Babs with the "diesel is *rap argument....

so the cr gives more mpg, now the million doller question, which is more reliable ? been reading on here about possible problems with the dpf on pd engines, cr engines are not so prone to dpf problems ???

I've driven both and I prefer the surge of the PD, it makes for great overtaking. I still found it fairly revy compared to all the other PD engines I've driven, 90, 105. 110, 115, 130 and 140. The CR is smoother, but for me its still a diesel and it still doesn't rev much more than the PD. Its not like the TSI thats for sure. Can't fault it on noise and economy though.

The 1.6 CR TDI engine may appear to more economical according to the manufacturer's figures but in my experience the 1.9PD in the real world is more economical if driven with some sensitivity. The high torque at low revs of the the PD engine allows use of a higher gear than would be the case with the CR & therefore is more economical at low speeds. It remains to be seen if the CR engines are as reliable as the PDs . There is certainly more to go wrong with the CR engines , 4 Valves per cylinder, manifold flap valves etc.

Various testers and owner drivers have complained about the lack of torque at low revs by the 1.6CR engine which can give rise to unexpected stalling at junctions / roundabouts etc.

Edited 4 June, 201016 yr by vwcabriolet1971

The 1.6 CR TDI engine may appear to more economical according to the manufacturer's figures but in my experience the 1.9PD in the real world is more economical if driven with some sensitivity. The high torque at low revs of the the PD engine allows use of a higher gear than would be the case with the CR & therefore is more economical at low speeds. It remains to be seen if the CR engines are as reliable as the PDs . There is certainly more to go wrong with the CR engines , 4 Valves per cylinder, manifold flap valves etc.

Various testers and owner drivers have complained about the lack of torque at low revs by the 1.6CR engine which can give rise to unexpected stalling at junctions / roundabouts etc.

I'm don't want to appear to negative or critical, but the vRS diesel isn't the 1.6CR. The OP stated he was looking at a vRS diesel and wanted to know the difference between the two engines, by inference, the ones available on the vRS

I can tell from your posts you are really not a fan of the 1.6 CR but you keep bringing it into discussions about the larger more powerful engines. The vRS diesel has always had 16 valves, whether it's the older PD or the newer CR engine so that's not really an issue, and there are parts on the PD engine that are not required on the CR so they both realistically have as many things to go wrong as each other. They are both proven technologies, just because CR is new(ish) to the VAG group doesn't mean it's actually new technology, I've been driving Common Rail diesels since 2003 and they've been round since before then

I've not owned a VAG PD diesel, I actually chose another manufacturer over Audi in 2005 as I didn't like the PD engine but I am extremely pleased with my VAG CR engine. People who have owned both are reporting the same or better economy on the CR vRS compared to the PD as well as greater refinement.

At the end of the day, emission targets have effectively killed of the PD engine as it was getting difficult and expensive for it to meet the targets. I suspect part of the reason the 1.6 is less economical in real life is because of these targets being met that VAG decided was not practical with the older engine. However, one of my colleagues has the 1.6CR Octavia Estate and is averaging high 50s and is happy as a pig in sh!t with his car so it sounds to me like the published figures may not be that unrealistic after all...

Hi Studmuffin (now that's something I never thought I'd say !!! )

I owned an 07 PD vRS and loved it !, it was my company car and then I bought it, so must have been fairly happy !

Get a good one (should be possible even with limited funds) and you will have a great car. I now have the CR which others have said is smoother etc, but nowt wrong with your choice.

which one gave the better mpg ??? from what ive read it seems that the cr does 5-10 miles per gal, or is there not a lot in it to worry about ?

I've had a PD for about 6,000-8,000 miles and a CR for about 10,000 miles and I prefer the CR, way smoother to drive. I get how people would prefer the punch of the PD but still think the CR is a nicer drivers car. You'd really need a good long test drive in both with different roads to make up your mind. Bit of motorway, B-roads and city stop start traffic. My CR is far more economical everywhere. Which makes me ask:

How in the name of sweet jebus are you getting those figures from a PD or CR? MY PD averaged just over 38MPG's (combined) and the CR is doing 44MPG's at the moment. Even on longer motorway runs I couldn't get more than 42 in the PD and 46 in the CR. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned that I'm not getting those higher figures, if I was I'd have bought a MK2 Jetta 1.6D, but you must be driving like a granny. Hardly what a vRS is about!!!

The real world difference is the quietness of the CR over the PD and the difference in the MPG. Thrash the PD about and the worst you'll see is 36mpg whereas the CR will be around 40. Be not as lead footed and the CR will easily return 50 to 55mpg whereas the PD will be 40-45mpg.

I'm don't want to appear to negative or critical, but the vRS diesel isn't the 1.6CR. The OP stated he was looking at a vRS diesel and wanted to know the difference between the two engines, by inference, the ones available on the vRS

I can tell from your posts you are really not a fan of the 1.6 CR but you keep bringing it into discussions about the larger more powerful engines. The vRS diesel has always had 16 valves, whether it's the older PD or the newer CR engine so that's not really an issue, and there are parts on the PD engine that are not required on the CR so they both realistically have as many things to go wrong as each other. They are both proven technologies, just because CR is new(ish) to the VAG group doesn't mean it's actually new technology, I've been driving Common Rail diesels since 2003 and they've been round since before then

I've not owned a VAG PD diesel, I actually chose another manufacturer over Audi in 2005 as I didn't like the PD engine but I am extremely pleased with my VAG CR engine. People who have owned both are reporting the same or better economy on the CR vRS compared to the PD as well as greater refinement.

At the end of the day, emission targets have effectively killed of the PD engine as it was getting difficult and expensive for it to meet the targets. I suspect part of the reason the 1.6 is less economical in real life is because of these targets being met that VAG decided was not practical with the older engine. However, one of my colleagues has the 1.6CR Octavia Estate and is averaging high 50s and is happy as a pig in sh!t with his car so it sounds to me like the published figures may not be that unrealistic after all...

I've had a PD for about 6,000-8,000 miles and a CR for about 10,000 miles and I prefer the CR, way smoother to drive. I get how people would prefer the punch of the PD but still think the CR is a nicer drivers car. You'd really need a good long test drive in both with different roads to make up your mind. Bit of motorway, B-roads and city stop start traffic. My CR is far more economical everywhere. Which makes me ask:

How in the name of sweet jebus are you getting those figures from a PD or CR? MY PD averaged just over 38MPG's (combined) and the CR is doing 44MPG's at the moment. Even on longer motorway runs I couldn't get more than 42 in the PD and 46 in the CR. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned that I'm not getting those higher figures, if I was I'd have bought a MK2 Jetta 1.6D, but you must be driving like a granny. Hardly what a vRS is about!!!

Exactly! There might be 5mpg in it, but not 10.

I drive Melton to Notts and get stuck in traffic alot. The route I drive is about 30 miles. Speeds range from 50 - 70mph. If I choose not to overtake and follow at 60mph tops my economy is 50 plus. However, I usually average 47 - 48. Now if I go from home to Stoke I am on the A50 for a long stint and with speeds averaging between 60 and 80 mph and my mpg is around 39 - 42mpg. Since owning the car its averaged 44.2mpg. I have driven the car to Bournemouth and back at very high speed. In fact that trip averaged 37mpg with 3 men and luggage at cruising speeds of often 100 - 110mph. I have found this car to suffer at speed with regards to mpg compared to our 320 cdi. That does 30s everywhere when driving at speeds of between 40 and 70. However, stick the cruise on at 80 and it can do anywhere between 42 - 50mpg. Its strange how its complete opposite to the VAG PD engine?...

I've had a PD for about 6,000-8,000 miles and a CR for about 10,000 miles and I prefer the CR, way smoother to drive. I get how people would prefer the punch of the PD but still think the CR is a nicer drivers car. You'd really need a good long test drive in both with different roads to make up your mind. Bit of motorway, B-roads and city stop start traffic. My CR is far more economical everywhere. Which makes me ask:

How in the name of sweet jebus are you getting those figures from a PD or CR? MY PD averaged just over 38MPG's (combined) and the CR is doing 44MPG's at the moment. Even on longer motorway runs I couldn't get more than 42 in the PD and 46 in the CR. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned that I'm not getting those higher figures, if I was I'd have bought a MK2 Jetta 1.6D, but you must be driving like a granny. Hardly what a vRS is about!!!

I'm not sure and as I said they can be different depending on make and model sometimes even in the same make and model. I did run mine in for 1500 miles. not sure if it needed to as a lot of people don't seem to think so but I thought it was good practice and because of my job, 1500 miles was dispatched in about a week.

I find that cruise control helps the figures as well.

seen this http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/200952348903718/sort/priceasc/usedcars/fuel-type/diesel/price-to/10000/maximum-age/up_to_3_years_old/body-type/hatchback/transmission/manual/engine-size-cars/2l_to_2-5l/model/octavia/make/skoda/postcode/le100gy/page/1/radius/200/keywords/vrs?logcode=p does this seem a bargin ? trying to find a vrs for £8500 with between 50&60k mileage is like trying to find rocking horse poo......... is 74k mileage, considered high mileage for a 07plate car ? would there be any problems or imending problems with a car with that mileage ? also what are the service intervals and what sort of prices do the dealers charge for the servives ? what are the stereos like are they mp3 and usb stick/ipod compatable? ta very muchley !

Edited 6 June, 201016 yr by studmuffin

Exactly! There might be 5mpg in it, but not 10.

I drive Melton to Notts and get stuck in traffic alot. The route I drive is about 30 miles. Speeds range from 50 - 70mph. If I choose not to overtake and follow at 60mph tops my economy is 50 plus. However, I usually average 47 - 48. Now if I go from home to Stoke I am on the A50 for a long stint and with speeds averaging between 60 and 80 mph and my mpg is around 39 - 42mpg. Since owning the car its averaged 44.2mpg. I have driven the car to Bournemouth and back at very high speed. In fact that trip averaged 37mpg with 3 men and luggage at cruising speeds of often 100 - 110mph. I have found this car to suffer at speed with regards to mpg compared to our 320 cdi. That does 30s everywhere when driving at speeds of between 40 and 70. However, stick the cruise on at 80 and it can do anywhere between 42 - 50mpg. Its strange how its complete opposite to the VAG PD engine?...

is these the mpg for a cr engine ?