Pumpe Düse vs Common Rail

[Adrianh1]

I'm wondering whether the drift by the VW Group to common rail engines is trading driver enjoyment for better CO2 and refinement. I've driven a couple of VW common rail engines recently (75PS and 90PS) and came away underwhelmed. I don't mind the subdued racket of the PD engines if they give me the punch on the road. I am a neanderthal that doesn't recognise progress it seems.

Edited 3 August, 2010 by Adrianh1

[The Plumber]

My vote for CR is based solely on experience with the 2 ltr 140 engine; in CR form the power delivery is much more linear and across a wider rev range, whereas my previous two PD's were more all or nothing.

Noise wise quieter when cold, but with regard to fuel consumption there's little between them. Although I believe the recently introduced 2nd generation 2 ltr CR has brought improvements here as well as slightly lower CO2.

Regards,

TP

[Matt Bodycombe]

Yes this is true: the CR 140 engine is just as quick on the road as a PD but the delivery is so much smoother and more linear: the PD just throws all it's torque down in one go. It is a riot when you are in the mood and I prefer the simple tech and lack of particulate filter on the PD to the CR. I have a suspicion of CR engines in general but due to the driving I do, i'll probably spec TSI rather than TDI for my next Skoda!

[bluecar1]

Yes this is true: the CR 140 engine is just as quick on the road as a PD but the delivery is so much smoother and more linear: the PD just throws all it's torque down in one go. It is a riot when you are in the mood and I prefer the simple tech and lack of particulate filter on the PD to the CR. I have a suspicion of CR engines in general but due to the driving I do, i'll probably spec TSI rather than TDI for my next Skoda!

i have not voted as i have drive any of the CR diesels

but my understanding of the change from PD to CR technology was a simple one

the PD engine can't make the cut with the next level of EU emmission regulations due to not have fine enough injection control, and possibly the inability to work with the NOx reduction convertor (which uses the AdBlue fluid)

so no brainer, PD has to go

peter

[Guest]

I'm wondering whether the drift by the VW Group to common rail engines is trading driver enjoyment for better CO2 and refinement. I've driven a couple of VW common rail engines recently (75PS and 90PS) and came away underwhelmed. I don't mind the subdued racket of the PD engines if they give me the punch on the road. I am a neanderthal that doesn't recognise progress it seems.

Adrianh1, interestingly I notice the 1600cc CR 75ps engine puts out a lot less power than the 1422cc TDI PD 80hp engine. In fact, 5hp less and only 160nm of max torque instead of the 1.4TDI pd engines 195nm. All the 1.6 CR's are a bit revvier too. This seems to some extent to be down to the slightly shorter stroke engine design (although still a long stroke engine), which increases revs but decreases piston speed for any given engine speed over a longer stroke counterpart. In real terms the stroke has been shortened by only a small amount but in engineering terms this is significant. Therefore, refinement should be quite a bit better than the PD's in terms of noise, vibration etc. I've driven the 90hp version and it was fine. I believe the quiet refined nature of the engine and the general newness (tightness) of the motor made it feel less willing to fly through the gears. However, when I looked at the speedo it seemed to be doing ok!!!

Edited 3 August, 2010 by Estate Man

[Decron]

OP: Do you realise is that the base level of output from the 1.9 pd was 100bhp and even the 1.4 did either 70 or 80bhp. It's not going to be a fair comparison to something that is supposed to have a lower output.

I went from an 8v PD to a 16v CR (Albeit a Fiat/Vauxhall/Saab one). The CR is far more refined and delivers it's power in a much more linear way meaning it's far better for driving in general. I get a very nice output (About 200bhp and 380nm) from about 1800 all the way up to about 5k and it sounds more like a V6 than a diesel. I like the PD having had a few of them but progress is progress and the CR I am driving at the moment is a far better driver in general.

[Guest BigJase88]

vag was miles behind regarding the change

citroen / peugoet was using common rail back in the late ninety's

i had an old 306 hdi was a nice car

[Decron]

vag was miles behind regarding the change

citroen / peugoet was using common rail back in the late ninety's

i had an old 306 hdi was a nice car

CR tech was devloped by the Swiss in the sixties, Denso had a commercail system on the market in 95 and the first passenger car that used the common rail system was the 1997 model Alfa Romeo 156 1.9 JTD.

Vag developed PD as their own alternative. I suppose it's the Betamax of the fuel injection world.

[DavidY]

Vag developed PD as their own alternative. I suppose it's the Betamax of the fuel injection world.

Lol!

(I reckon it's a pretty accurate analogy too.)

[Guest]

Lol!

(I reckon it's a pretty accurate analogy too.)

Your right...and remember, technically and quality wise, Betamax was superior! It didn't catch on over here for reasons of cost and some other stuff. I used to sell it.

vag was miles behind regarding the change

Don't forget VAG didn't need to change. Their system was superior for years in everyway...reliability, cleanliness, economy, power...the list is almost endless. Everyone else (manufacturers) wanted PD but the rights were owned during the most important years by VAG. PD engines are superior to CR versions 1 and 2 and only just slightly less clean than CR version 3. Of course they are a bit noisier too which is really the thing that has caused their demise. Noise regs are very strict now and the PD could simply not meet them, but the cleanliness thing could still be addressed apparently, but it made more sense to go to CR3 like everyone else to allow for future changes to eu laws regarding emissions.

[lemonvrs]

It was in fact Fiat that invented CR, and the first car to have it was the Croma in 1986. Fiat sold the rights to CR to Bosch sometime after... so as usual the Italians inovated and the rest copied.

[Allams Skoda]

I prefer the new 1.6CR to the outgoing 1.4TDi, but I think I prefer to the older 1.9TDi to the 1.6CR even though you can get a 105PS version.

Although I suspect once I drive a 1.6CR 105PS Elegance for a bit and get the engine worn in nicely it will be a flyer, plus if you really get bored of it you can probably remap it to 130PS or something anyway.

I prefer how much more refined the new CR engines are plus they are cheap to tax which is nice.

[Gizmo]

I think that should read:

Italians inovated and the rest copied others refined it.

For the way I drive the PD wins hands down (i reserve my right to change my mind on this as i have only put limited miles on the CR engines [both the 140 & 170] for ) the PD is an easy engine to 'push on' with by using light throttle, with most of the torque coming in right where i want it - at low revs.

I dont race around and the 130PD was ample for the way i drive, BUT I 'needed' to up the CR to a170 to get somewhere near the same drive-ability as my current PD gives me - even then the 170 falls short.

[Adrianh1]

Interesting. And so far the poll is with the PD drivers. Personally I much prefer more low-down PD grunt to revvier, linear CR responsiveness. If you want that, then buy a TSI, surely?

[shark_90]

I much prefer how a PD drives out of the box, but remap a CR (I have the 2.0 170 in mind) and kill that horrible small engined petrol-like linearality (is that a word?) and it's a whole different ball game, the 2.0CR wins hands down.

[Gizmo]

I much prefer how a PD drives out of the box, but remap a CR (I have the 2.0 170 in mind) and kill that horrible small engined petrol-like linearality (is that a word?) and it's a whole different ball game, the 2.0CR wins hands down.

That's interesting to know!

Pity you can't do a MY11 CR170 with your STS

[Decron]

It was in fact Fiat that invented CR, and the first car to have it was the Croma in 1986. Fiat sold the rights to CR to Bosch sometime after..

Ahh not quite right (See my earlier post). The Croma was the first car to have "Direct injection" fiitted and that is similar in a lot of ways apart from the common rail bit...

Magneti Marelli (Owned by the Fiat group) developed the system for passenger cars through the early 90's (Again as per my post) and was finally fitted to the 156 in 1995

...so as usual the Italians inovated and the rest copied.

Well, almost. In a turn of events almaost british in charecter they were in the finacial poo poo at the time and had to sell the tech to bosch to get it commercially produced at volume.

[Decron]

...If you want that, then buy a TSI, surely?

Why?

I get TSI performance with more torque and 50mpg.

All this with no making the passangers sick or chewing my tyres up like a PD does

[benwiddowson]

What engine is in the Octavia VRS (diesel) is it a PD or a CR ?

[Decron]

What engine is in the Octavia VRS (diesel) is it a PD or a CR ?

It came with both.

[Brian69]

... so as usual the Italians inovated and the rest copied.

True, they were first to fit their tanks with a reverse gear.