Hi,

I'm thinking of changing my current car '57 1.9 TDI Octavia for a '59 or '09 model and am undecided as to whether to go for the 2.0 l or 1.9 l diesel. My current car is the second 1.9 TDI that I've owned and both have returned about 55 mpg.

I do 20,000 miles per year about 70% of which is on country lanes and 'A' roads the remainder in town with very little city centre driving.

I'm estimating that the 2.0 car will do about 5 mpg less than the 1.9 (about £225 per year more), the road fund licence will be £35/year extra and I'm assuming that insurance will be about £50/year more giving a total of about £305/year more to run the 2.0 (or, looking at it another way £0.02/mile more).

Has anyone expirience of driving the 1.9 and 2.0 litre cars and do you think that my estimates are reasonable? Is it possible that - by being l'ight footed' and use of the 6th gear the 2.0 could be as economical as the 1.9?

Regards

Gragam

the extra power has to come from somewhere! so yes the 2.0 would generally be a little thirstier, although in fairness I can get 58mpg from mine if I drive in an economic fashion at normal speeds on the longer runs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 2litre have a 6 speed box and the 1.9 only a 5 speed?

So, assuming lower revs on fast A roads and motorways, wouldn't you tend to get better mpg with the 2 litre?

Dunno if that helps. Depends what proportion of driving you would do in 6th gear. Not something I think you'd use anywhere except as above

Cheers

Barry

Edited 10 August, 201015 yr by Bazzman

Couple of recent threads here that might be worth a read:

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/168825-picking-an-engine-19tdi-pd-vs-20tdi-pd/

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/168291-19tdi-v-20tdi-fuel-economy/

Hi,

I'm thinking of changing my current car '57 1.9 TDI Octavia for a '59 or '09 model and am undecided as to whether to go for the 2.0 l or 1.9 l diesel. My current car is the second 1.9 TDI that I've owned and both have returned about 55 mpg.

I do 20,000 miles per year about 70% of which is on country lanes and 'A' roads the remainder in town with very little city centre driving.

I'm estimating that the 2.0 car will do about 5 mpg less than the 1.9 (about £225 per year more), the road fund licence will be £35/year extra and I'm assuming that insurance will be about £50/year more giving a total of about £305/year more to run the 2.0 (or, looking at it another way £0.02/mile more).

Has anyone expirience of driving the 1.9 and 2.0 litre cars and do you think that my estimates are reasonable? Is it possible that - by being l'ight footed' and use of the 6th gear the 2.0 could be as economical as the 1.9?

Regards

Gragam

AFAIK the 2.0 is a much newer design than the 1.9 and is actually more efficient.

AFAIK the 2.0 is a much newer design than the 1.9 and is actually more efficient.

You are probably thinking about the new 2.0 CR engine but the OP is talking about the 2.0 PD engine. The PD engine was not as efficient as the 1.9 but did have more power.

Hi,

I'm thinking of changing my current car '57 1.9 TDI Octavia for a '59 or '09 model and am undecided as to whether to go for the 2.0 l or 1.9 l diesel. My current car is the second 1.9 TDI that I've owned and both have returned about 55 mpg.

I do 20,000 miles per year about 70% of which is on country lanes and 'A' roads the remainder in town with very little city centre driving.

I'm estimating that the 2.0 car will do about 5 mpg less than the 1.9 (about £225 per year more), the road fund licence will be £35/year extra and I'm assuming that insurance will be about £50/year more giving a total of about £305/year more to run the 2.0 (or, looking at it another way £0.02/mile more).

Has anyone expirience of driving the 1.9 and 2.0 litre cars and do you think that my estimates are reasonable? Is it possible that - by being l'ight footed' and use of the 6th gear the 2.0 could be as economical as the 1.9?

Regards

Gragam

Do not ignore the TSIs ie petrol model. Diesel technology has almost staganated. My 130 hp 1.9 is more much economical and almost as quick as the 140/170 diesel ie torque is 310 against 320 and 340, they all do around 9 second 0-60 mph.

Whereas the new TSI range, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 and VRS are all cracking. Will do 50, 46, 42 or 38 mpg. Cost less to buy so you can replace sooner when there is even better things around in 3,4, 5 years time and they are much more fun to drive. I have a 2 litre diesel 140 hp SEAT and the only good point is the DSG but then you can now get the 7 speed DSG on the 1.2 to 1.8 engines. Diesel needs to re-invent itself ie hybrid or 2 stroke or something IMHO and I started my career as a marine diesel engineer but for automotive use of petrol engines is currently king unless you sit on the motorway 99% of the time and then you may as well get the 1.6D otherwise TSI petrol is better overall I reckon.

Edited 10 August, 201015 yr by lol

I had a 1.9pd dsg for a couple years and currently have the 2.0pd dsg L&K;I can assure you the 1.9 yields much better mpg figures than the 2.0. Maxidot regularly showed late 50's and even on occasion early 60 mpg.No way can my 2.0 get near those figures.Lots of grunt though!

ATB.David.

Why would you want the 2 litre with all its known problems?

How about getting the 1.9 pd and getting a remap done? More power and more economy

it sounds like real world the 1.9 PD is not that less effcient than the 1.6CR. Also the 1.9 is a proven engine

Edited 10 August, 201015 yr by leadlag

Many thanks for all your comments and advice folks. I've taken onboard comments regarding oil pump problems on the 2 litre engines and - after having a test drive in a 2 litre TDI PD have decided to go for the 1.9.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards

Graham