Grateful for any help on choosing my next car.

I currently drive a Subaru Forester, which is becoming very expensive to run. So looking at replacing it and have settled on an Octavia.

Given that I want something cheap to run that is practical I am thinking diesel.

There appear to be 3 types available (secondhand) at the moment, 1.9 PD, 2.0 PD and 2.0 CR.

I'm sure I have read comment that the 1.9PD is pretty much bullet proof and the CR less so, is this true or just rumour ?

If so should I be looking at the 1.9 PD or 2.0PD ?

I am also considering the 1.8TSI but suspect it won't be as cheap to run as the official figures claim.

So with my head ruling my heart I think diesel is probably the way to go.

Thanks for any guidance that you can give.

Edited 22 April, 201214 yr by Russ T Bolt

I'm certainly no expert, but I have had no problems with my car, in fact I have found it cheaper to run on fuel and I don't do a lot of mileage.

The 2.0 PD is the one with the most reported problems tbh. The CR seems to be spot on but its the newer one so will cost more. The old 1.9PD was fantastic I had one in my Mk1 Fabia VRS loved it!

2L CR Has been reliable so far 60k+ in 22 months and not used a drop of oil. They are quieter than the PD.

I'm sure I have read comment that the 1.9PD is pretty much bullet proof and the CR less so, is this true or just rumour ?

If so should I be looking at the 1.9 PD or 2.0PD ?

I'm not sure any engine is bullet proof (except maybe the old SDI ) but it will also depend on what sort of power output you want - IIRC, the Mk2 Octavia only has the 1.9 in 105bhp guise and the 2.0 is in 140 and 170. As a result, the 1.9 is the slowest, but also the most economical. The PD is also a bit more agricultural in terms of power delivery and noise compared to the newer common rail engines. Best advice would be to go and drive some and see what you think

Chris

What you go for will llargely be determined by the age of the car you are looking for. The CR engines were phased in around 2009-2010 to replace the older PD engines. They are generally quieter, more refined and more economical, like for like (e.g, 2.0PD vs 2.0CR).

I have the 1.9TDI PD (105bhp) fitted to a 2009 (59) octavia estate and I love it. Sure, it's a bit noisy and unrefined but it's very economical and great fun to drive with the surge of torque you get from this engine. It was phased out in 2010 so mine was one of the last. If you are going pre-2010 then I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it

The 1.9TDI doesn't have a DPF fitted whereas I beleive the 2.0PD's did. These are prone to blocking if you do low milage/short trips/town driving. The DPF technology seems better suited/matched to the 2.0CR engines. The 1.9TDI avoids all this nonsense completely by not having a DPF fitted. If you do longer runs then it's generally not an issue - I've not had an issue with the 2.0CR in our Passat doing a daily 20 mile A road commute at ~40-60mph.

Thanks to everybody for their replies, especially Phil_P who has really confirmed my thoughts.

I am looking for a main family car that my wife will use on a short commute (7 miles each way) and for infrequent longer journeys. So the DPF info is useful.

I commute 110 miles a day but have a Diesel Ford for that so I have avoided all the issues with low mileage diesels.

Fairly open on budget, anywhere from about £8k upwards but obviously the cheaper the better for the right car.

I am also considering one of the newer petrol TSI engines, but having driven a couple I don't think they are going to be that economical, although compared to the Subaru's 20-22mpg they may well seem it. But I am looking for something to keep for 4 or 5 years, given that fuel is only going to get more expensive I want to make the right choice now.

Thanks all.

1.9pd is a good engine, but I changed to the 1.6 cr last year and now I wouldn't go back to the pd engine.

The 1.6 is 104 ps and is much smoother with better mpg than the pd. The gearing is higher and it doesn't have the low down power like the pd.

DPF is ok if your journeys are long, but it can be a problem on short journeys.

Sounds like the 1.9TDI will be a good choice for you. It's cheaper to insure and tax than the 2.0L and even on short trips to the shops my wife averages ~45mpg in ours. On longer runs it will easily return above 50mpg.

Looking on autotrader, £8-9K will get you a pre-facelift 2008 Elegance estate (assuming you want another estate) with average/sensible miles.

Face lifted SE models seem to start at around £10K, as seen here:

http://www.simpsonsskoda.co.uk/Used-Car-Details/used-skoda-octavia-19-tdi-pd-se-estate-red-pearl-effect-manual-diesel-ID_1916815602386688.aspx

Fuel economy is not the last word in running cost.

At 7 miles each way a derv will barley be warmed up properly meaning you'll not really get the best economy. You'll probably pay more for the same age of car with a Diesel and fuel is more expensive. Servicing is allegedly more on a diesel.

Parkers do an petrol v diesel comparison that you could check out.

You mention you are considering a 1.8 petrol - I just bought a 1.4tsi octavia (2009) and it has more than enough power (same as a golf gti from a few years ago apaprently). I am happy with my choice, if anything I would go for the 1.2 tsi. Try one out would be my adivce.

I do a 35min commute each way for work - its costs less than my old fiat punto 1.2 in petrol, getting >40mpg and driving normally (including getting the turbo going pretty frequently). the fuel economy was a factor for me too, but pleasantly surprised.

Great car btw, massive boot, feels solid, pretty quiet, and has a bit of kick just where you need it. I considered the diesel and it probably does work out a bit cheaper over 5 years, but not that much difference and I am happy to pay the extra for the smoother quieter more powerful engine.

Edited 25 April, 201214 yr by nimchimpsky

2.0PD 140's do *not* have a DPF. Unless it was a Scout, or a vRS (IIRC). Ordinary 2.0 PD 140's don't.

2.0PD 140's do *not* have a DPF. Unless it was a Scout, or a vRS (IIRC). Ordinary 2.0 PD 140's don't.

Yes its a common misconception that all 2.0 PDs have DPFs when in fact the majority of them didn't, hence my reason for buying one!

I know some people have had MPG issues with the 1.6CR, but the majority tend to find it's okay. I am having issues with it certainly, poor mpg for around 100 miles after a DPF regen, and just general poor economy.

The problem with fuel economy is the dealers don't usually have a clue why unless you have an error code. Like I say though, the majority of people haven't had problems, and no idea if these transfer to the 2.0CR.

It might help if you're buying new as the ECU goes through a learning period, where as I bought mine used.

Edited 26 April, 201214 yr by xreyuk

If the car is only doing 7 miles a day, I would definately say forget Diesel, specially the price difference between the fuel is today & likely to get greater after the 16p per gal hike in Aug.

Even if you do slightly longer journeys at the weekend youre going to be lucky to be doing 5K miles per annum, it is a false economy.

Now you have to be looking at 20k miles a year to be close to seeing a saving in fuel cost.

It could even be cheaper to get an LPG converstion with that being around 80p per litre & the same mpg as petrol.