Hi, I currently have a ford Mondeo TDCI with the common injector fault. I am looking at a Superb 2.5 v6 2002 with only 67,000 miles. I travel around 500 miles a week on the motorway. I have read some post about engine problems and expensive repair bills. as anybody got some advice on what to look for and potential future problems? or should I walk away?

Walk away. Any vehicle with a VP44 pump is a financial time bomb - it can write off a vehicle of that age.

Why buy a V6 when a 1.9/130 PD gives almost the same performance, less tax, better economy, same gearing and far better reliability?

rotodiesel.

forget the V6 ...130 pd (not the 140) Diesel is the one to go for ..if you stretch to it the 2005 model gives you fold down rear seats as well.....pd 130s are not easy to come by so be patient

I love my PD 130, its remapped so has just as good performace as the V6. Yet will return 55 average and more if you drive like a granny.

They're hard to come by especially in elegance spec, I travelled 400 miles for mine.

If you go for one CHECK the history thoroughly as a lot are clocked. Check for water ingress too.

Thanks for the replies, The car is on autotrader for £3000. It seems like a lot of car for not a lot of money. The problems and running cost will explain the low price tag.

I'm in for the PD130 also. It's an amazing and reliable.

As stated above, the 2.5TDI's are cheap for a reason and the fact there are so few PD130's around in the second hand market is also a testament to the durability of the cars and engine's.....

As stated above, the 2.5TDI's are cheap for a reason and the fact there are so few PD130's around in the second hand market is also a testament to the durability of the cars and engine's.....

Says the man with 250,000 miles on his pd 130

If you want the 2.5TDI V6, go for something with later BDG engine, ?2006 onwards. Has all oil/inj. pump issues plaguing earlier engines sorted out. Mine is at ~116k miles and running just fine.

I still would not buy unrefined 1.9 over my 2.5, there are whole threads already on virtues of each (last "praise thread" for 2.5 was a couple days ago I think), do a search. If fuel consumption and road tax are your main considerations, 1.9 is hard to beat. For user comfort, refinement, flexibility and high speed cruise capability, 2.5 wins hands down and later engines do not break.

Water ingress affects all Mk1 Superbs if not addressed in time, that should be the main worry.

I love my PD 130, its remapped so has just as good performace as the V6.

No it is not, as the V6 can also be remapped, and is far more refined

Edited 19 March, 201313 yr by dieselV6

No it is not, as the V6 can also be remapped, and is far more refined

I think what he was saying is that if you're going for the 2.5 V6 for the extra performance, then you could get a 130PD and have it remapped to achieve similar figures as a stock V6. As for it being more refined ... can't argue with that. The PD engine is a clunky thing. Each engine has it's pros and cons.

Back on topic. The V6 engines are cheaper for the reasons already stated above, but they're also are more expensive to run and tax. With current and future fuel prices, that has a direct effect on residual values more than in previous years. So it depends on how you look at it. On one hand, if you opt for a V6, do so knowing it'll not be worth much when you sell it. Having said that, they're already pretty cheap right now, so you won't be taking much of a hit.

130PD is meant to be bullet-proof and well powered for it's size. V6 does cruise better at autobahn speeds and sounds less like a Series III Land Rover. Take your pick.

No it is not, as the V6 can also be remapped, and is far more refined <img src='http://www.briskoda.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/emoticon-0100-smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

<br /><br />Yes it is. Yes the V6 can be remapped but my comment was against a standard V6. <br />As for being refined I think the 1.9 is very refined. A little noisey but I never hear that over my music and with fuel being 146.9 here now I'm glad of my 55+ MPG on my 70 mile round commute.<br />I would live a V6 I like the idea of a big lazy engine but I had to be sensible with extortionate costs these days and a 1.9 makes sense.

Edited 19 March, 201313 yr by Alan16ac

I have no idea why all those random bits are in my last post but Tapatalk won't let me delete them!

The V6 would make more sense if it were coupled to a transmission with a lower final drive ratio for more relaxed cruising. But although it would pull a higher top gear it's not there - stupid.

In a back-to-back comparison years ago when shopping for a Superb, I found the extra weight of the V6 made an already nose-heavy car worse. It wallows like a pig, especially when the dampers get a bit worn.

rotodiesel.

I predict a reply from dieselV6.

The V6 would make more sense if it were coupled to a transmission with a lower final drive ratio for more relaxed cruising.

Hang on, they don't share the same gearing do they? Surely not, I mean the reason for getting the V6 would be for high end cruising.

Factory Skoda dampers get worn enough to notice after ~15k miles. does not matter what engine or even car for that matter. Octavia 1.9 did the same.

Bilstein B6 shocks fitted all round for last 100k miles and good as new, front sport Auto 2.5V6 springs, rear factory HD suspension springs. Handles a lot better than Mk1 Octy, and is considerably faster than even a remapped 1.9. Comfort did not suffer at all, this was my big shock after fitting the B6 monotubes.

Gearing might be a bit short indeed (34mph/1000rpm in 6th, still longer than 1.9), but unless it is just the extra fuel cost you care about (then go for 1.9, 2.5 is not about penny pinching), it only makes the 6th even more flexible on motorway,40mph-150mph, actually idle is at ~800rpm so for lightfoots it is 30mph-150mph, good acceleration 50mph-130mph. Vibration at low rpm that the 1.9 is well known for is simply not there on the 2.5V6.

Out of the 116k miles covered so far, the 40k+ miles comfortably travelled at 138mph cruise control setting / 125mph average across Germany says 2.5V6 is better than a 1.9 :zzz: if you need the extra power.

Plus for me there are no high speed motorway cars in VAG range with sufficient power, long gearing and protected underbody (rough road package or similar) for peace of mind on varying quality roads. In fact Skoda range in Europe seems to be gradually dropping the offroad package now that the Yeti is out. Passat Alltrack, Audi Allroad both have short gearboxes, top gear at best as long as the 2.5TDI Superb, plus no manual gearboxes on higher powered versions.

Having said all the above, I'd only buy a car with manual gearbox, so for used cars that would usually point to a 1.9 in the UK as there are very few manual 2.5TDIs on sale, most are auto boxes.

My 2.5 will run till it dies.

Edited 20 March, 201313 yr by dieselV6

DieselV6 - I don't think anything that anyone said was a personal attack on your car.

I know, but the thread was a bit one sided

Still, I agree fully that from purely financial point of view and for UK driving, a 1.9 makes a lot more sense, especially for pre-FL cars.

Even today, the manual 2.5 is a budget all rounder for people who drive fast for significant part of the mileage. I still struggle to find a possible eventual new car replacement for the Mk1 Superb, no matter what price range. Audi went into auto boxes on more powerful versions, so does Phaeton and Alltrack. Mk2 Superb is a bit underpowered, I hope Skoda will drop the newer 185bhp diesel into Mk2 FL Superb at some point after Octy 3 vRS gets it (FL of Mk2 Superb is due soon). But I'll resist changing from 2.5V6 for as long as I can, as the new engines are not as economical in mixed driving as the paper figures suggest, certainly worse than any 1.9 and on par with the (warmed up) 2.5V6, The quoted brochure 40% fuel saving over the 1.9/2.5 generation of engines is pure fiction.

Edited 20 March, 201313 yr by dieselV6

I thought the V6 was around 150 bhp ...my mapped 1.9 came out at about 170 bhp and was reasonably quick...did 48 mpg avergae as well and up to 55 mpg on a run

Later BDG V6 TDI was 163bhp stock, can do easily 185bhp remapped with precat, and close to 200bhp if you decat the precat

I know, but the thread was a bit one sided

Still, I agree fully that from purely financial point of view and for UK driving, a 1.9 makes a lot more sense, especially for pre-FL cars.

Does depend on what type of driving you're doing though. I'd say your V6 would be just about as economical at higher speeds, if not more economical.

I still think the PD unit is clunky and agricultural. Then again I went from driving an almost silent, silky smooth 3.0 V6 petrol, to a 1.9TDi PD. It was never going to be easy on the ears.

If I lived somewhere where 100+MPH was legal then I'd have the 2.5 V6 without a second thought!

Couldn't agree more with diesel v6. I've run 2 Passat V6 tdi's - 2000 150 estate the a 2004 163 and now an Edition 100 that I've had for 4 years. I absolutely love the V6 diesel and my biggest problem is what to replace it with. I can't understand VW/skoda's marketing policy at all. Why they offer the 3.6 petrol engines with 250 and 300 bhp in the Passat and Superb 2 but nothing bigger than 170 bhp and 4 cylinders in diesel I just can understand.

I was driving back from France last night thinking about just this subject and my conclusion was that despite having run basically the same car for 13 years (apart from a 2 year dalliance with a 530i M Sport) and I should be bored to death with it the best thing I can do is buy a 1 owner sub 30k late model and run that. There's a couple on Autotrader now for £7k ish which compared to the £20k I'd have to pay for a 3.0d XF is nothing short of a bargain. Problem is my Edition 100 has only done 61k

Because fleet buyers and taxis firms don't want a big capacity diesel. Also VW may not want Skoda to go down that route. The big petrol engines probably fill a niche.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2