I've been struggling with the problem of what to replace my 1.9 TDI Octavia with for months.

I thought the Rapid was the one but I've seen and sat in one.

So now it is the new Octavia or the Kia Ceed SW.

I am very suspicious of these 1.6 diesels ---not just VW --everyone makes them these days.

Do they really deliver the endless effortless stream of grunt for belting up passes in the mountains of Europe like a 1.9 on full song? Or no matter what the hp or torque figures are do they run out of puff.

Don't say take a test drive. The only inclines where I live get you to a different floor in the multi-story and dealers don't seem to like test drives that cover more than 2 miles.

My worries about little engines being asked to do too much were brought home to me a few weeks back. I rented a Seat ibiza 1.2 ---3 cylinder. Wonderful round town--like a go cart. Set off to drive Nottinham to Peterborough Melton Mowbray way. Sudden hills after sharp bends sort of thing. Car was a danger. Almost instananeous drop off of power at any incline. I swear it lost power if it saw a hill in the distance. I became expert at getting it from 5th to 2nd in a flash to keep out of the way of cyclists. And I do know the new Octy is lighter and that engine technology has moved on lots.

If anyone could share their experiences of moving from 1.9 TDI to 1.6 CR I wll be very grateful.

I owned a MK1 Octavia combi 1.9tdi, then two MK2's with the 1.9 pd tdi engine. I covered between 60,000 - 70,000 miles in each car, then I changed to the 1.6cr Octavia combi and like you I was sceptical that the 1.6 could match the 1.9pd.

The advantages are that the 1.6 is smoother, quieter and gives a better fuel economy, the disadvantages are that the 1.6 doesn't have that bottom end 'punch' and at 40 mph I find it's between 4th & 5th gears

Overall I prefer the 1.6cr over the 1.9pd and I just covered 70,000 in the 1.6.

I was pleasantly surprised by the CR105 when I test drove one recently. Nothing to excite you but more than capable of moving an Octy around. Don't be put off by the reduction in capacity. My bravo has a 105bhp 1.6 and its fine. I've been to london and back twice this week, and its happy to cruise at 70, accelerate to 80 or so when needed and showed an average of 64mpg over nearly 500 miles.

i had a 1.9 tdi octavia 57/2008 classic shape and i sold it and now have a 1.6 tdi CR hatchback superb, after a week or two you forget the smaller engine and it still has plenty of punch to get it shifting, many of the other taxis in the area are 1.6 tdi octavia and they are being used round the clock and as far as i know they are all doing fine never heard of any probs and two of the other drivers i know well one has a 1.6 tdi octavia (61 plate) and the other has a 1.6 tdi passat (12 plate) and they are very happy with the power output

Edited 6 April, 201313 yr by racing boy

I drove a 1.6cr and was a little disappointed with it.I,m always used to that PD punch which i like.The CR is smooth but needed to be worked more in gears.I had a Fabia 1.6cr as a loan car whilst mine was being serviced and that was more lively due to its a bit lighter.I wouldn,t be put off by them though.

Mike

Shame he didn't keep it long enough to get the Shark treatment

I should imagine the cost of a remap would be far less than the hit on trading a 3 month old car

I've driven over 200k+ miles in 1.9PD engined Octavias, a lot less in the 1.6CR but my observations are that it is a similar comparison to that of the 2.0PD v 2.0CR - the figures are the same but the delivery of the power is much more linear on the CR engines which can make it feel a lot flatter as it is missing that "shove" that characterises the PD.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

And he sold it private, so didn't lose too much. But then went and paid way over the odds on the Picasso.

Mike

A tenner then?

But then went and paid way over the odds on the Picasso.

Mike

The embarrassment factor of driving a Picasso would be much more costly

I've ran a 1.6 for 7.5 months now, put 10,000 miles on it and its a cracking engine.

I did a fast run on Wednesday night from Santander to Santa Pola, 540 miles including crossing the Cantabrain montains, on past Madrid, the highest capitol city in Europe and than onto Valencia.......so plenty of climbing.

I did the trip in 7.5 hours, including a 20 minute refuel break for the car that Mrs and me.

That works out at an average speed of 73.80 mph.

I filled up as soon as we docked in Santander, much cheaper than filling up in England, filled up after the trip and manualy calculated the fuel consumption at 58.7mpg......the car was well loaded as well.

No complaints from me, great little motor

Regards all

Juan

Im very fond of the old PD engines and to some extent I still prefer their all then nothing power delivery characteristics; made them very easy to drive quickly with minimal effort and their capability to pull second gear from standstill always impressed.

However having owned a couple of CR engined cars (both 2.0 admittedly in 140 and now 170 states of tune) of late overall I think its fair to say the CR is the better engine. They are considerably more refined and much more petrol like in their power delivery; trade off is that they lack the PDs low end shove and need to be revved which is a little counter-intuitive for anyone coming from an old school turbo diesel; as a consequence they can feel a bit flat as the power band is much less peaky.

In reality though they perform as well of not better than the PD equivalents and as they are all DPF equipped now (and these work properly with CR injection) emissions are lower and generally they push out as good if not better MPG.

Edited 7 April, 201313 yr by pipsyp

Im very fond of the old PD engines and to some extent I still prefer their all then nothing power delivery characteristics; made them very easy to drive quickly with minimal effort and their capability to pull second gear from standstill always impressed.

+1 I think this is what i would miss if i were to own a CR engined car.

The 1.6CR is meant to be the replacement for the 1.9. Yes you'll miss the PD punch but the 1.6 is smooth and economical. Just need to give it more revs.

This weekend I was in southern Germany being driven around in an Octavia Greenline and I can assure you it was making short work of das Autobahn.

Had 2.0 PD always disappointed with mpg. Not a press on driver and prefer economy to performance as in the North of Scotland roads too busy and too twisty to consider overtaking lots of the time. Before that had Seat Toledo with 1.9PD.

Seat would do over 60mpg on a long run, the 2.0PD Octy never got better than 55mpg the 1.6CR Octy will do over 60 easily. Have seen 65mpg on a 40 mile run from Inverness to Elgin, admittedly ended up following some slow traffic (50mph) and had a following wind. If you take an interest in economy it is interesting to note the effects of head/tail winds.

I find the 1.6CR has enough go about it to overtake when the opportunity arises. Agree with comment about 5th gear, needs 40mph. In practice the economy won't be much different in 4th at that speed and the car is more responsive and easier to drive.

I've never driven a PD, but the way it was explained to me is that a PD is a traditional diesel with low down torque, and the CR is an engine that needs to be driven more like it's in the middle of a PD and normal petrol engine, so it needs driving at slightly higher revs.

I have the 1.6TDI CR in my Leon (although the ecomotive version, which is like greenline) and get on with it well. I do mostly motorway miles in it and it's fine on the motorway and can accelerate quick enough in 4th and 5th when I need it.

I've found that my gearing is much different to people above, but again that could be because I have extended gear ratios, but you can't really use 5th until about 57mph in the ecomotive, and you're only just about into 4th at 40mph.

Have you had a decent test drive in both as that will help you decide which is best for you and what you want it for, though personally I'd go for the 2.0 as I think you'd miss the low down PD torque if you had the 1.6 there's another thread running at the mo on a similar theme on the 1.6 vs 2.0 ( can't remember if it's rapid or octy III) that you may find useful.

Just to add to my earlier comments, I now have the 1.6cr with the 7 speed DSG. This combination of engine & gearbox gives a better drive overall than with the manual box.

I had 2002 Mk1 Octy 1.9TDI110, then bought a 2012 Roomster 1.6CR105. In 10 months of ownership, 1 DPF EGT sensor replaced under warranty, over 1l of diesel fuel dissolved in oil after 9300miles, and average fuel economy in mixed driving of 6.9l/100km or 41mpg, where 200kg heavier Mk1 Octy would do ~6.1l/100km or 46mpg over the same course.

1.6CR engine is gutless at lower revs as it is a low compression dyno queen job, though ironically enough it is OK on motorway, under 1/2-full load when the turbo is fully spinning, and quite efficient then.

I think 2.0CR is a better replacement for the 1.9, as it is still a higher compression/longer stroke engine, fuel economy is more consistent and recent engines have few sensor failures. Trouble is, it is not available on Rapid/Roomster. I would rather buy a petrol one than the 1.6CR again.

Edited 13 April, 201313 yr by dieselV6

I've recently had my Fabia Elegance estate 1.6 CR TDi 105 remapped up to about 130

It drives much more smoothly than standard, pulls more strongly than standard, and on its first brim to brim fill, after a mixture of 2.5 mile journeys each way to work and a fully-loaded up trip to the Lakes, has averaged 55.5mpg

Goes to show that not every story is a horror story

Further to my post would agree about needing to rev 1.6CR a bit more than the 1.9PD. It's bit like an old school petrol engine but with more torque.