Octavia 1.9tdi 105bhp vs 2.0tdi 140bhp

[mbuk2456]

I've been thinking about upgrading my mk1 Octavia TDI elegance to a mk2 TDI elegance spec, I've notived that some are 1.9 105bhp and others are 2.0 140bhp. Which is the better engine? Do the they both have dpf filters? I know the 140bhp will be quicker but I would rather long term reliability over speed as it will be my new family car!

My mk1 has been excellent car but its starting to look tired now

[TDIum]

Are you talking about 2.0PD or 2.0CR? They are very different.

The CR diesels are very refined, economical and quiet. The 1.6 has plenty of go the 2.0 has more, but not punchy like the PD engines they like to rev a bit more.

[mbuk2456]

Would probably be looking at the PD version as I don't think my budget will stretch to a newer cr tdi

[littleade]

Personally I'd pick the 1.9PD over the 2.0PD. The 1.9 doesn't have a DPF (suspect the 2.0 will), at least SWMBO's 1.9 57 plate altea doesn't and it's a good engine if a little gruff when compared to the later CR's though in some ways it gives it character. Well looked after 1.9 PDs last and last providing they've had the oil changed regularly and it cruises nicely on the motorway too as well as having low down grunt for round town

[Wardy]

The PD140 you'd be looking at does NOT have a DPF. This will be the BKD engine. The only PD140 with a DPF on the Octy2 was the Scout.

Both are good engines. The 1.9 has proven more reliable I think, overall. The 2.0TDI comes with a 6-spd box though, so it depends exactly what you're after. I would make sure you drive at least one example of each.

[mbuk2456]

OK cheers for the advice guys, the whole dpf thing was putting me off getting another TDI, do all the vrs TDI,s have a dpf filter?

[Wardy]

Yes. PD170 and CR170 vRS TDIs both have DPFs fitted. They can be removed though

[littleade]

As wardy says a test drive will help you decide. I personally don't think a DPF in the CR is too big a deal TBH as I've only noticed mine regen twice in quick succession since I've had mine - the initial one when I switched the engine off part way through and again on the next decent run I went on. Both were jusr before christmas when it was cold and I did quite a few short runs. From what others have said though the DPF was a retro fit on the PD so it's more prone to problems. Having said that if niether the 2 PDs you're considering have one it's not an issue you have to worry about. Good luck

[Wardy]

CR and DPF wouldn't put me off either.

I personally found the 1.9TDI a bit too slow, but it all depends on what your expectations are. I can certainly see why people buy them though, as they make a good all-rounder and really economical.

[pipsyp]

Bare in mind that the PD engines were never really designed with DPFs in mind hence why they never really worked that well on PD cars and went wrong more often than not.

The above really is not the case for the CR engined cars, the way the injection system works and the much much greater control the cars electronics have over the injection priming and firing (the PD injection system was largely mechanically controlled) allows a DPF to work properly.....they were really designed with CR engines in mind, VW just tried and mostly failed to get them working with PD technology in a bid not to have to go the CR route and admit defeat.

Saying all the above I had a PD engined car with a DPF (MK5 Golf Bluemotion) and did 27k trouble free miles in it; in fact I dont recall it ever having done a forced regen in the 18 months I had the car though again I was doing 18ish K a year in it abd quite a few motorway miles.

None of the MK2 2.0 TDi 140 PDs had DPFs except the Scout and maybe the 4x4, they for some reasob had an 8 valve derivative of the 2.0 engine, not sure why.

The PD vRSs are OK but renowned for DPF and injector problems; id personally avoid any PD vRS if it still had a DPF or the injectors hadnt beeb replaced (was a VOSA recall on all VAG 2.0 TDi PD 170's as the injector problem was both v common and dangerous).

Getting to the point personally id rather have the 2.0; in PD form its quite a bit punchier than the 1.9 105ho version and not much less efficient....the 1.9s are a bit more proven and perhaps generally a little less troublesome though....a favourite with taxi drivers which says alot about their durability.

[booke23]

The 2.0; in PD form its quite a bit punchier than the 1.9 105ho version and not much less efficient....the 1.9s are a bit more proven and perhaps generally a little less troublesome though....a favourite with taxi drivers which says alot about their durability.

This is exactly how I'd sum up the two engines. I'd say in general use the 2.0 is not much less efficient, but if driven carefully, the 1.9 rewards with very good fuel economy.

The 2.0 seems to go through flywheels and turbos faster than the 1.9....some people say the 1.9 is less refined, but in the Octavia (which has quite good sound insulation) I don't find there is much difference between the two engines in that regard.

[andyvee]

This is exactly how I'd sum up the two engines. I'd say in general use the 2.0 is not much less efficient, but if driven carefully, the 1.9 rewards with very good fuel economy.

The 2.0 seems to go through flywheels and turbos faster than the 1.9....some people say the 1.9 is less refined, but in the Octavia (which has quite good sound insulation) I don't find there is much difference between the two engines in that regard.

Owning a 2.0 I agree with the comment about turbos, flywheels seem to be the same in both, but the 1.9 SMF conversion is proven, so it should only happen once with a 1.9.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[silver1011]

If you want ultimate reliability go with the 1.9. It'll outlive you if looked after.

If you spend a lot of time on the motorway go 2.0 for it's sixth gear.

[zeffania]

I had the same dilemma and went for the 1.9 as I believed it would be more reliable. I test drove a 2.0 which had a replacement turbo so decided to stick with my plan and I am more than happy with my pd105

[mbuk2456]

I've found a 1.9 for a 3850, 1 owner car 05 plate elegance spec with full Skoda history and 94k on the clock, is this a good price and what are can belt intervals?

[andyvee]

I've found a 1.9 for a 3850, 1 owner car 05 plate elegance spec with full Skoda history and 94k on the clock, is this a good price and what are can belt intervals?

You have inadvertently opened a can of worms .......

Go off of 4 years or 60k and you won't be far wrong, so due the second change. Make sure it is a full cambelt kit inc tensioner and the waterpump is changed at the same time. Roughly a 3-400 quid job.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[thinline1]

Have owned all the PD's over the last few years and I believe the best balance is the 2.0 TDI 140. I have the PD 105 at the moment but I do miss the punch and the sixth gear.

I would say the PD105 is better round town and better geared for this type of driving.

In my PD140 I got an average of 45ish MPG and the PD105 I get about 50ish. However if I drive the PD105 like a old man is see's 60 MPG.

Went for the PD105 as it was the right car at the right time and find it ok for most things, however does not put a smile on my face as much as the VRs PD170 I had, that was awesome. Just a shame the DPF went and got clogged at 121k :(

Cheers

[nutters_uclan]

I went for the 1.9 TDI for reliability and the fact that it's so economical. Haven't been let down thus far, touch wood. Four and a half years of happy (mainly motorway) driving.

[nutters_uclan]

In my PD140 I got an average of 45ish MPG and the PD105 I get about 50ish. However if I drive the PD105 like a old man is see's 60 MPG.

Yeah, if I sit at 65-67 on the motorway using cruise and don't boot it when accelerating, I easily get 60MPG+ on my 35min trip to work.

[Chappers.]

Is your Mk1 a 1.9 or 2.0?

I found the increase in power between the 1.9 Mk1 & 1.9 Mk2 work Octavia's quite noticeable (from memory a jump from 90 to 105 bhp?) which gave the Mk2 just a little extra punch for overtaking. That said, it's never going to set the road alight with performance - but if you are used to the Mk1 this won't be an issue.

I've done 200k+ in 1.9 Mk2's in all sorts of conditions and found them to be an adequate engine. I always said that if I was going to buy one I would have chosen the 2.0. That said, the 2.0PD I had in my Audi A6 was not that impressive (probably more to do with the heavy car it was trying to lug around) - I also found the 2.0 very unrefined.

The 1.9 is never going to win any noise contests, but I actually think it suits the Octavia quite well. It is a nice mix of power and economy. I took one out again last night at work and had forgotten their charm. That said, I wouldn't swap my 2.0CR vRS for one!

[mbuk2456]

My mk1 is the 110bhp non PD engine and averages around 50mpg during mixed driving, we used have a Passat 1.9tdi with a PD 130 engine and although it was more refined I only ever saw around 43 to 45mpg doing the same journeys.

My quest now will be to try and test drive them both and see which one suits

[Stubod]

Thanks for this post, I am currenly deliberating on either a 1.6, or a 1.9. I currently have a 2.0diesel ('05), but last week MBH drove it into a Corsa..low speed (air bags did not go off), and it is currentlywith an accident repair company for quoting. Although the damage is fairly "light", (bumper, grill lights, bonnet), they have said it may be a right off, id the repair is 70% of the current value!! Seems a shame if it is, but what is an 05 Octy 2.0 Elegance worth (80k miles)...probably not a lot.

But reading all the above comments I am now erring towards the 1.9...I like the idea of a more basic, "proven" engine...noise is not a problem as I am almsot deaf anyway....

[nutters_uclan]

I found the noise of the 1.9TDI is easily dealt with by installing a Kenwood headunit!

[flying pig]

I've owned my 1.9 pd for nearly two years now and 30k miles. She's been a marvellous car, both in terms of reliability and economy. Now on 71k I intend to keep her until her final breath, which, if I finally get to retire in 5 years time, should bring her up to 146k. Rather than spend hundreds of pounds a month on a car loan, I'd rather spend the money on maintaining her, which at the moment, is negligible for both servicing and maintenance.

The 1.9pd is well proven, both in terms of reliability and economy. For me I can't see any reason to change at the moment.

Long may she live!

Hope this helps.

FP

Edited 18 April, 2013 by flying pig

[nutters_uclan]

I've owned my 1.9 pd for nearly two years now and 30k miles. She's been a marvellous car, both in terms of reliability and economy. Now on 71k I intend to keep her until her final breath, which, if I finally get to retire in 5 years time, should bring her up to 146k. Rather than spend hundreds of pounds a month on a car loan, I'd rather spend the money on maintaining her, which at the moment, is negligible for both servicing and maintenance.

The 1.9pd is well proven, both in terms of reliability and economy. For me I can't see any reason to change at the moment.

Long may she live!

Hope this helps.

FP

That pretty much sums up my exact thoughts and situation too.

I toyed with the idea of a different 2nd hand car, or a new Skoda. After a while, I decided that this car has never let me down, is still in great shape and that, with a few quid thrown at it, it'd keep me interested and serve me well for years to come. I'll probably keep mine until we emigrate in a few years, or if we decide to stay in blight I'll get a mkIII vrs eventually. Until then, long live the 1.9 beast!