Talking about me, lol

Have a fondness for the 1.9 PD having had a 105 and 130hp version a few years back (the 130 in an Ibiza which was rather a hoot).

The 105 punched well above its weight and I would argue it didnt feel a great deal slower than a Mk6 2.0 CR 140 Golf I had more recently.

The 130 was an absolute peach, the Ibiza went like absolute stink once wound up, gather the 150 and 160hp variants were that bit better still.

All said and done though a 2.0 PD 140 would be my preference over a 1.9 105, 1.9 130 would be a close call. Did have a Mk5 2.0 TDI GT Sport and that was rapid, that engine in a boggo look Octavia makes for a bit of a Q car.

I think its also a little unfounded to suggest the 2.0 was problematic by comparison. Both engines have their relative weak points....putting incorrect spec oil in them and knackering the cam lobes being the main one.

Edited 15 July, 201411 yr by pipsyp

Until I cleaned my turbo recently I would have gone as far as saying that my old 130bhp 1.9 was marginally more responsive than my 2.0 140hp. Since the Mr Muscle treatment, I now realise the 140 when working properly is really pokey and I love it!!

I personally don't drive madly but neither do I drive worrying too much about extra mpg or a little less tax (the 140 is only £140 a year or thereabouts anyway). However, I definitely prefer the extra power in my 140 over the 1.9 105 I have driven recently although to be fair, the latter is no slouch as stated.

That is of course personal opinion and I can see the other side of the argument as ultimately both are good engines and additional reliability, albeit probably marginal, is a valid selling point.

For curiosity here's my mapped 1.6 tdi

Edited 16 July, 201411 yr by alberg

I have owned virtually every power output of 1.9 PD engine, the 115 (Bora), 130 (Fabia vRS), 100 (Beetle) and currently a 105 (Altea).

 

It is a really good engine, but in a car the size of the Octavia from an off the mark acceleration, and midrange performance perspective it has no comparion to a 2.0 (I have driven several 1.9 Octavia's).

 

IMO If you are not fussed with performance then, cool, go for the 1.9 TDi. I have bought enough of them to know they are a great unit. I also know that doing my type of everyday driving I do not get a huge difference in mpg from the 2 x cars both are around 47 - 49 mpg. The difference in road tax is virtually nothing at all, and if the difference of £20 a year RFL will make a difference in what car you buy thats pretty sad.

 

When I looked at getting my Octavia L&K the difference in insurance between a 1.9 and a 2.0 was £17/yr. I am quite happy to pay the £17 extra, I will get my moneys worth of flying overtakes throughout the year no doubt.

 

IMO you cannot not buy a car off a series of 'what if's'. So someone has had a turbo go on a 2.0, but for every turbo that has gone prob another thousand 2.0PD's have done 150k of trouble free motoring. So it is fairly pessimistic to assume that every 2.0 TDI is going to be troublesome.

 

I am personally quite interested in the 1.4 TSI engine in the mk3 Octavia. The economy figures on paper look as good as the mk2 diesels, and the performance a lot better.

Father in law has a Polo 1.2TSI R Line and it is very impressive. Great performance and he is averaging 49 - 52 mpg. I think that diesels may start losing some popularity with the advent of the new TSI engines. Especially if the 1.4 TSI 150hp ACT finds its way into more VAG cars.

Edited 16 July, 201411 yr by Lewwy

You never driven a DSG 1.9 PD105 then? I win nearly all the traffic light grand prix!

 

I really should try a manual version at some point just to see how different it feels. Most of the comments relating to the 1.9 being underpowered are from people with manual gearboxes.

 

I would also like to try a 2.0 at some point... but I'm scared in case it makes my car feel mega slow! lol

 

Phil

You never driven a DSG 1.9 PD105 then? I win nearly all the traffic light grand prix!

 

I really should try a manual version at some point just to see how different it feels. Most of the comments relating to the 1.9 being underpowered are from people with manual gearboxes.

 

I would also like to try a 2.0 at some point... but I'm scared in case it makes my car feel mega slow! lol

 

Phil

The only DSG's I have driven are the Fabia vRS 1.4TSI, and an Audi. They are a very nice gearbox. On the 2.0 PD TDi they seem to knock the consumption down a fair bit (on paper), which is why I didnt go for one.

 

From what I understand the acceleration and performance on the 1.9 TDI is amost identical between manual and DSG, albeit the DSG will be smoother in prgression.

 

The gearbox is not going to make any difference to the power output of a car so I dont know what people with manual gearbox would say its underpowered over a DSG(?)

 

You should have a go in a 2.0 if you get the chance, it does go very well, and for me is reminiscent of my Fabia vRS TDi for performance, whereas my 105 TDi goes really well, but doesnt quite set things alight for me.

 

Had the works Golf estate 2.0 TDi 140 CR, and that was excellent on fuel, did a run down south to Thatcham test centre to get some crash test dummies, and didnt hang about on the motorway and it did 60mpg, impressive.

1.9 pd non dpf is the only choice for any skoda the pluses are to many to mention , any other engine has to many problems ie poor economy , dpf , injectors .

The only DSG's I have driven are the Fabia vRS 1.4TSI, and an Audi. They are a very nice gearbox. On the 2.0 PD TDi they seem to knock the consumption down a fair bit (on paper), which is why I didnt go for one.

 

From what I understand the acceleration and performance on the 1.9 TDI is amost identical between manual and DSG, albeit the DSG will be smoother in prgression.

 

The gearbox is not going to make any difference to the power output of a car so I dont know what people with manual gearbox would say its underpowered over a DSG(?)

 

You should have a go in a 2.0 if you get the chance, it does go very well, and for me is reminiscent of my Fabia vRS TDi for performance, whereas my 105 TDi goes really well, but doesnt quite set things alight for me.

 

Had the works Golf estate 2.0 TDi 140 CR, and that was excellent on fuel, did a run down south to Thatcham test centre to get some crash test dummies, and didnt hang about on the motorway and it did 60mpg, impressive.

 

Yes the manual is faster on paper... but the DSG is consistent and easier to achieve faster acceleration. The acceleration times in a manual are when changing at the optimum point and getting the start just right etc.

 

I think this demonstrates my point nicely:

 

1.9 pd non dpf is the only choice for any skoda the pluses are to many to mention , any other engine has to many problems ie poor economy , dpf , injectors .

I have the 2.0 PD140 BKD and it has no dpf, nor problems with the injectors or poor economy. Don't tar them all with the same brush!

Love my 2.0BKD DSG

Dealer is trying to tell me my turbo is dying but I'm having none of it

I have the 2.0 PD140 BKD and it has no dpf, nor problems with the injectors or poor economy. Don't tar them all with the same brush!

 

Too right!!

 

I averaged 53.94 MPG on my last tank, and thats mixed driving, not driving like a snail. I dont have a DPF to go wrong, and my injectors dont need to be changed / recalled, so statements made above by people are rubbish.

 

A lot of people on here that have never owned the 2.0 PD seem to know a lot about it and how bad it is, and seem to think they can tell us 2.0PD owners all about how terrible our cars are.

 

Yeh OK...

1.9 pd non dpf is the only choice for any skoda the pluses are to many to mention , any other engine has to many problems ie poor economy , dpf , injectors .

 

Pretty good quote from someone who lists a Octavia 1.6 CR and Superb 2.0 170 CR BOTH with a DPF in his vehicle list - how come you arent driving a 1.9 then? I take it that both of your cars have ''too many problems ie poor economy , dpf , injectors''  ?

The dmf issue on the 2.0 was fixed years ago, just like the issue the 1.9 had. Yes you have a solid flywheel option on the 1.9, but if you really want you can get it for the 2.0.

As for the turbo, I think there is little in it tbh. As long as you do the oil on time and change the air filter you should be fine.

Having owned a 1.9 and a 2.0 pd, the 2.0 is IMHO a much better and more fun/drivable engine.

The bkd doesn't have a dpf either so no issue there.

Edited 29 August, 201411 yr by cheezemonkhai