Potential newbie :-) Advice needed Mk1 to Mk2?

[oh_superb]

Proud owner of a MK1 2.5 tdi "gas guzzler" and "powerhouse" :-)

However, she is 12 years old now, and I'm starting to think that:

1. GBP300 road tax

2. Ageing everything

3. Auto box might go wrong

4. 40 mpg is not great by modern standards and diesel won't stay cheap forever

 

That perhaps it is time to upgrade to a mark 2.  My MRS is quite keen on the LWB idea, as she can sit in the back and read her favourite book in comfort :-)

In fact, I am considering going the polar opposite in terms of engine/power/refinement etc and considering a 1.6 Greenline, estate, preferably in Elegance trim (my MK1 is Elegance, and I'm quite spoilt).

 

However, I am slightly concerned about lack of grunt.

Not having driven one, what do genuine owners say about the small diesel, can it haul OK?

 

I must say that a significant portion of my annual mileage (80% of it) is pulling miles across the European autobahns, I don't go crazy with my V6 at the moment, I tend to do 90-95 mph cruise where safe and legal, still does 40 mpg, and is quiet at those speeds and feels safe and solid.  And the beauty of the V6 is that that's when it comes into its own, and has enough reserve to overtake someone and then return to normal cruise.

But the high road tax and 22 mpg around town are a pain.  Though not much around town driving with this beast, we have a Jazz for that.

 

Perhaps the Greenline is a step too far and I am better off with a 170.  Or even a 140.  Is 140 as reliable as a 170, and are they both genuinely CR or is 140 a PD.  I'm looking at 2010-2011 cars.  I think early 140s were PD if not mistaken and were to be avoided or so I heard (injectors etc).

 

The taxi company I regularly use to take me to the airport run a 4x4 170 MK2, and they are every happy with it (after an R class they ran to nearly 400k miles, it uses half the fuel and are very happy with it).

 

I know the 1.6 can be remapped to 145 PS-ish.  Having a DPF one of course does not know how smoke free the remap is until it all goes horribly wrong and the DPF clogs.  So anyone with remap experience, or 1.6 normal tune everyday life experience?

Are 1.6 TDi engines reliable.  Anything to look out for?  Are DPFs reliable and do they regenerate spontaneously?

Do the Greenline Superbs require AdBlue periodically?

 

Finally, how much fuel does the 1.6 actually drink at 80-90 mph, or does it start getting too thirsty due to short gearing?

 

Sorry for too many questions, but I need a steer.  And thanks in advance.

 

[FLAPPERJACK7]

Hello after driving that you will probably find the 1.6 cr very dull . There is no ad blue on the greenlines. (Your thinking of the mk1 superb 2.0tdi )

[Superb170]

The 1.6 is not a bad engine if you get used to its limitations and you would achieve very decent mpg on motorway runs.  Plus, if you get up to speed and you're sitting on a motorway on cruise you wouldn't need the extra power that much.  I've driven 1.6's a few times and I would describe them as adequate but very little in reserve.  The earlier ones you'd be looking at would be 5 speed boxes as well.  Coming from a V6 TDI however with all that power on tap when you need it, you might be a little disappointed.  If I was driving on autobahns and doing serious overtaking a lot, I wouldn't consider anything other than a 170.  You will find a few threads on here comparing the 140 and 170 etc.

 

AFAIK the switch from 140 PD to CR (at manufacturing stage) came around the first quarter of 2010 so I'd imagine in the UK you might get a few with early 10 plates with the PD engine but most from 10 plate on should be CR.

 

You will realistically get late 40s/early50s on a 170 (or more perhaps) with your type of driving.

[cnc]

I had a new FL Greenline Elegance Estate in 2013, previously I had several 1.9 130's, then four 2.0 140's, both PD and CR, and both manual and DSG. You do notice the drop in power and torque initially, as expected, but you soon get used to it. I use mine mainly for motorway work covering up to 45k miles a year and it does a great job of that. If I remember correctly the 2.5TDI isn't a lot better than the 1.9 130bhp as far as power and especially torque, so you may not feel the difference as much as you think.

 

In 6th gear at 70mph it's doing about 1800rpm which I think is the same gearing as a 140 & 170, maybe someone who has one can confirm that, so pretty relaxed cruising.

I cannot comment on the fuel economy at 90-95mph as I don't that speed, but at legal speeds the economy can be outstanding given the size of the car.

For fuel economy have a read of this post, my posts are 49 & 61 http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/316901-whats-best-mpg-youve-had/page-3

 

This engine is capable of this in the ideal circumstances http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/news/259

 

Obviously it's mainly sold for economy reasons, but if you want to tune the 1.6 TDI have a read of this http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/331052-yeti-greenline-over-due-report/

 

Never had any DPF problems, it doesn't need AdBlue.

 

It's often said to cover big miles you need a big engine which is no longer true these days (Google Ed March!!!), I'd take mine anywhere anytime and enjoy the great fuel economy.

 

As you are used to the auto box you may prefer a 140/170 as the 1.6 is manual only.

 

Have a test drive of one, make sure it's the newer style with the 6 speed gearbox as it makes quite a bit of difference over the 5 speed box, but don't expect V6 power or performance.

[psycholist]

Based on driving the 1.6 diesel Yeti, the engine feels fine up to about 80 km/h and then it becomes pretty obvious that it's near it's limit. If you want to overtake something doing 80 or 90 km/h on an A road you'll need a lot of clear view up ahead to do it safely. For cruising at 80 or 90 mph, the 170 is still in it's comfortable range while the 1.6 will take a long time to get there and have almost nothing left for getting past anything.

 

With a remap the 1.6 should be competitive with the stock 140 engine (Which became a CR around the age of car you're looking for I think, so you might find a CR 140. A lot of the PD engines that age had DPF added as an afterthought and suffered for it in reliability terms), but then a 170 with a remap can easily be over 200 PS and 400 Nm, so significantly more than the 2.5 TDI in a lighter more fuel efficient engine.

[Raptor]

Hi I have moved this year from the same car as yours and was concerned about the mid range performance of less than a 2.5 tdi.

I went for the 170 and I find it to be very acceptable, no turbo lag on pulling away, I have the L&K and it is a very nice car. The DSG gearbox is very smooth and is like driving a "petrol" car consequently the 0 to 60 figures are better than the 2.5. Mid rage not quite up to the 2.5 but the the 2.0 170 combined to the DSG more than makes up for it.

[oh_superb]

Thank you guys for the detailed replies, it is very much appreciated!

It certainly gives me enough info to make the decision making easier.

I'm not so much a person who accelerates much, but cruising on cruise control and being able to pull up those long hills at high speed on the bahn is important for me. The 2.5 does it so effortlessly that not much catches up with me in the fast lane there and most cars slow down appreciably while I just keep my foot in and maintain speed.

You are right the 2.5 does not have that much more torque at peak than the 1.9, BUT, especially with the remap, where the 1.9 peaks at 1700-1800 and then rapidly drops off, on the 2.5 340Nm are there from 1200-1300 and pretty much to 3500 or even higher before it drops off only slightly at 4000. So at 70mph in top gear no difference. But by 90mph and onwards towards vMax, the V6 just keeps pulling by a considerable margin better than the 4 pot.

I think I would miss that too much.

But still willing to consider a 1.6 and take for an extended test drive. Then drive a 140 purely to gauge what a 1.6 might be like with a decent remap. If both feel inadequate, 170 it has to be.

I want a manual. Fed up with slush :-)

Finally. Currently my MK1 has factory bixenons and I'm used to that and I know Mk2 has much better bixenons.

Do only Elegance spec ones get them or were they available as an add on item?

Can they be visually recognised on adverts, any special features to distinguish from the lesser halogen units? I would not buy one without factory xenons. Those lights with dynamic range and cornering etc are just fantastic. Not to mention a light year ahead of the old Mk1 bixenons by comparison.

Edited 9 January, 2015 by oh_superb

[Superb170]

Bixenons were available as an option on lower specs but I doubt you'll find too many examples below elegance with them fitted as they are standard from elegance up. The FL models with xenons have the LED DRLS on the main headlight cluster which makes it easier to distinguish however on pre FL models the difference is more subtle andnot easy to spot externally. Although the headlight washers (which will be on models with xenons)are built into the headlight cluster directly underneath, these appear as a blanked unit (with the same silver colour) on lower spec models and might give the appearance that xenons are fitted when they are not.

Best way of checking is if the headlight level adjuster is present on the dash beside the light switch. Obviously xenon models wont have the leveller and the switch will be blanked. You're right to look for xenons though as you would really miss them now and the adaptive is great!

BTW if you find a Mk II with bi-xenons, they should all be adaptive

[Raptor]

I want a manual. Fed up with slush :-)

 

The DSG is nothing like the old Tiptronic; far better and allows for easy relaxed driving. The ability to put it into sports mode is very useful at times. Coming out Manchester Rugby Club, there is a roundabout near Wilmslow and the Chelsea tractors, high powered VAG etc really hit it at speed, quite scary at times. The only safe way negotiate it ( apart from sitting waiting until the sun goes down ) is to use sports mode and prey   . Well still here to tell the tale just. :peek: 

 

Take a 170 for a for spin I am sure will enjoy it and you will find it takes the hills with ease. Note however, there is no torque convertor so if you do go for a DSG you might want to look for one with hill hold or simply go back to using hand brake. 

[cnc]

Looking at the torque characteristics of the 2.5 V6 I must say that's might impressive. and I can see why you like it so much. I had several 1.9 130bhp cars which I feel is better torque wise than the later 2.0TDI, in both PD and CR forms as the torque starts lower down despite what the official figures suggest.

 

My 1.6 TDI is fine at 70mph on the motorway as its just revving at the beginning of the max torque at 1800rpm so keeps pulling, but at 60mph on dual carriageways and A roads etc you do sometimes have to drop to 5th gear to maintain pace, and if you get caught behind a slow moving vehicle then want to get a move on up the hill once you get past that's when you notice the lack of torque - it's not too slow, but compared to what you have no I think it would really frustrate you.

 

The test drive in all three 105, 140 and 170 versions is going to be the only way to see what's right for you, but I think you'll go towards the 170 route. The only thing I say then is have a go in the DSG version, I'm a fan of the DSG and think it's great, I had one in my previous Passat CC GT TDI (covered about 120k in it) and my wife has one in her current 2014 Octavia, give it a go and see what you think.

[oh_superb]

Thank you cnc, Raptor and Supeb170 for your views, they are very useful indeed!

Well, I guess you might see me back in here once I've driven them all!

[Raptor]

Good luck with the search lets us know the result

[Superb170]

Hopefully you'll be pleasantly surprised when you drive them all.  My money is on the 170 based on what you're currently driving.  Good luck anyway  

[Wheelnut]

Interesting read.

 

I have just changed from a 1.9 ltr 130bhp Mk1 Superb Elegance to a Mk2 140bhp 2.0ltr SE and mainly miss the xenon's and the slightly wider seats

 

I felt that I did not want to downsize to a 1.6 and the economy of the manual 2.0 ltr and £30 RFL seemed to tick all my boxes.

 

Would have loved the estate but lots more £'s, still the twin door goes some way towards this 

[numskull]

....and the slightly wider seats

 

 

Yes, I agree; they're not as wide as the MKI, and not as comfortable, but far more supportive...

[oh_superb]

Something I do like in the MK1 are the wide seats. Will have to see if the MK2 can cater for my needs. Being 15 stone 6 ft 4 basically means I don't really fit into most cars comfortably over many hours

[Raptor]

Hell mate have you thought about a Maybach :0)

[oh_superb]

Hell mate have you thought about a Maybach :0)

 

Briefly, yes :-))

 

Is there a gearing difference between a 140 and a 170 CR engine?