2 days ago I got a new 2.0 TDi and I have 2 questions for anyone out there with a similar model or an opinion.

 

I tend to drive a lot of time at 1500 RPM. In my old 1.9TDi (2005) there used to be a reasonably instant response at those revs.

On the new 2.0, it seems to get bogged down at these revs before walking up half a second later and trying to make up for lost time too eagerly.

I don't recall this lag on the 2.0 I test drove, more so on the 1.6.

Could that have been because the 1.6 was a newish demo model and the 2.0 was almost a year old and the engine had time to loosen up?

Will this initial sluggishness disappear after a few thousand miles?

 

The 2nd question is the economy figures from the onboard computer.

Taken with the prescribed grains of salt, I was getting about 6.0 in winter on the old 1.9TDi for the suburban commute.

The last couple of days with the 2.0 it's been about 8.0.

Is it reasonable to expect this to also get to around 6.0 after a few months?

Or am I already enjoying the increased power too much?

There will be differences with old/new engines.

At those revs you are on the steep curve of where the boost will kick in and a 100rpm either way will have a big impact.

 

Give it a few thousand kms and review as the response will improve a lot.

 

Steve

1500rpm is where the turbo starts to kick in, so as said above I have noticed that a few rpm difference can make a big difference to the responce of the car.

 

Assuming you mean 6-8l per 100km, therefore between 30 and 40mpg, that doesn't sound too bad for a new engine in winter to me? I am getting over 50 mpg, but I don't drive too quickly, and it isn't short journeys.

 

I'd give it a few more miles yet

Im 2000 miles in on my tdi vrs, getting 46 / 47 mpg at the mo, but I live in a really hilly area. dtuk box had helped however and made my mpg figures far better......

 

Makes my old mk2 tfsi look silly at 18mpg long term average......

Im 2000 miles in on my tdi vrs, getting 46 / 47 mpg at the mo, but I live in a really hilly area. dtuk box had helped however and made my mpg figures far better......

 

Makes my old mk2 tfsi look silly at 18mpg long term average......

 

Interesting that the DTUK box helped the mpg, how much difference do you think it made?

Do you measure the consumption when refueling or do you trust the trip computer?

Do you measure the consumption when refueling or do you trust the trip computer?

Me: I record my mileage and amount of fuel used whenever I fill up. Currently the computer is pretty accurate compared to real world over a whole tank. The most I have seen it vary is about 5%

Do you measure the consumption when refueling or do you trust the trip computer?

Mine has been very close to the calculated figures. Most accurate trip computer I've had so far.

Interesting that the DTUK box helped the mpg, how much difference do you think it made?

Like for like, on the trip computer, 10% at least, sometimes more dependant upon which map im running (its tuneable)....

Like for like, on the trip computer, 10% at least, sometimes more dependant upon which map im running (its tuneable)....

That's not too shabby. Might have to look into one...

I've also got the DTUK box and over numerous fills, adjusted the compensator with VCDS. it's now on 110% and this gives a fairly accurate reading if I check manually.

That's not too shabby. Might have to look into one...

The benefit it brings to my driving is that I know the power is there when I need it, so I can tool around economically, saving fuel and not have to keep the engine on the boil constantly. The standard tid vrs engine is woefully lacking in shove to be honest....

Like for like, on the trip computer, 10% at least, sometimes more dependant upon which map im running (its tuneable)....

Which map is the best for economy you have found b?

Which map is the best for economy you have found b?

No matter how much I try to keep mpg DOWN, by making progress... the mpg figure just keeps on creeping up in 3 + 1... I think 2+2 is more economical though.. My three favourite maps that Ive tried so far are 1 +1, 2 +2 and 3 +1..... I have asked diesel Performance for info via their contact page, but Im still awaiting their response...... map 1 seems to be aggressive torque, map 2 a mix and map 3 aggressive power.... Coming from a mk 2 tfsi, map 3 makes me feel more at home....

No matter how much I try to keep mpg DOWN, by making progress... the mpg figure just keeps on creeping up in 3 + 1... I think 2+2 is more economical though.. My three favourite maps that Ive tried so far are 1 +1, 2 +2 and 3 +1..... I have asked diesel Performance for info via their contact page, but Im still awaiting their response...... map 1 seems to be aggressive torque, map 2 a mix and map 3 aggressive power.... Coming from a mk 2 tfsi, map 3 makes me feel more at home....

Cheers, interesting to know.

To the OP, as you know the pd produces more torque lower down but then tails off, while the cr is more linear and it's more happy from 2k onwards. Accelerating hard below 2k won't do the DMF any good either so the comparative lack of shove that low down in the rev range in the cr is no bad thing TBH.

To the OP, as you know the pd produces more torque lower down but then tails off, while the cr is more linear and it's more happy from 2k onwards. Accelerating hard below 2k won't do the DMF any good either so the comparative lack of shove that low down in the rev range in the cr is no bad thing TBH.

Now you tell me.

DMF on Octy II replaced at 150,000 km :(