I am looking at changing to a mk5 golf as I need a bit more space. What is the 2.0 tdi engine like, I have heard it does not have the same punch as the pd engine.

Can people give me their opinions please

Common rail doesnt have as much low down oomph as the older pump deuce, but it has a more linear power delivery. Much more like a petrol turbo

They both are as fast as each other however so its all placebo.

Some early 2.0l tdi's were PD and were somewhat of an after thought (lot of dpf failures)

The 2.0l CR engine is the one to go for. At least 10% better fuel economy, and sounds less tractor like. Basically a more refined engine

What reg onwards are those engines then. Also I have seen one that has been clocked, can the clocks be put forward to the correct mileage

Its hard to tell

Easiest way is with the engine cover

Straight humps on engine cover is a PD

Diagonal humps on engine cover is CR

Engine codes are probably different but i dont know too much. CR 2.0tdi isn't my forte

Thanks Jase

What reg onwards are those engines then. Also I have seen one that has been clocked, can the clocks be put forward to the correct mileage

And yes digital mileage correction can be done

You can read the actual mileage of the car via VCDS (vag software) so the actual mileage is always stored on the ecu

Then you can get someone to change it to the correct mileage. There is mileage correction companies out there. Probably the first time they'll put clocks forward though

Common rail doesnt have as much low down oomph as the older pump deuce, but it has a more linear power delivery. Much more like a petrol turbo

They both are as fast as each other however so its all placebo.

Some early 2.0l tdi's were PD and were somewhat of an after thought (lot of dpf failures)

The 2.0l CR engine is the one to go for. At least 10% better fuel economy, and sounds less tractor like. Basically a more refined engine

This.

Dad had a 2,0 pd 140 passat and then a 2.0CR 140 golf.

Golf did seem abit faster, but its a smaller car and it was coupled to a dsg box, so probably just that.

The cr is a lot more smooth, quiet and refined. Really nice engine actually, as far as diesels go.

Thanks for the heads up. Could be swapping the fabia for a mk5 tdi

For sheer driveability the 1.9TDI 130bhp beats the 2.0TDI 140bhp. It pulls really well from just over 1000rpm, the 2.0 needs more before it takes off, it makes quite a difference, especially for towing or in hilly areas. The 1.9TDI is probably one of the most reliable engines out there, several of the early 2.0 had problems. I had one of the very first 2005 Passat B6 with the infamous BKP engine which is well known for injector and oil pump failures, however from new I covered 146k miles in mine with only one breakdown when the fuel pump went, so they weren't all bad.

 

My company car was the 2005 2.0 Passat Sport B6, and at the same time our private car was a 2005 Passat Sport B5.5 1.9 130, both six speed manual, so I could jump straight from one to the other for a direct comparison. The 1.9 130 puts the 2.0 in the shade - newer isn't always better.

 

I have since had three more 2.0TDI 140's, but all the CR version, in both manual and DSG format, even these don't pull as well as the 1.9 130.

 

There is almost nothing in the economy between the two. Overall avoid the 2.0PD, go for either the 1.9 130 or 2.0CR.

Thanks for the heads up. The change is more about space in the car than out and out driving, but I did not want to end up with something totally different to the fabia.

PD for torque off the line, durability and ease of applying a few cheeky mods to

CR for smoothness, quietness and cheap tax.

Personally, I like my PD. I can work on it myself, it's got power delivery how I like it, low down, and it isn't bad on fuel.

But it sounds like a tractor. Arguably one of the best engines vag ever made, even if it is a boat engine with a turbo strapped to it.

Quite enjoying the new 2.0cr 140 engine having had three 1.9pd 130 cars previous to this.

It is however attatched to a 6 speed dsg so gives the impression of a quicker car maybe?

Fuel economy I can't really compare as the pd130's were different (mapped and BLT vs ASZ) and in sporty hatch backs and the cr140 is in a Touran

I have the 1.9PD 105 in my Touran, they are great engines with plenty of torque, Easy to work on, And on a run can easily squeeze 60+ Mpg.

 

I went for the 1.9 over the 2.0 for reasons stated here, and now 10,000 miles on since I bought it its been faultless.

Just remember that the PD130 was never fitted to the MK5 golf.

 

It was the PD105 that was used so there is a 35bhp difference and not 10.

 

The 1.9 really is surprising though. Mine is DSG and goes pretty darn well I must say.

 

It may depend on your mileages, the type of journeys you do etc. Although even with our car fully loaded (recent airport run with 5 adults and 5 suitcases still pulled very well and didn't feel bogged down- still got 50mpg at 70mph too).

 

Phil

The 1.9 PD with DSG still surprises me how quick it is, especially considering it's pulling a big old car and only has 105HP.

I'm in the PD camp my Octavian glxi 1.9tdi was an amazing car and would buy another in a heart beat , yes the cr engines are more refined but quite impossible to work on without vcds, fuel economy is really no better in the cr engine as euro rules regarding emissions have stifled Diesel engines so much to make us ( joe public ) back into petrol cars or hybrid , with cities and the such stopping a lot of certain vehicles entering without major "fines" I think it's back to the friggin horse n cart !

The 1.9 PD with DSG still surprises me how quick it is, especially considering it's pulling a big old car and only has 105HP.

 

Agreed.

 

I had a run over to see family in Bridlington yesterday. Mainly just cruising along at 60mph (the police bikers were out with their speed cameras) but I normally get my foot down coming out of 30 zones and roundabouts. It gets going surprisingly quickly and even on a half throttle without having to red-line the engine it pulls strong.

 

I also sailed effortlessly passed several cars going up Garrowby hill.

 

Phil

The 1.9 really is surprising though. Mine is DSG and goes pretty darn well I must say.

 

Phil

 

 

The 1.9 PD with DSG still surprises me how quick it is, especially considering it's pulling a big old car and only has 105HP.

 

Me too. We should start a PD / DSG supporters club, Lol.

 

I think the DSG allows you to drive the car like a 'white van man's van, (I have been one, myself) Ie foot to the floor every time, but without thrashing it like 'white van men' do their vans.

Due to the fast and smooth change of the gearbox.

 

In other words, so easy to pull off the line, quickly without thrashing it.

 

I had a Saab 9/3 before this and although a lovely car with 120 bhp, arriving at an island in 2nd and hoping to pull away was sometimes quite risky - totally gutless.

A fart changing DSG would have sorted this.

 

Are the non DSG Skoda diesels similar? I read that the pd's are good low down but would they pull in 2nd from tickover rolling speed? And would the CRd's?

Agreed

 

Many people say that DSG doesn't suit a diesel but I think they match really well.

 

They will pull ok but where they differ from the DSG is unless you slip the clutch slightly (as the DSG does) you may either be at risk of the engine bogging down or putting strain on the clutch/DMF.

 

Phil

Its a 2nd car and I am looking at the 140 or 170 bhp version. Its only going to do about 30 miles a week, everyone says petrol but I like the torque of a diesel and the diesel is cheaper on tax.

Mine has the 6-Speed manual and is happy to pull from tickover in 2nd, no issues / No vibrations.

Its a 2nd car and I am looking at the 140 or 170 bhp version. Its only going to do about 30 miles a week, everyone says petrol but I like the torque of a diesel and the diesel is cheaper on tax.

 

On that note for me, Steve, it would definitely be a petrol engine. Just something with a good sized turbo.

 

Reasonable fuel economy, especially at 1.5k miles p.a. and similar torque. (at least my A4 2.0T has and does).

 

Quiet and refined and you can be lazy with the gear changes if you want, because of the torque.

 

And the uncertainty of what is going to happen, tax wise, Re 'dirty diesels', Lol.

 

Each to their own though!  .

Mine has the 6-Speed manual and is happy to pull from tickover in 2nd, no issues / No vibrations.

 

Is that the higher bhp bud?

 

I wonder if your six speed has similar ratio's to the DSG's six? I'm assuming the 5 speed has slightly higher ratio gearing?

 

I'm sure my Saab was 6 speed, but as I say, gutless low down. GM engine iirc?

I know what your saying but I dont want a 260 quid road tax bill. The golf is £140 and I know I will not see £120 in savings in the difference in fuel price as it really will not getting used very much.

I know what your saying but I dont want a 260 quid road tax bill.

 

Yes, it is a bit of a bummer that bit Steve. I'm sure it is only just in the higher band as well, by just a few points (or whatever it is).

 

There is a lot of chat about diesel taxes rising though, could be a significant rise especially if you go no dpf. It will be road tax, too.

 

Possibly a 1.6T / 1.8T maybe? No?

 

Just a thought.

Edited 8 June, 201511 yr by Tilt