Looking to upgrade from my 2003 1.9 130 bhp to a mk2 1.9 or 2.0

[ncc62]

looking at changing my mk1 2003  1.9 tdi 130 elegance .

do i go for 1.9 105 bhp or 2.0 170 cr . 2009-2010

pro,s and cons for both .

love my superb won't change for any other car now 

 

[Gizmo]

I went from a MKI PD130 to a MKII 170CR and still ‘needed’ to remap it as it the low down torque was lacking something... after the Shark remap however it was a pleasure to drive.

 

I have also driven a 1.9 PD105 (Greenline) in a MKII Superb and whilst it was adequate it was certainly not effortless.

 

The PD is also more economical, whereas the 170CR will be very slightly thirstier than your current car.

[Superb170]

I've just spent the last week driving a 1.9 105bhp Passat and I've had the 105 engine in an Octavia previously and also driven some earlier Superbs with that engine. The 105 will be an older pump injection engine, noisier, and less fuel efficient. The difference when I sat back into my 170cr yesterday was worlds apart. The 170 will actually be better on fuel as the unit is newer and you don't have to push it as hard. If you could stretch to a slightly later year you could get a 1.6 tdi - same 105bhp but a much quieter, smoother and more fuel efficient engine. That may be an option also?

At that age there can be issues down to wear and tear but you will get that with any engine. I've never had any major mechanical issues with the two 170s I've owned. You won't get the same kick at low revs from the 170 but the power delivery will be much more progressive. I would try and go for the 170 though if the right one was available of course. The difference in torque is very noticeable - 250nm in the 105bhp and 350nm in the 170bhp.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Superb170]

The PD is also more economical, whereas the 170CR will be very slightly thirstier than your current car.

That's interesting about your experience of fuel economy! Even my old Octavia (with a smaller body again) was heavier on diesel than the 170. Any 105s I've driven have always been thirstier, only slightly but still it all adds up

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hoverurb]

That's interesting about your experience of fuel economy! Even my old Octavia (with a smaller body again) was heavier on diesel than the 170. Any 105s I've driven have always been thirstier, only slightly but still it all adds up

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also went from a 2005 MK 1.9 130 Elegance to a 2010 MK 2  2.0 170 Elegance, and the 170 is approx 10% lighter on fuel than the 130. I had the 130 for 160,000km and have the 170 for 60,000km so far. I'm doing the same type of driving with both.  The 170 is far smoother than the 130, more linear, no kick like the 130 when the turbo came on song.

[Nos]

I've upgraded mine 2005 PD1.9 130 Elegance to 2014 1.6 GL.

As others mentioned the new engines are more linear. Sometimes I do miss that kick at 1800Rpm what I do not miss is the sound of PD engine.
Love economy of the new car though.
Although PD1.9 is a good and reliable engine I think it would make sense to move on to CR2.0 140 and 170 or maybe 1.6.

[MarkTB]

I upgraded from a 2004 130TDi to a 2010 2.0TDi CR 140bhp. May be worth a consideration if you're debating between the 105PD and 170CR. The 140CR came out late 2010.

 

Like the others have mentioned, i miss the 'umph' that the 130PD had, but this is smoother right through the revs - the easiest way to describe it is the 130PD is more aggresive and the 2.0CR is more conservative!   To be honest, i can't say i noticed much difference overall from the 130PD to the 140CR in terms of power and performance though.