I'm looking at a couple of Octavias this weekend, both a similar age being 2007 cars, one is a 1.9 105PS tdi, the other is a 2.0 140PS tdi.

 

Neither the extra performance nor the extra economy will make a lot of difference as all things being equal I'll buy the better car, my question is, is one more reliable or has less issues than the other?

They are both reliable if serviced correctly.

 

The 1.9 is better on fuel by a small amount (57mpg vs 51mpg). It's also a lower tax bracket so cheaper to tax.

 

The 2.0 is obviously faster but whether the extra fuel consumption and tax is worth it? The 1.9 is still a strong engine and will pull the Octavia along effortlessly. It will nudge 120mph flat out and do a 13 minute (wet) lap of the Nurburgring

 

There have been reports of certain 1.9 (BXE engine code) causing problems with chucking a conrod out the block. Mainly seems to effect 2008 ish cars. But this isn't a given and there seems to be many 1.9 BXEs driving around with 100k+ miles on with no problems.

Both engines are good, 1.9 better Mpg , 2.0 nice to drive due to extra power. if you are not bothered either way buy on condition and spec and make sure it has full service history as they can be easily clocked. turbos and dmf are expensive items so make sure these are fine.

The 1.9 will be 5 speed, the 2.0 has a 6 speed box.

 

The 1.9 is ultimately the more reliable engine. It is very well respected even outside of the VAG family.

 

I still wouldn't hesitate buying the 2.0 litre though if it was bolted to the better car.

Thanks Guys.

 

The MOT history shows the 2.0 one to be an 8v which I guess could mean a DPF. It's done 83k with 6 service stamps  which sounds about right but I'm concerned about the DPF, should I be?

 

Unfortunately the 1.9 has a short MOT so I'll need to go over that carefully.

I wouldn't rely on what MOT protocol nor v5c says in terms of valves. I've got 2.0 BKD which is 16V and in both documents is stated 8V. The only Octavia with 8V and dpf was Scout and 16V with dpf in VRS.

Just get the engine code and post it here.

 

Btw you can try to check MOT history on here

https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history-vehicle

Only the vrs tdi and scout/4x4 tdi have a dpf .

Change of details recoded on MOT history....

 

SKODA / OCTAVIA ELEGANCE TDI PD8V recorded at time of test on 28/01/2014

 

I guess this could be an error. I'll check with a friend who works at the local TPS tomorrow. Visually is it easy to tell whether the engine is 8v or 16v?

Change of details recoded on MOT history....

 

SKODA / OCTAVIA ELEGANCE TDI PD8V recorded at time of test on 28/01/2014

 

I guess this could be an error. I'll check with a friend who works at the local TPS tomorrow. Visually is it easy to tell whether the engine is 8v or 16v?

If you are worried about a dpf look for a 7GG code on the options sticker in the service book or under the boot carpet. 7GG = dpf fitted. But as said above only the vrs Scout and 4x4 2.0 of have dpfs

There's been some discussion re: Scout DPFs in another thread and the word there is that they're reliable. I hope that's the case as I have one, and am scarred from DPF nightmares with a Mazda 3. 

140k in scout with DPF and no problems so far

I went for the 1.9, the 2.0 turbo is made of chocolate.

Averaging 56-58mpg on a tank. Boring but it's been brilliant so far (now on 80+k).

I went for the 1.9, the 2.0 turbo is made of chocolate.

Averaging 56-58mpg on a tank. Boring but it's been brilliant so far (now on 80+k).

 

For that age 1.9 more reliable and not prone to turbo failure (don't drive too gently), easier on the clutch/DMF (and if this does fail suits cheap SMF conversion) and has better injectors. Likewise the 5 speed gearbox is better at this age. 200k+ miles possibe if the correct servicing has been done using the correct spec oil. The PD injectors are powered by the cam shaft and need a special anti foaming oil

 

Drive them both though..

 

The 1.9 is far far better than the 1.6 that replaced it eventually - especially considering its chocolate EGR that is a common failure that is a pig to replace (unlike the 1.9) involving removal of exhaust, DPF, catalyst, driveshaft.......... As the 1.6 CR gets old this alone could write them off!!

 

Until recently I had this engine in a 2013 Skoda Superb I pd 100 (owned since 18months old/20k) - still going strong at about 170k, original clutch, original battery, original exhaust! The only failure was an alternator at about 120k and a rubbed through vacuum pipe ( put EML on, EGR fault shown - replaced a small bit of pipe and all OK). In the big Superb it always did about 50mpg. Now sold to a friend from work.

 

I've jumped back to petrol now - thats another tale.....

Edited 4 September, 201510 yr by bigjohn

I had a look yesterday and decided to give both a wide berth. The hunt goes on.