1.6 or 2 litre diesel ?

[terrytowelling]

I'm just thinking about selling  my mk2 and buying a mk3, I notice they do a 1.6 and 2 litre diesel. has anyone got the 1.6? Seems to be a small engine for a big car, has it got any go and is it better on fuel than the 2 litre on motorway work?

[JackySi]

Didn't drive 1.6 but I can say 150hp 2.0L has plenty of power had it for 2 days. So I would guess 1.6 isn't really "bad". Just some what slower than 2.0 TDI ^^.  Tech specs are as follow (non-combi):
1.6 TDI 88kw:
- 0-100km/h = 11sec
- Power: 200nm at 1600-3250rpm
- Consumption (combined/urban/extra urban): 3.9 / 4.5 / 3.5

2.0 TDI 110kw:
- 0-100km/h = 8.8sec
- Power: 340nm at 1750-3000rpm
- Consumption (combined/urban/extra urban): 4.2 / 4.9 / 3.8

For my preferences and type of driving even 150hp isn't enough. So it really depends on how you drive, how much you overtake on extra-urban roads and what is your goal at consumption. I like power so I'd never go bellow 200hp again ^^. My next car is defo electric or powerful hybrid with 200+hp ^^.

Edited 20 January, 2018 by JackySi

[terrytowelling]

The torque figure is a lot less, that's what you'd notice I suspect in normal use. Maybe I'll arrange a test drive

[skidpan]

Not driven the 1.6 in a Superb but have driven it in a Seat. It was truly carp, monumentally carp. Would not accelerate up an on slip, struggled to accelerate past a bike safely.

 

Have driven a 150 PS in an Octavia and it was much better but I was still a little disappointed. Compared to our previous 143 PS BMW and even a 130 PS Mondeo it felt slow. Even compared to a 1.6 CRDi Kia Ceed (with 115 PS) it was no rocket ship.

 

I have no idea what they have done to diesels in recent times. We have had 6 in total between 1996 and 2015 and we loved them. The first was a Golf TDi 90 PS and even that would have given the 150 PS Octavia a run for its money, it would have left the 1.6 Seat in its smoke.

 

Unless you are doing a million miles a year try a 1.4 TSi 150 PS, its way better (and cheaper) and does not use much extra fuel.

[xman]

33 minutes ago, skidpan said:

 

 The first was a Golf TDi 90 PS and even that would have given the 150 PS Octavia a run for its money, it would have left the 1.6 Seat in its smoke.

 

Unless you are doing a million miles a year try a 1.4 TSi 150 PS, its way better (and cheaper) and does not use much extra fuel.

 

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration there. A 1998 Golf se 1.9tdi 90ps 0-60 in 12.0 secs, top speed 112mph. Octavia 2.0tdi 150ps 0-60 8.1secs, top speed 135mph.

 

Yeah Skid, they felt fast in their day, but the world's moved on and people's expectations have too. Today's ordinary mid range cars often have the performance of highly tuned sports cars of the 1980's. Because they ride and handle so much better, we don't perceive them as fast.

 

I recommend the OP arrange a 3 day test drive and see what he thinks, not everyone drives everywhere like a bat of hell. As for costs and economics, a very careful non biased analysis is required. All mpg figures are overstated, and there are other costs to consider, servicing, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance including tyres, which can vary wildly in price. Of course don't forget driving profile and whether a modern diesel is a suitable choice.

 

One last comment, the mk3 is around 100kg lighter than the mk2.

Edited 20 January, 2018 by xman

[skidpan]

2 minutes ago, xman said:

 

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration there. A 1998 Golf 1.9tdi 90ps 0-60 in 12.0 secs, top speed 98mph. Octavia 2.0tdi 150ps 0-60 8.1secs, top speed 135mph.

 

Yeah Skid, they felt fast in their day, but the world's moved on and people's expectations have too. Today's ordinary mid range cars often have the performance of highly tuned sports cars of the 1980's. Because they ride and handle so much better, we don't perceive them as fast.

 

Ours was a 1996 Mk3. Compared to a 1998 Mk 4 it weighed as much as a paper bag. Its performance figures were much better than those you quote and although peoples expectaions have moved on a fact is a fact and on local roads I know well the Octavia was not as quick as its 150 PS would suggest.

 

My 1.4 TSi 140 PS Leon is without a doubt the fastest car I have owned. It would leave any of the diesels I have owned or driven far behind.

[xman]

According to Parkers the mk3 was heavier 1274 vs 1234 kg and slower 12.4 secs / 111mph.

 

I had a 1994 mk3 1.4 80ps from new. It was a very heavy car and a complete slug. It rusted door bottoms and tailgate terribly from 7 years onwards. I don't have fond memories of it.....

[skidpan]

8 minutes ago, xman said:

I had a 1994 mk3 1.4 80ps from new. It was a very heavy car and a complete slug. It rusted door bottoms and tailgate terribly from 7 years onwards. I don't have fond memories of it.....

 

We ran the 1.9 TDi 90 alongside a Mk 2 Gti 8V for about a year. The Mk 2 was much lighter (970kg) and had 112 bhp thus had a much better power to wight ratio. From the first test drive the TDi felt amazing even compared to the GTi. Compared to all the other diesels I had driven before, (which were hire cars and as we all know are the quickest cars on the planet) it was way better. Whilst the GTi was a superb car driving the TDi made it feel quite inadequate at times.

 

The 1.4 VW petrol was no ball of fire in any car, even a Polo. Dad had a 1.6 petrol Mk2 Golf with 75 bhp and that had all the acceleration of a tectonic plate.

[terrytowelling]

What's "Carp" mean ?

[xman]

Its a mispelled insult to avoid the swear filter.

Edited 20 January, 2018 by xman

[terrytowelling]

I thought it was some new technical expression! What a dope 

[Nermaloids]

@terrytowelling I’m about to move from a 1.6 diesel manual MK3 hatch to a 2.0 diesel DSG MK3 Estate, one reason being the lack of punch in the 1.6.

 

I have had to change my driving behaviour to keep the 1.6 in the power band, particularly on A and B roads. The engine is fine if you cruise at 70 to 80 for long periods, however you’ll find youself changing down more frequently than expected to find the power band, which can seem a little odd at times! Put three other people and their gubbins in the car and the performance fades perceptibly. 

 

The 2.0 150ps is a much better power unit for a car of this size, particularly when loaded up with gubbins. MPG is similar to 1.6 too.

 

Nermaloids

[Goblin]

I've never tried the 1.6D in a Superb, though I've tried one of similar power in a car of similar size and weight (2016 Toyota Avensis Tourer), and found that it just wasn't enough power, so I didn't even entertain it with the Superb. I really like the 150 2.0 in mine though. It's not the fastest thing in the world, but it's quick enough and most of my driving is all around the country on long journeys.

 

Economy wise, I've just got in from two days of just over 400 miles, with two of us in the car and the boot (with seats down) absolutely full of heavy equipment (I'm a touring musician), and it returned 61mpg doing around 70 - 75 most of the way, plus a few average 50s. I tried the same with the Avensis last year and was lucky to get 40mpg with the same driving style.

[100andthirty]

The 2.0, as others have said, has much more torque than the 1.6. Skoda use this advantage to change the gearing so to driver the car at lower rpm. Therefore even this engine might need a gear change to deliver best performance. It will cruise at around 1400rpm but won't really give that 'shove up the backside'u till 1800-2000rpm. If you want the best of all worlds the 2.0 linked to the 6 speed or new 7 speed wet  clutch DSG auto box is ideal. 

[Lee_M]

I had a 2015 1.6 passat before moving to the 2.0 superb.   The 1.6 is actually fine for most things and to be honest due to the poor throttle response in the superb, unless you really press on there isn't a huge difference.

 

However in my case the 1.6 had a horrible rattle at 2000 rpm and when in 6th on the motorway I found myself needing to downshift to overtake a lot of the time.  Which is why i chose to move to the 2.0 in the superb.

 

In terms of motorway mpg (driving like miss daisy!) I did manage to regularly do over 70mpg in the 1.6 and on the same journey in the 2.0 superb can also do over 70mpg occasionally, although more often its high 60's.  This is a 120 mile round trip to work every day, covering mostly motorway miles, so a reasonable comparison.

 

I guess its going to depend how you like to drive the car.  I use mine for mostly commuting to work, so drive at very low rpm at steady speeds on the motorway to maximise mpg.  Driving like this I don't notice the difference all that much (other than not needing to downshift out of 6th as much).

[Goblin]

Oh yeah, forgot to add that I'm also running winter tyres too, so that'd sap a bit more fuel. Looking forwards to see how it goes with summers on! 

[IJWS15]

Have not driven the current 1.6d in a Superb but did drive the 105bhp 1.6d (earlier version of this engine) in a Passat before I opted for a 2.0d in 2012.  I can't see them being a lot different.

 

The 105bhp  1.6d on the face of it should have been better than the old 1.9d 105bhp but it was nowhere near as good.  I was struggling to get 50 mpg out of the 1.6 Passat demonstrator I had for 5 days but was getting mid/high 60s out of the 1.9d 105bhp in the '08 Octavia (over 90k miles) and around 60 mpg in the 2.0 Passat I did go for (over 70k miles - best was Solihull to Stafford - 84mpg, managed motorways at steady 50mph).  You have to rev the 1.6 to get it to do anything, especially when you have more than the driver in the car.  With a diesel you get the best returns by using torque not revs - the 1.6 has no torque to speak of.

 

My last car was a 2015 2.0D 150 Octavia - was great, no shortage of power and felt as quick as the figures suggest.  The current Superb has the same engine.

 

I would not touch a 1.6d Superb, nowhere near enough torque.   I might try driving the 1.5T when it comes along . . . . . . daughter has just got an A3 with one.  But I need to be driving less miles for it to be worthwhile.