Hi,  I'm thinking of trading in my 1.9 PD tdi, BXE 105 bhp, 2006, for a 2 l tdi, 138 bhp, 2005.  Is the 2 l as good as the amazing 1.9 tdi?

Further to my question, my 1.9 has averaged 51.5 mpg over the last 100,000 miles, driven carefully much of the time, but can be as low as 42, or as high as 63 on a tank full. Is the 2l as frugal?

The 2l is a bit quicker, can be a bit smoother (depends on the tune), and is a bit less frugal (both of my 2l motors (BMM) average around 42 on long runs).

 

I've managed to 'nurse' one of our stable of 1.9s (BXE) to 67mpg on a long 55mph motorway run but mid fifties is more the norm.

 

BTW neither can beat our old 'taxi spec' 1.9tdi mk1 estate which still turns in mid sixties in general running in our son-in-laws hands.

Edited 3 March, 20233 yr by MikeTheThinker

I can only compare the 2.0 TDi CR engine in the Yeti with my BKC 105hp PD engine in the Octavia and with both also pre and post remapping.

 

The 2.0 is a far smoother refined engine, no question about that, the 1.9 was a bit rattly at tickover and a bit growly under load and was much more growly after remapping but in a pleasant way.

 

Both engines were underpowered in 105/108hp tune and responded well to the remapping

 

I think both engines after remapping have similar power and torque curves but the instantaneous acceleration of the 2.0 is initially lacking when you put your foot down to overtake, the 1.9 was pretty much instant, in standard tune overtaking power was lacking in both vehicles but the 2.0 would lull you into a false sense of security, with the extra gear it felt very nippy on medium throttle making you think you had the grunt to overtake but it was not there, this did not happen to me on the 1.9.

 

Fuel economy is probably similar when you take into account the frontal area and 4x4 system of the Yeti.

 

I agree with Mike that nothing since my 1.9 TDi MK1 Octavia has been as good for refinement and economy.

Which 2.0 tdi are you after comparing with? 

 

2.0 8v pd? 

2.0 16v pd? 

2.0 16v cr? 

3 hours ago, BlueTigger said:

Further to my question, my 1.9 has averaged 51.5 mpg over the last 100,000 miles, driven carefully much of the time, but can be as low as 42, or as high as 63 on a tank full. Is the 2l as frugal?

no, comparing 2.0 bkd  long term average 42mpg over last 100k and long motorway trip can achieve 50mpg

Thanks for all the replies, puts me in a bit of a dilemma as mpg is important to me.

7 hours ago, BlueTigger said:

Thanks for all the replies, puts me in a bit of a dilemma as mpg is important to me.

 

Both engines that you are comparing are Pumpe Duse PD, not common rail CR.

 

The main difference is that the 1.9TDI 105PS is 8v SOHC and the 2.0TDI 140PS BKD is 16v DOHC.

 

So the injection systems should be similar, but the 2.0TDI is 16v so should burn the fuel more efficiently and therefore be more economical.

 

However, with an old engine it will probably depend more on how close to new condition the engine is still running

 

Driving style will have the biggest effect on economy out of either engine. I could probably get close to 80mpg in the summer out of either engine on a gentle run, ie. not going above 50mph and keeping well away from the car in front to avoid sudden and/or repetitive braking, etc. I drive so gently and brake so little, that I get over 100,000 miles out of my brake pads...and this helps massively with fuel economy.

 

Edited 16 February, 20233 yr by Carlston

Thanks Carlston for  the info on th difference between the two.  I am already conscious of the massive difference in driving effect, some of the worst is the stop start crawling traffic around Bristol.  The best being empty summer straight roads.

Thanks for the additional replies.  I looked at the 2 l PD, I was interested in, which mechanically seems excellent, but so much else did not work. Will keep looking.  If a 2l PD shows up I would certainly consider it.

Unless you've got a reason to want to get out of your current car, I'd say when they get to this age, there's a big element of "better the devil you know". 

I find the 2.0 16v TDi drives more like a petrol than the 1.9 i.e. its more free revving and doesn't have the low down slug of torque the 1.9 has but it pulls higher into the rev range.

I can manage 58.7mpg measured by filling tank on a 400 mile run to Scotland and back but that is cruising keeping revs around 2,000 and driving like a granny. Rubbish around town though.

 

Thanks again for more replies.  I do wonder if I should spend a lot on mine as the "devil I know".   I think the duel mass flywheel is starting to fail, but can be nursed for several years I'm told. An expensive repair! The cam belt and water pump are due for a change soon. The rear suspension seems clunky despite having had springs and shocks replaced. Bodywork showing its age, with a few dents and scrapes. One rear electric window not working. Otherwise the engine is great with fast pass on emissions at last MOT, due to the regular oil and filter changes I carry out, no doubt.  So in summary, I can keep it with all I know about it, or end up with an unknown and be disappointed like the 2l tdi I went to see that looked great in the dealer advert!  Another one I considered obviously need new rear bushes as the tyres were scrubbing out on the inside edges. One other was sold before I got there.

If anyone around Bristol has a good tdi that they need to change to avoid the 3285 pound annual CAZ charge in Bristol, (9 per day), I would change mine for a good high spec mk2, as a later model will not fit in the garage.

2 hours ago, BlueTigger said:

fast pass on emissions at last MOT, due to the regular oil and filter changes I carry out

 

No correlation whatsoever except imaginary.

Thanks, it must just be a clean engine then!