I was just wondering if the 2.0 TDi is worth the extra

Re-sale value would be higher also. I would go for the 2.0 TDI.

I Went for the 2.0TDi over the 1.9. Has several things over the 1.9, nearly 30 more HP, better torque and a six speed gearbox.

I think the 2.0 is massively better than the 1.9 and you also get a 6 speed box rather than 5. At the end of the day however I would say take both for a drive and see what you think as only you can decide if it is worth the extra.

It's certainly got much more torque and the six speed box is a dream. You run out of gears quicker as a result though.

The 2.0 is thirstier so if you're doing lots of miles, the 1.9 may be more appropriate.

I tried both and have bought the 1.9. Sure the 2.0 is more energetic, but for everyday use the 1.9 has plenty of urge and better fuel economy - at least I hope it has when it has loosened up - only 175 miles so far.

It is entirely a matter of personal choice, I did feel as have others, that the power in the 2.0 comes in rather abruptly, but I am sure that once you are used to the car it would not be a factor.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm not due to change until next year so I will wait until the Scout is out and have a test drive in that. If I'm, not sure about it then I might have a test in the 1.9 just to see the difference.

Just picked up my new(ish) 1.9 yesterday, and it's got plenty of go so far. My plan was to get the cheaper one, then if I get bored with it being a bit slow, get the chip re-mapped. That will get it to the speed of the 2.0 but loads cheaper.

That's the plan anyway...

I decided to pay the bit extra when I ordered mine. I drive the 1.9 at work, and its a very able car, nice and smooth. But I know I enjoy a car with a bit more poke, and didn't really want to remap the car just yet. So if I do remap it, it will be even faster )

So if you not to bothered about having that extra go...stick with the 1.9

Tried both and went for the 2.0, it just seems a bit more relaxed for cruising, slightly higher residuals too.

When do the cambelts need to be changed on these engines? Just out of interest.

2.0 if you're in love with the road. In hurry, it will take you there quickly. On your day off, you take it easy and it saves fuel. So, it can ride for everybody's taste.

My wife has the 1.9 4x4 and its good. BUT for the type of driving we do (towing, alot of motorway miles etc) the 2.0 is better. At least I hope it is as I've ordered 2 2.0 TDI 4x4's (!) - one to replace her year old 1.9 Octavia 4x4, and the other to replace my Alfa GT. They are due in about another 2 weeks.

I did drive them back to back, and could immediately tell the difference when driving on an open road. Around town, I also think the 2.0 TDI sounded a bit quieter, even at idle - but that could just be me wanting to justify changing 2 cars that were only a year old.

The remaps / external CPU boxes for the 1.9 do a good job (so I've heard.... ) but I wanted the ability to go a bit further if I wanted to.

Neil.

I Went for the 2.0TDi over the 1.9. Has several things over the 1.9, nearly 30 more HP, better torque and a six speed gearbox.

My MY2007 4x4 1.9 has a six speed box :confused:

The two wheel drive versions only have a five speed

Drove both, have to say the 2.0tdi was the only real choice

The extra power makes it better for towing the Caravan

My MY2007 4x4 1.9 has a six speed box :confused:

1.9 4x4's have the 6 gears but the ratios are lower than those on the 2.0 - this is to provide better low speed pulling but retaining the economy.

The DSG in the 1.9 also has 6 ratios but otherwise the 1.9's are all 5 speed

2.0 over a 1.9 I drove both on my test drive and there wasn't really a choice, 2.0 all the way more refined, plus it's a lot newer designed engine, more power etc.

Don't regret my decision, if I'd of gone for the 1.9 it would always of been at the back of my mind about the 2.0.

On a separate note surprised Skoda haven't produced a 2.2L as most of the manufacturers are doing at present, especially for all the Company Car buyers who can claim around 40% more in mileage for a Car over 2.0

On a separate note surprised Skoda haven't produced a 2.2L as most of the manufacturers are doing at present, especially for all the Company Car buyers who can claim around 40% more in mileage for a Car over 2.0

Indeed - not getting a 2.2 means I'll have to drive the 2.0 very carefully to cover my costs (whereas most modern 2.2 litre cars can be driven more agressively and still cover their costs).

I have covered nearly 23k in just under a year with a 1.9 4x4 and the few complaints I have with it are -1st gears a pain, far too low and fuel economy ain't that great, only get around 41mpg. However my car does seem a lot quicker than my dealers 1.9 4x4 demo that I have driven a couple of times and 2.0TDI Audi's and the like don't seem to pull away from me as well as I thought they might on the road. I only wish Skoda could sort out the bad vibration problem I have at low rev's in 3rd and sometimes 4th as I am tempted with a Scout but don't want to be stuck with another fault on an even more expensive car that the manufacturer hasn't go a clue how to fix.

Tried the 1.9 TDi, which was quite aceptable, but eventually went for the 2.0 with DSG - it's more powerful and smoother in normal driving (a more modern 16 valve engine) and does 41 mpg.

BUT - you have to drive it cautiously. When you put your foot down halfway for a bit of medium push at a roundabout it decides you are a boy racer who needs a lower gear, changes right down into the middle of the turbo boost area and - as Jeremy Clarkson would say - wah-hay! Several moments of front-wheel scrabble ensue, which can be embarrassing.

The DSG is supposed to be a learning gearbox. So why can't it realise that I want a smooth surge of power on mid throttle rather than a manic burst of energy? Happy when I want full chat when overtaking, but there must be a middle ground....

My 2.0 is approaching 20k and is freeing up very nicely, goes like stink even with a fully laden boot o' tools.

It's only drunk 2 litres of oil thus far

2.0 for me too. Previously had an Octy 1 vRS though, so I guess I wanted a decent number of horses.

After the 25mpg of the vRS, the mid 40's I get with the Tdi seems good, although I guess for best economy the 1.9 is the way to go.

Would also agree with bosnjo's comments about how versatile the 2.0 is - its like it has a split personailty.

And I know its been pointed out that the 1.9 is tuneable, but so is the 2.0

I will buy the 1.9 with DSG. I used to have a Passat TDI 1.9 110HP and found it to have just about the right power for my needs. I tried the Skoda 105HP DSG last week, and found it quick enough for me. Of course I would have liked the extra power of the 2.0, but for me it's not worth the extra cost (which is quite high in Norway)

Hi, 1.9 TDi is nice and agile but I opted for 2.0 TDi and I'm sure i've made a right choise (for my type of driving).

As someone said before on this forum "It's completely different kind of beast alltogerther!".

It's very strong, excellent acceleration, especially in mid-range (40-120km), 6th gear does make a trick (spends just 4l if you're driving 100km/h) very relaxed driving on high speeds. Just for testing I've drove it 180 km/h at the engine was just 3,500 rev/min. I cannot imagine the speed at 4,000 rev/min, probably 220km/h, but the car is limited on 217km/h.

It does worth an extra buck!

I wouldn't recommend chiping it. It decrease its lifetime considerably. If that engine (1.9 TDi) is designed for 135 hp, Skoda would sell it that way, but they sell it with 110 hp for a good reason.

CHEERS!