Whilst looking at road test reviews for the Octavia Mk2, the usual comment about the 140 PD is that the power delivery is sudden.

Does this mean that the turbo is fixed geometry like my Mk 1 Tdi 90 which only starts pulling from 1750 rpm, or is it variable geometry like the 105 PD, which I found to be very flexible on a test-drive.

The issue for me is sufficient power and torque to drive up hills and mountains at a reasonable speed and to not have to use 2nd gear all the time.

Yes , but most of those reviews seem to have been written by idiots who can't drive.

There is no problem with power delivery at all if you drive correctly.

If you use the throttle as an on/off switch then it will drive as most diesels do and give you a big shove in the back.

The PD140 is a lot more like an N/A engine than a Turbo engine in it's delivery, however as Dr Z says if you use the throttle as an on off switch you will get one hell of a shove. The PD 170 gives tonnes of shove like an old school TD.

If you are towing I would say the PD140 is safer as it's delivery is much more predictable.

This is coming from somebody who has driven a 1.9, 2.0 PD140 and 2.0 PD170 pretty extensively

I thought the PD140 would be better for hill climbing as it has a higher torque figure!

I agree the 140 is a smoother delivery than the 170 and has all the power you need, its ******** that the delivery is sudden.

Ive got a 140 PD and I have just had a 105 as a courtesy car for a few days while some work was done on mine.

I was quite surprised at how well the the 105 went but over my normal 500 mile route, mixed motorway, normal roads all in the hills in the North I got about 10% less fuel consumption in the 105.

If you are doing big mileages this is well worth considering.

The other thing I noticed is how noisy the 105 was compared with the 140. Quite wearing on a long trip.

I dont think that the power delivery is sudden on the 140 but the difference up hills and for overtaking is well worth having I reckon.

Not tried a 170 yet so cant compare that at all.

Brian

I was quite surprised at how well the the 105 went but over my normal 500 mile route, mixed motorway, normal roads all in the hills in the North I got about 10% less fuel consumption in the 105.

If you are doing big mileages this is well worth considering.

Brian

Just to clarify. Do you mean the 105 used more or less fuel than the 140?

I bought a 140 PD about two weeks ago and coming from a lower power petrol car I did find the power delivery more sudden. However after a few days of driving I got used to it and now drive with much more finesse

I can vouch for Briwy. I've had a 105 for about a month, whilst my 140 has been in for extensive repair. The 105 is less economical than the 140, noisier and has to be worked harder to get the benefits from it.

Hmm I have to disagree, I drive both on a regular basis. 105 as pool car and 140 as personal car. And the economy on the 105 is far superior to the 140. However the 140 is alot more fun to drive and worth the loss in fuel comsumption!

Hmm I have to disagree, I drive both on a regular basis. 105 as pool car and 140 as personal car. And the economy on the 105 is far superior to the 140. /QUOTE]

I'm in with the others - the 105s I've had as courtesy cars have all been thirstier than my 140. I think its because to get the same sort of perfromance you have to ring its neck a lot harder. I guess if you drove everywhere gently at a pace that suited the car then the 1.9 might return more mpg, but driving as I want to the 2 litre is better.

My 140 is coupled to the DSG box and I find that power is delivered smoothly until you decide otherwise and then it will shove you back into the seat.

Unless you regularly break speed limits or treat the roads as a race track this engine gives you all you need from a vehicle this size and on those continental roads, long and straight, it is a nice lazy and quiet runner.

I have the 105 and do a mixture of M1, hilly country roads and a little bit in town. My average on the computer over a thousand miles or so tends to be about 58. I have found this equates to 53 actual by measuring manually tank to tank. That said I do drive with a view to economy. Not slowly, just not like a prat.

Wega3k, how many miles per tank do you get out of the 1.9. From full, untill you need to fill up.

I fill my 2.0, about 20 miles after the light comes on and get 550 miles per tank, which is mixture of motorway/local driving. My commute gives me 57MPG average, but I can spend a chunk sat stationary on the M25.

I get somewhere around 620 miles per tank on a well behaved tank, but drive it for a good few miles after the light comes on. I've squeezed a bit more out than that but it gets a bit scary .

I've had about 560 between fill ups so far but I think 600+ is possible if I drop a few more mph on the motorway (Motorway is 80% of my route to work).

I'm in with the others - the 105s I've had as courtesy cars have all been thirstier than my 140. I think its because to get the same sort of perfromance you have to ring its neck a lot harder. I guess if you drove everywhere gently at a pace that suited the car then the 1.9 might return more mpg, but driving as I want to the 2 litre is better.

When I driver the 105 damn hard I manage to get 48mpg, or when I drive it frugally I can get upto 60mpg. However with the 140 i just about manage to get 48mpg!

Could be the fact that my 140 has done 2kmile and the 105 has done 35kmiles. Might need my engine to loosen up a bit before it gives me some decent MPG.

Hi Nick

I've test driven the PD 140 on 3 occasions (including an estate on a weekend test) and found the power delivery to very smooth, yet at the same time the engine eager and responsive (a bit more so than the BMW 320D I currently drive). I can't comment on the 105 BHP model as I've never driven one but the BMW has shown me the benefits of having a really torquey diesel - overtaking in particular can be done a lot more safely - and being a BMW driver I do plenty of overtaking! I think the best advice is to drive both and compare how they drive.

Thanks for the replies so far. It sounds as if the 140 would be a better bet for the Yorkshire Dales and Moors but just what I need in Switzerland on the annual holiday (not for breaking speed limits - 80 kph on ordinary single carriageway) getting up those mountain roads starting at 1500m above sea level - it saps the power. A lot of the Swiss have a Octavia 140s, often 4X4s to boot.