Please help! I can't decide which to choose. :confused:

I have test driven both engines, but the test drives were over one week apart. I remember thinking the noise of the 1.4 was very obvious when stationary, but apart from that it seemed reasonable when driving locally and on the motorway. The 1.9 was a shorter local test drive. I don't 'remember' the noise particularly. It seemed to pull well up the hills and had more acceleration (than the 1.4) up the hills.

Research seems to suggest it will cost me £50 - 60 more per annum to drive the 1.9 (higher insurance group and slightly poorer fuel consumption). Is the quieter, more powerful engine worth it??

To those of you who drive the 1.4:

Why did you choose the 1.4 rather than the 1.9?

Do you wish you had bought the 1.9 & if so, why?

Do you find the noise of the engine unpleasant?

Does it have sufficient acceleration when overtaking?

To those of you who bought the 1.9;

Why did you choose the 1.9 rather than the 1.4?

Somewhere else on this site there is a thread showing some form of muffling over the cylinders of a TDI engine. http://www.briskoda.net/forums/roomster/show-us-yer-bits/89339/ Does it make any difference to the diesel engine noise? Has anyone else tried it ?

I have driven both these engines in other Skodas and would go for the 1.9.

Less noisy and more flexible.

Also the 1.4 has a nasty amount of lag till the turbo kicks in and doesn't make it especially enjoyable to drive around town.

!.9 every time.

!.9 every time.

Why?

I have had 3 1.9tdi's now the 100, 130, and now the 105bhp version. All have had excellent economy figures and you do not need to thrash them to make rapid progress, think the 1.4 is a too smaller engine for the Roomster.

If tuning comes into it you can extract much more power from the 1.9.

Des

I have been driving the least powerful 1,4 TDI 69hp Roomster for a year now. My choice has been well considered. It seems to me that a Roomster, as a moderate-budget car, makes sense only when equipped with less powerful and therefore less costly engines, for otherwise it looses its advantage compared to, say, Octavia. For the same amount of money you get either a 1,4 TDI Roomster loaded with extras, or 1,6 petrol humbly equipped Octavia.

Thus, a 1,4 diesel Roomster appears a well balanced choice if you seek more or less generous level of equipment, fuel economy, and moderate price. Otherwise, to keep within the budget limits, you would have to opt for a poorer equipped, yet more powerful 1,9 version, or go for a petrol model loaded with all imaginable extras.

Obviously, all of my reasons in favour of 1,4 diesel are based on the single premise of keeping the price low.

Other that that, though, I have to admit that the 3-cylinder engine is harsher than the 4-cylinder one and you can feel vibrations at idling speeds. It is quite noisy too, yet not unacceptably so. Considering the lag - well, it does start pulling enthusiastically only from 1800 upwards, yet it does not object to lower rpm, and if not in haste, you can accelerate from 50 km/h at the 5th gear. Although not a sports car, thanks to reasonable torque the engine is sufficient for urban driving and allows to cruise on the motorway in a relaxed manner. Just do not forget to change to a lower gear when overtaking - the engine is quite lively between 2000 and 3500 rpm, so keep within this interval.

And finally, would I now prefer 1,9 to 1,4? Well, yes - if it were Octavia. As long as I drive the Roomster, I am quite happy with 1,4.

i've just done 1800m in 8 days in an 1.9 including 800m of Autobahn work and the 1.9 has had no problems in keeping up with the flow on the German roads, it will hold a steady 95 ish no problem, it's somthing to consider if relevant.

I have driven a 1.9 TDI Roomster for 2 days and had a Fabia 1.4 TDI for 24 hours.

Clearly the 1.9 will ultimately be quicker, not that the 1.4 is slow in 80bhp guise, and the 1.4 cheaper to buy and run but the factor that has not yet been mentioned is 'Character'. As an enthusiastic driver this is of importance to me.

Yes, the 1.9 is relatively quiet and smooth, but to me it is soulless and anaemic. The 1.4, courtesy of its three cylinder engine, has a wonderful resonance and off-beat burble and hence character.

So IMHO - buy the 1.4 TDI

I prefer the 1.4TDI engine to the 105bhp 1.9TDI.

Go for the 1.9 you'll kick yourself if you buy the 1.4. The 1.9 has more than enough power even when fully loaded going up long steep grades.. It'll leave everything else standing

I have just bought and taken delivery of a new Fabia with a 1,9TDI DPF engine, and I love it! Great engine in the Fabia.

Just to let you know, there are differences in the 1,4TDI engines in both the Roomster and the Fabia. If you buy the 1,4TDI without the DPF, you get an engine equiped with a "wastegate regulated turbo" and if you opt for the engine factory fitted with the DPF you get an engine with a VTG (variable turbine geometry) turbo.. I have driven the 1,4TDI both with and without the VTG turbo, and the difference is VERY noticable!! The engine fitted with the VTG turbo has way more torque lower down, and feels much stronger! I tried to order the "speed triple" version of my car because of the sound and character of a 3 cyl. engine, but went for the 1,9 after lot's of hassle from the guys I work with.. If my co. workers meant nothing to me I would have choosen a 1,4TDI DPF equipped New Fabia.

Best of luck choosing the right engine in your new car!!

Just to let you know, there are differences in the 1,4TDI engines in both the Roomster and the Fabia. If you buy the 1,4TDI without the DPF, you get an engine equiped with a "wastegate regulated turbo" and if you opt for the engine factory fitted with the DPF you get an engine with a VTG (variable turbine geometry) turbo.. I have driven the 1,4TDI both with and without the VTG turbo, and the difference is VERY noticable!! The engine fitted with the VTG turbo has way more torque lower down, and feels much stronger!

Ahhh, that's very interesting. The main thing I didn't like about the 1.4TDI was the turbo lag at low revs, but that was the non VTG 70BHP 1.4 that I drove.

Hmm; 1.4 TDI with DPF and VTG sounds quite tempting.

A good reason to get a DPF.

And what about urban driving of the dpf-equipped car? Have had lots of trouble with my wife's Touareg 2,5 TDI. The filter has to be be cleaned every three days or so.

Many of my customers are automotive based. My understanding from them is that diesel particulate filters (DPF's) should be avoided for vehicles that spend much of their life at low speeds, in traffic, short journeys etc. I was shocked to hear this as I'm sure you'll agree, the whole point of DPF's is to reduce particulates from exhaust emissions and that surely has greater impact/benefit in urban areas than rural but they have insisted that DPF's require consistent speeds over 50mph for much of the vehicles use otherwise expensive remedial work can be the result........ if this is true then I think the designers need shooting! :eek:

edit: Also, not sure on validity of this but I've been told that DPF equipped vehicles suffer slightly lower fuel economy because a small amount of raw fuel is squirted down the exhaust to 'activate' the DPF????

We're seriously considering the purchase of a 1.9 roomster rather than the 1.4 because we occasionally have to carry two adults and two children plus luggage over long distance or to carry 200+kg of cargo around. The 1.9 should actualy return higher economy than the 1.4 in these cases while pretty much matching the 1.4 elsewhere. In my experience (over 1 million miles of driving) larger engines can actually be better on fuel economy than smaller depending on your driving style, load and journey.

edit: Also, not sure on validity of this but I've been told that DPF equipped vehicles suffer slightly lower fuel economy because a small amount of raw fuel is squirted down the exhaust to 'activate' the DPF????

Correct; IF the 'regeneration' is used. Its a bit like the afterburner on a jet!

The extra fuel and higher temperature is used to burn off the excess carbon.

Also the 1.4 has a nasty amount of lag till the turbo kicks in and doesn't make it especially enjoyable to drive around town.

I second that, I test drove the 1.4 and hated the lag when pulling off. It made getting out onto roundabouts difficult. I went for the 1.9 because of the power lag on the 1.4 when pulling off. The 1.9 has no lag and pulls off sweetly.

I don't know why there is that differance between the 1.4 and 1.9 in pulling off but it is very noticable. I suggest you try both and don't just base your answer on a little less power, I would of been happy with the 1.4 but not with the way it pulled off from rest.

I second that, I test drove the 1.4 and hated the lag when pulling off. It made getting out onto roundabouts difficult. I went for the 1.9 because of the power lag on the 1.4 when pulling off. The 1.9 has no lag and pulls off sweetly.

I don't know why there is that differance between the 1.4 and 1.9 in pulling off but it is very noticable. I suggest you try both and don't just base your answer on a little less power, I would of been happy with the 1.4 but not with the way it pulled off from rest.

I suspect that the lag is a feature of trying to use a turbo to extract the most power out of a small engine, which is underpowered when the turbo hasn't spun up, so it's hard for the engine to get the exhaust gasses running fast enough to spin the turbo. I suspect it's significant that Fiat dropped the more powerful version of their small diesel engine in the Punto after the first year, and many many reports of serious turbo-lag.

Stuart