1.6 FSI v 1.9 PD105
Discussion
Hi all,
After test driving a 1.6FSI Jetta, I was left a little underwhelmed by the engine. I am having a go in a PD105 engined Golf tomorrow. What kind of difference can I expect? I guess a whole extra load of torque when up and running but about the same level of grunt from standstill?
Thanks.
After test driving a 1.6FSI Jetta, I was left a little underwhelmed by the engine. I am having a go in a PD105 engined Golf tomorrow. What kind of difference can I expect? I guess a whole extra load of torque when up and running but about the same level of grunt from standstill?
Thanks.
Similar performance outright but the diesel will feel quicker and more satisfying, the fsi 1.6 needs thrashing to make good progress, the diesel just goes and you think its quick but you then ask for a bit more from it and quickly realise you have had it all already. I would take the diesel every time in this scenario, small, not turbo, non performance petrols are generally tedious devices, at least the diesel has some grunt, even if it is all served up as a starter with no main course.
I have a PD105 in my golf, my wife has the 1.6 in her seat altea, I think the PD is much better engine, more grunt, much better to drive at normal speeds, not much in it when thrashing and gets much better fuel consumpsion (obviously).
Definitely wouldn't go for the 1.6 over the diesel unless I did a lot less mileage.
Definitely wouldn't go for the 1.6 over the diesel unless I did a lot less mileage.
Going back in time a little further to the Mk4 Golf, my family owned a high mileage 1.6 8v petrol as well as a 100HP PD 1.9 that was remapped. The petrol performed well (but note that the 1.6 Golfs went downhill from here getting slower and slower, I know because we had a later 1.6 16v Bora that was terrible) and it was a lot of fun to drive, notwithstanding the bouncy suspension. It did 38 MPG average over all sorts of mixed driving. In addition the engine was extremely smooth and quiet, more like an S-class than a Golf, even pulling smoothly from 800rpm. A really good engine in this respect. For my driving - in town and short journeys, it really suited me.
The remapped diesel was very different. It gave big shoves of acceleration at low speeds when you asked for it. And it did over 50MPG. Apart from that though, and some presumed reliability, it was pretty unloveable. The noise interrupted the otherwise serene interior. It obviously cost more to fuel it, and when you got on the motorway suddenly all of that acceleration, which was so readily available around town, had disappeared, and you had what now felt like a pretty slow car. In addition any balance to the handling was lost and the character of the car changed, in my opinion, for the worse.
But despite the negatives, the appeal of the turbo torque and decent fuel economy is a very alluring one. I don't think you can go wildly wrong either way. I am guessing the diesel will appeal on your imminent test drive.
The remapped diesel was very different. It gave big shoves of acceleration at low speeds when you asked for it. And it did over 50MPG. Apart from that though, and some presumed reliability, it was pretty unloveable. The noise interrupted the otherwise serene interior. It obviously cost more to fuel it, and when you got on the motorway suddenly all of that acceleration, which was so readily available around town, had disappeared, and you had what now felt like a pretty slow car. In addition any balance to the handling was lost and the character of the car changed, in my opinion, for the worse.
But despite the negatives, the appeal of the turbo torque and decent fuel economy is a very alluring one. I don't think you can go wildly wrong either way. I am guessing the diesel will appeal on your imminent test drive.
Pentoman said:
Going back in time a little further to the Mk4 Golf, my family owned a high mileage 1.6 8v petrol as well as a 100HP PD 1.9 that was remapped. The petrol performed well (but note that the 1.6 Golfs went downhill from here getting slower and slower, I know because we had a later 1.6 16v Bora that was terrible) and it was a lot of fun to drive, notwithstanding the bouncy suspension. It did 38 MPG average over all sorts of mixed driving. In addition the engine was extremely smooth and quiet, more like an S-class than a Golf, even pulling smoothly from 800rpm. A really good engine in this respect. For my driving - in town and short journeys, it really suited me.
The remapped diesel was very different. It gave big shoves of acceleration at low speeds when you asked for it. And it did over 50MPG. Apart from that though, and some presumed reliability, it was pretty unloveable. The noise interrupted the otherwise serene interior. It obviously cost more to fuel it, and when you got on the motorway suddenly all of that acceleration, which was so readily available around town, had disappeared, and you had what now felt like a pretty slow car. In addition any balance to the handling was lost and the character of the car changed, in my opinion, for the worse.
But despite the negatives, the appeal of the turbo torque and decent fuel economy is a very alluring one. I don't think you can go wildly wrong either way. I am guessing the diesel will appeal on your imminent test drive.
That's it Mr Pento. I just want a little bit of shove when knocking round in the lower gears. I am a steady motorway driver anyway so no big deal there. The remapped diesel was very different. It gave big shoves of acceleration at low speeds when you asked for it. And it did over 50MPG. Apart from that though, and some presumed reliability, it was pretty unloveable. The noise interrupted the otherwise serene interior. It obviously cost more to fuel it, and when you got on the motorway suddenly all of that acceleration, which was so readily available around town, had disappeared, and you had what now felt like a pretty slow car. In addition any balance to the handling was lost and the character of the car changed, in my opinion, for the worse.
But despite the negatives, the appeal of the turbo torque and decent fuel economy is a very alluring one. I don't think you can go wildly wrong either way. I am guessing the diesel will appeal on your imminent test drive.
Jimboka said:
105pd should see 50mpg average in real life driving. It is only 5 gears I believe?, they always seem a gear short to me..
I had two over 5 years and 45-47mpg is more like it. I thought they were quite nice engines. Bit clattery at idle compared with the current 1.6s from Ford and VAG. I drove about 80k in two cars and neither ever had a engine fault in that time
Very comfortable over distance too
PD would be my choice. Awfully agricultural sounding but I think it's got a decent character. Nothing nothing nothing ... Woosh!!! Nothing.
They aren't quick, but they do feel like they have a meaningful turn of speed. Good reliable engine the 1.9 as well.
And, I had a PD 130 in my skoda superb. 5 speed gearbox, crushing 70mph that car would do a proper real 50mpg so vey good on fuel.
They aren't quick, but they do feel like they have a meaningful turn of speed. Good reliable engine the 1.9 as well.
And, I had a PD 130 in my skoda superb. 5 speed gearbox, crushing 70mph that car would do a proper real 50mpg so vey good on fuel.
I have a pd100, it's agricultural (as said) but I like it. It has some shove around town and some poke on the motorway, I get 50MPG without trying, 55-60MPG if heading up to Norfolk on the flats (including A-road overtakes).
Revving past 3500rpm is pointless, not a particularly exciting drive.
My only(!) issue(s) have been a faulty MAF sensor (fuel economy dropped to 38MPG and it felt sluggish), failed brake light sensor resulting in no lights, threaded caliper bolts on last pad change results in new caliper and bearings as the housing was corroded and had to be cut off, leaking rear shock, corroded rear spring and the cam cover not being put back on properly after my recent cambelt/waterpump etc change causing vibration on pulling away.
Always starts though
122k, 40k mine.
Revving past 3500rpm is pointless, not a particularly exciting drive.
My only(!) issue(s) have been a faulty MAF sensor (fuel economy dropped to 38MPG and it felt sluggish), failed brake light sensor resulting in no lights, threaded caliper bolts on last pad change results in new caliper and bearings as the housing was corroded and had to be cut off, leaking rear shock, corroded rear spring and the cam cover not being put back on properly after my recent cambelt/waterpump etc change causing vibration on pulling away.
Always starts though
122k, 40k mine.
Edited by masteryoda on Sunday 1st January 19:15
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff