The 'best' diesel engine in a large estate in the mid 00's?

[MC Bodge]

I know that manufacturers are currently involved in an arms race to squeeze more and more bhp out of their TDs, but of the previous generation, which were the best?

Looking to buy a used family estate car, what was the best (flexible, smooth, economical) and most reliable (least likely to go bang with expensive consequences, even if re-mapped) diesel engine around 2006?

Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 22 September 20:09

[confused_buyer]

Overall, for my money the Volvo D5 lump but the pre-2005 Eu3 version, not the later Eu4. Intercoolers sometimes go, and the very early ones had the odd injector problem but on the whole a very good engine which can do very serious miles on original turbos/injectors etc.

Apart from that maybe the VAG 1.9 PD lump - has the odd issue but a well known reliable and economical engine in 130ps format.

[chrisispringles]

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

[cptsideways]

Any of the 1.9 PD engines below the 150bhp models are good bets.

[pilchardthecat]

chrisispringles said:

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

This.

The VAG pd engines are everything that is wrong and evil about diesel engines. Tiny narrow power band, rough, noisy, and no more economical than lots of other engines that are all better in many ways.

[AreseV6]

pilchardthecat said:

chrisispringles said:

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

This.

The VAG pd engines are everything that is wrong and evil about diesel engines. Tiny narrow power band, rough, noisy, and no more economical than lots of other engines that are all better in many ways.

I have a v70 D5 and the mrs has a golf 1.9 tdi I dread having to use her car for anything the difference is night and day the vag engine is the biggest pile of wk I have ever has the misfortune of piloting I hate to think what its like in anything bigger

Edited by AreseV6 on Wednesday 22 September 20:39

[mnkiboy]

How about the Honda Accord with the 2.2 CDTi. 140bhp and nearly 50mpg. I'm not aware of any problems with them.

[martin mrt]

chrisispringles said:

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

This, easily the best diesel engine available in the range of cars you will possibly be looking at, hugely refined and very very good on fuel considering the power available

[confused_buyer]

The BMW 3.0 litre lump is quite powerful, but it is not the most reliable or that great on fuel for the era you are talking about. In fact, if you are doing under 10k miles, it makes no sense against the 3.0 litre petrol.

Turbos, MAF's, injectors, swirl flaps...it is a good engine, but far from without common issues.

Would agree on adding the Honda lump to the list.

Edited by confused_buyer on Wednesday 22 September 21:14

[va1o]

Volvo D5, the 163bhp version. Pretty solid engine with decent enough performance/ economy.

[sjg]

Alfa 2.4 20v. As long as a 159 SW counts as "large".

[v8guinness]

If you really want reliable, especially on an older higher mileage one then don't remap it...
Remapping will also affect your mpg, measure it at the pumps and see... (computer doesn't necassarily know the fuelling after chipping/remap)...

They all have their risks, so good history well looked after helps... the PD engines were economical and cope with bad fuel better than many... the BMW and Merc engines were better to drive, and much quieter... the D5 Volvo's are pretty solid, by and large, but not that powerful or that economical, so somewhere in between...
Hear less problems with the Merc 3.2 V6D, than the BMW 3.0 I6D, but more issues with the cars...

Drive a few... and Auto and manual, many big diesels drive much better as an Auto, but you often loose a few mpg, and have an extra expensive bit that might go wrong... (shouldn't though)...

[samdale]

mnkiboy said:

How about the Honda Accord with the 2.2 CDTi. 140bhp and nearly 50mpg. I'm not aware of any problems with them.

nice to drive too, had one as a company pool car and it covered 110k in around 2-3years. Still felt smooth even though it must have had a right old thrashing.

[LayZ]

The VAG 2.0 Common Rail TDI came in around 06. These are much more refined than the old 1.9.

BMW diesels are great but all your fuel savings can be obliterated with swirl flaps or turbo troubles. This is true of all modern diesels really. There are a lot of problems with dual mass flywheels too.

If you aren't doing mega miles (> 15k) or paying BIK tax I'd consider a petrol car.

[Parrot of Doom]

martin mrt said:

chrisispringles said:

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

This, easily the best diesel engine available in the range of cars you will possibly be looking at, hugely refined and very very good on fuel considering the power available

Eh? So Mercedes' 320CDi isn't comparable? Based on the OM606 300TD, one of the most reliable diesel engines they ever built?

[va1o]

LayZ said:

The VAG 2.0 Common Rail TDI came in around 06. These are much more refined than the old 1.9.

No it didn't. The 2.0 TDI PD 140 was introduced in 2003/ 2004, the 170 version came in 2006/2007 and it didn't become Common Rail until 2008/ 2009.



Agree its better than the 1.9 though

[MC Bodge]

LayZ said:

If you aren't doing mega miles (> 15k) or paying BIK tax I'd consider a petrol car.

Indeed and I was erring in that direction, although the choice of used large estates with 2.0 petrols is fairly limited these days. Ideally I'd have something like a 3.0 petrol 6 , but fuel bills and VED are prohibitive.

[chrisga]

pilchardthecat said:

chrisispringles said:

It has to be BMW's 3.0 straight 6: it's torquey, quite smooth and powerful, but doesn't really chew fuel.

This.

The VAG pd engines are everything that is wrong and evil about diesel engines. Tiny narrow power band, rough, noisy, and no more economical than lots of other engines that are all better in many ways.

Bingo, hit the nail on the head with that one. We had a 100bhp Bora with the PD engine in it and it was nothing but trouble enginewise. Wouldnt touch another VAG (snigger) purely on the basis of this one car, it really was that shockingly bad! Know a few others that have had issues with their VAG diesels too, though they werent necessarily PD's. I wouldnt recommend.

We now have a 156 2.4 and the difference is like night and day. The alfa just blows the VW away, engine is SO much better, has been far more reliable, build quality better, interior just so much better in almost every way - the only thing missing from the alfa is the automatically dimming rear view mirror which was about the best bit of the bora!

[confused_buyer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The D5 upto 2005 is the one to go for. The 2.4D and D5 post-05 have a DPF and are more troublesome engines.

The only relatively recent diesels I regularly come across which seem to have done 200k with only oil (and cambelt if necessary) changes are Honda and the original Volvo D5.

The VAG 2.0 PD 16v engine is a lot more trouble than the older 1.9 as well - and not a lot more refined.

[Onetrackmind]

I had a 1.9 tdi pd 100bhp VW and did 40k in it. No trouble with the engine or any other major components. The electrics had loads of issues though.