What makes VW's PD engine so good?
Discussion
Olivera said:
Who ever said they were good? They are the archetypal bag-of spanners 4 pot diesel with a tiny powerband.
Most old 1.9 PD engined cars you see on the road look a tatty mess with a driver who wouldn't look out of place on Benefits Street.
Blimey, sweeping generalisations much?Most old 1.9 PD engined cars you see on the road look a tatty mess with a driver who wouldn't look out of place on Benefits Street.
Currently driving a Mk4 Golf GT TDI. Power band is wide enough for day to day use, it has no problems keeping up with traffic on my daily commute. A few years ago I was driving around in an A6 Avant with the same engine, albeit remapped. Was probably quicker than the Golf.
The Golf is immaculate, the A6 was also close to perfect. And in the A6 the engine was very well isolated too (not quite so good in the Golf).
They're economical, reliable, offer a fair amount of power. By many that would count as being pretty good.
I have one, decent for everyday use, no smoke and not overly noisy, PD 130 in a 55 plate fabia, yes the car looks dated due to its shape but everything works well and it gets abused daily, one less thing to think about. If you want any more info pop round to benefits street for a chat I'm number 5 
One of my favourite diesels, especially in 1.9 130PS guise which seemed to be the sweet spot for performance, reliability and longevity.
We had a mk4 Golf GT TDI 130 for years and years, and mechanically it used to just plod along between services, never seeming to really need anything doing to it. One of those slightly annoying cars that we wanted to replace for ages, but could never justify doing so, because it just worked. Even when we sold it with 155k on it, still didn't need oil top ups or any remedial work between services. Our mechanic reckoned he'd seen them with over 300k that hadn't lost any appreciable amount of performance or reliability.
I remember the engine as being reliable, frugal (50 mpg average over a tankful was routine), and very lively feeling in day to day running about. Also, the relative lack of refinement was mitigated to a degree by never needing to extend it much past 2500 RPM in normal driving, and even when pressing on, 3500 was about all you needed. I often wonder if the engine's relaxed delivery contributed to its longevity. There was simply no need to thrash it, and no benefit at all to be gained by doing so.
We had a mk4 Golf GT TDI 130 for years and years, and mechanically it used to just plod along between services, never seeming to really need anything doing to it. One of those slightly annoying cars that we wanted to replace for ages, but could never justify doing so, because it just worked. Even when we sold it with 155k on it, still didn't need oil top ups or any remedial work between services. Our mechanic reckoned he'd seen them with over 300k that hadn't lost any appreciable amount of performance or reliability.
I remember the engine as being reliable, frugal (50 mpg average over a tankful was routine), and very lively feeling in day to day running about. Also, the relative lack of refinement was mitigated to a degree by never needing to extend it much past 2500 RPM in normal driving, and even when pressing on, 3500 was about all you needed. I often wonder if the engine's relaxed delivery contributed to its longevity. There was simply no need to thrash it, and no benefit at all to be gained by doing so.
Edited by Limpet on Tuesday 30th May 14:16
Mr2Mike said:
xjay1337 said:
Well you're an idiot then 
The only "PD" engines with an issue were the "PPD170" not really a true PD in the term.
The numerous BXE engines that have suffered from failed con rods says otherwise.The only "PD" engines with an issue were the "PPD170" not really a true PD in the term.
clonmult said:
Olivera said:
Who ever said they were good? They are the archetypal bag-of spanners 4 pot diesel with a tiny powerband.
Most old 1.9 PD engined cars you see on the road look a tatty mess with a driver who wouldn't look out of place on Benefits Street.
Blimey, sweeping generalisations much?Most old 1.9 PD engined cars you see on the road look a tatty mess with a driver who wouldn't look out of place on Benefits Street.
Currently driving a Mk4 Golf GT TDI. Power band is wide enough for day to day use, it has no problems keeping up with traffic on my daily commute. A few years ago I was driving around in an A6 Avant with the same engine, albeit remapped. Was probably quicker than the Golf.
The Golf is immaculate, the A6 was also close to perfect. And in the A6 the engine was very well isolated too (not quite so good in the Golf).
They're economical, reliable, offer a fair amount of power. By many that would count as being pretty good.
Had a Fabia with the PD130 in it, run it at 230bhp for a good while, with 170k on when I got rid. My brother has 2.0 PD140 which has shat itself and needs a new motor. The CR motors after are tidy and reasonable.
As I understood it, VW hashed the 2.0 a bit to get it through the emissions as a stop gap till the CR motor was ready. That could be a load of s
te but sounds reasonable.
As I understood it, VW hashed the 2.0 a bit to get it through the emissions as a stop gap till the CR motor was ready. That could be a load of s
te but sounds reasonable. thebraketester said:
clonmult said:
"Numerous" - as in a few people have reported problems on forums. That is not necessarily meaning that its a major problem. The 105bhp PD engine isn't as reliable as the 130.
What's the difference between the 2 blocks?I wouldn't necessarily say they are good and I can't comment on long term reliability without re-quoting the internet, however I have driven quite a few variants of this engine in the past and my observations have been:
Fuel economy has always been pretty good no matter how hard you drove them, which was in contrast to my experience with lots of other diesels at the time. This experience was also shared by a colleague who swapped a octavia with the 1.9 pd for a newer 2.0 common rail. his comments where that whilst the common rail engine was smoother and sounded slightly less like an old taxi it was significantly less ecomomical in the real world despite official figures indicating it should be much better.
Performance, the power band is narrow and I found with the higher output variants quite a significant lag compared to say the alfa/fiat 1.9 engine with variable vane turbo.
I'd say at least 50% of what makes them good is the general populations rose tinted VW/german spectacles where they believe everything from germany is over engineered and well screwed together. They do a job and do it adequately well but in my view probably no more than that.
Fuel economy has always been pretty good no matter how hard you drove them, which was in contrast to my experience with lots of other diesels at the time. This experience was also shared by a colleague who swapped a octavia with the 1.9 pd for a newer 2.0 common rail. his comments where that whilst the common rail engine was smoother and sounded slightly less like an old taxi it was significantly less ecomomical in the real world despite official figures indicating it should be much better.
Performance, the power band is narrow and I found with the higher output variants quite a significant lag compared to say the alfa/fiat 1.9 engine with variable vane turbo.
I'd say at least 50% of what makes them good is the general populations rose tinted VW/german spectacles where they believe everything from germany is over engineered and well screwed together. They do a job and do it adequately well but in my view probably no more than that.
thebraketester said:
Good economy.
Punchy power delivery.
No DPF.
Relatively bullet proof.
The only thing not to like is the sound they make.
I loved my PD130 engined Passat, I even in a weird way liked the sound because it wasn't pretending to be something it wasn't, and it was willing and eager. Plus I'm from the countryside so like a good tractor noise. Would have liked a 6 cylinder though.Punchy power delivery.
No DPF.
Relatively bullet proof.
The only thing not to like is the sound they make.
clonmult said:
thebraketester said:
clonmult said:
"Numerous" - as in a few people have reported problems on forums. That is not necessarily meaning that its a major problem. The 105bhp PD engine isn't as reliable as the 130.
What's the difference between the 2 blocks?There was a lot of anecodtal evidence back in the day that the 150 PS (ARL) engines were more prone to cam wear issues than the other variants of the PD engine, especially those on Longlife servicing. One plausible theory doing the rounds was that the 150 engine ran more boost than the lower powered versions, meaning higher turbo temperatures, and more stress on the oil, which simply couldn't cope with the extended service intervals. Not sure how true that is.
A good friend of mine has been a VW technician for the past 30 years and looked after our Golf for us. When buying, he strongly advised me not to buy any PD engined car that had been on Longlife servicing, and to seek out (and pay a premium if necessary) for a car serviced on Time & Distance (10k or annually). He reckoned Longlife serviced cars were much more prone to premature turbo failure.
A good friend of mine has been a VW technician for the past 30 years and looked after our Golf for us. When buying, he strongly advised me not to buy any PD engined car that had been on Longlife servicing, and to seek out (and pay a premium if necessary) for a car serviced on Time & Distance (10k or annually). He reckoned Longlife serviced cars were much more prone to premature turbo failure.
Limpet said:
There was a lot of anecodtal evidence back in the day that the 150 PS (ARL) engines were more prone to cam wear issues than the other variants of the PD engine, especially those on Longlife servicing. One plausible theory doing the rounds was that the 150 engine ran more boost than the lower powered versions, meaning higher turbo temperatures, and more stress on the oil, which simply couldn't cope with the extended service intervals. Not sure how true that is.
A good friend of mine has been a VW technician for the past 30 years and looked after our Golf for us. When buying, he strongly advised me not to buy any PD engined car that had been on Longlife servicing, and to seek out (and pay a premium if necessary) for a car serviced on Time & Distance (10k or annually). He reckoned Longlife serviced cars were much more prone to premature turbo failure.
140k stock turbo on 1.9 BKC (PD105) - serviced long life to 100k when I got it, dropped to 10kA good friend of mine has been a VW technician for the past 30 years and looked after our Golf for us. When buying, he strongly advised me not to buy any PD engined car that had been on Longlife servicing, and to seek out (and pay a premium if necessary) for a car serviced on Time & Distance (10k or annually). He reckoned Longlife serviced cars were much more prone to premature turbo failure.
127k stock turbo on 2.0 CBBB (CR170) - long life serviced till 100k when I got it, now serviced every 5 (tuned heavily).
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff