What makes VW's PD engine so good?
Discussion
Probably got quite a bit of recognition for being the first of a new breed of 'punchy' diesels. Before this, they were all rather agricultural and not fit for much more than mundane tasks.
Compare the French 2.0 HDi for example, which was being pedalled by Citroen / Peugeot at the time even in sportier models (late 90s/early 00s) and you could get 90 or 110hp. Or the offering from Ford, which was the 1.8TDCi - 115hp. The PD130/150 was actually faster in most situations than the 'GTI' Golf of the same era.
They do seem very smokey compared to other cars of the same vintage though, but that could be down to so many variables...
Compare the French 2.0 HDi for example, which was being pedalled by Citroen / Peugeot at the time even in sportier models (late 90s/early 00s) and you could get 90 or 110hp. Or the offering from Ford, which was the 1.8TDCi - 115hp. The PD130/150 was actually faster in most situations than the 'GTI' Golf of the same era.
They do seem very smokey compared to other cars of the same vintage though, but that could be down to so many variables...
C.A.R. said:
Probably got quite a bit of recognition for being the first of a new breed of 'punchy' diesels. Before this, they were all rather agricultural and not fit for much more than mundane tasks.
Compare the French 2.0 HDi for example, which was being pedalled by Citroen / Peugeot at the time even in sportier models (late 90s/early 00s) and you could get 90 or 110hp. Or the offering from Ford, which was the 1.8TDCi - 115hp. The PD130/150 was actually faster in most situations than the 'GTI' Golf of the same era.
They do seem very smokey compared to other cars of the same vintage though, but that could be down to so many variables...
Boost leak! Or in our case, one dose of injector cleaner made a huge difference.Compare the French 2.0 HDi for example, which was being pedalled by Citroen / Peugeot at the time even in sportier models (late 90s/early 00s) and you could get 90 or 110hp. Or the offering from Ford, which was the 1.8TDCi - 115hp. The PD130/150 was actually faster in most situations than the 'GTI' Golf of the same era.
They do seem very smokey compared to other cars of the same vintage though, but that could be down to so many variables...
Jimmy Recard said:
I had one in a Volkswagen Caddy. No idea which version.
It's a diesel first of all, so rough and a bit gutless I would expect.
I didn't expect it to be thirstier than the 2.0 turbo petrol Astra I had at the same time though. I moved it on pretty quickly after I noticed that.
The Caddy had the terrible 1.9D and 1.9SDI engines, and later the 1.9 TDi 90bhp. All underpowered for the Caddy and none are 1.9 PDs.It's a diesel first of all, so rough and a bit gutless I would expect.
I didn't expect it to be thirstier than the 2.0 turbo petrol Astra I had at the same time though. I moved it on pretty quickly after I noticed that.
mwstewart said:
The Caddy had the terrible 1.9D and 1.9SDI engines, and later the 1.9 TDi 90bhp. All underpowered for the Caddy and none are 1.9 PDs.
My mistake, it was a 1.9 TDI. 06 plate. I assumed it was one of theseI just found myself disappointed in so many things about the poor design and build of that thing - even for a van. Rusty at 40k miles, thirsty, constant random sensor/electrical faults, the driving position. I'd recommend anyone not buy one.
I made £900 selling it though, so it wasn't that bad.
Jimmy Recard said:
My mistake, it was a 1.9 TDI. 06 plate. I assumed it was one of these
I just found myself disappointed in so many things about the poor design and build of that thing - even for a van. Rusty at 40k miles, thirsty, constant random sensor/electrical faults, the driving position. I'd recommend anyone not buy one.
I made £900 selling it though, so it wasn't that bad.
It would be a PD, 103bhp, bit of a mis-match.I just found myself disappointed in so many things about the poor design and build of that thing - even for a van. Rusty at 40k miles, thirsty, constant random sensor/electrical faults, the driving position. I'd recommend anyone not buy one.
I made £900 selling it though, so it wasn't that bad.
Not for everyone
Jimmy Recard said:
My mistake, it was a 1.9 TDI. 06 plate. I assumed it was one of these
I just found myself disappointed in so many things about the poor design and build of that thing - even for a van. Rusty at 40k miles, thirsty, constant random sensor/electrical faults, the driving position. I'd recommend anyone not buy one.
I made £900 selling it though, so it wasn't that bad.
That's not good for an '06 car. Some of the earlier Mk4 Golf's are starting to rust but the Passats seem to be worse for some reason. I just found myself disappointed in so many things about the poor design and build of that thing - even for a van. Rusty at 40k miles, thirsty, constant random sensor/electrical faults, the driving position. I'd recommend anyone not buy one.
I made £900 selling it though, so it wasn't that bad.
Touch wood I've not had any electrical issues on my Golf. I've had to replace the exhaust, alternator, and PAS pump, then maintenance stuff like bushes and brakes. They definitely aren't Japanese-like in their reliability.
mwstewart said:
That's not good for an '06 car. Some of the earlier Mk4 Golf's are starting to rust but the Passats seem to be worse for some reason.
Touch wood I've not had any electrical issues on my Golf. I've had to replace the exhaust, alternator, and PAS pump, then maintenance stuff like bushes and brakes. They definitely aren't Japanese-like in their reliability.
VERY common on Golf Mk5s unfortunately.Touch wood I've not had any electrical issues on my Golf. I've had to replace the exhaust, alternator, and PAS pump, then maintenance stuff like bushes and brakes. They definitely aren't Japanese-like in their reliability.
I had rusty front wings on both of them.
I'm at 180k on a CR170 with 340bhp and I use it as a "track toy" / weekend car and it's never let me down, other than a clutch pipe.
kambites said:
I'm not sure it was particularly exception for its era.
In some ways that was a golden age for diesel engines, at least as "work-horses"; turbocharging had become mainstream so they weren't the dog-slow things from a few years before but they had yet to be strangled by modern emissions regulations and since they were still viewed as something you bought purely to save money people didn't complain so much about things like their lack of refinement.
pretty much my thoughts - on the PD130 version.In some ways that was a golden age for diesel engines, at least as "work-horses"; turbocharging had become mainstream so they weren't the dog-slow things from a few years before but they had yet to be strangled by modern emissions regulations and since they were still viewed as something you bought purely to save money people didn't complain so much about things like their lack of refinement.
I can't get quite as excited as all the folk claiming how brilliant the PD tractor lump was but it was good because it was the first widely available diesel that wasn't crap with no performance.
Also my personal experience of the folk who raved about them were coming from 1.4 and 1.6 NA petrols. So to them the 200lb ft torque spike at 1700rpm made it the fastest car in the world.
I ran a PD130 for 2 years and then moved on to a CR140. I don't think I ever once wished I still had the PD130 in the replacement car.
mwstewart said:
That's not good for an '06 car. Some of the earlier Mk4 Golf's are starting to rust but the Passats seem to be worse for some reason.
Touch wood I've not had any electrical issues on my Golf. I've had to replace the exhaust, alternator, and PAS pump, then maintenance stuff like bushes and brakes. They definitely aren't Japanese-like in their reliability.
Thing is, when I had it I saw the things I didn't like on my Caddy, and realised that I would've liked a Golf. I could've had a petrol engine and I think the sitting position that didn't suit me in the Caddy was due to the divider behind stopping the seat travel so I couldn't move it back far enough.Touch wood I've not had any electrical issues on my Golf. I've had to replace the exhaust, alternator, and PAS pump, then maintenance stuff like bushes and brakes. They definitely aren't Japanese-like in their reliability.
The thing is for that, I had an Astra SRi Turbo instead. Maybe I should've probably bought a Golf GTI and an Astra van instead of an Astra SRi Turbo and a Caddy! They each came up separately at really keen prices so that's how it worked out in that odd way
You live and learn
dme123 said:
Drive Blind said:
Also my personal experience of the folk who raved about them were coming from 1.4 and 1.6 NA petrols. So to them the 200lb ft torque spike at 1700rpm made it the fastest car in the world.
^^^ This!Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff