VAG TDi (PD) Engines
Discussion
Previously to my current Mazda 6, I have owned a couple of cars from the VAG stable, and the Mrs currently has an A3. Her A3 and my previous (sadly crashed) Octavia both have a variant of what I understood to be called the "Unit Injector" TDi. They were 100 and 110 bhp versions respectiverly.
Now, this engine was 100% bombproof in my experience (racked up 150k on the pair in 3 years). So, I'm currently looking at getting back into another Octavia. My budget seems to put me into a PD engine, and occasionaly the later Common Rail engines. I'm going to stear clear of these latter engines, because i've heard a lot about DPF's and Injectors. Plus they are at top of my budget and very high mileage.
During my search for the Octavia, I have noticed there seem to be 2 variants of the PD engine. Until now, I always thought:-
1.9 = Unit Injector or PD (distinguishable by bhp as to which) 130PD being the one I want
2,0 - Common Rail - avoid - comes in 140 or 170 CR TDi
Until i saw an ad on eBay earlier, for a 2.0 PD Octavia, 2004, listed as 140bhp. So, off I trot to parkers and discover they did do a 2.0litre version of the PD. So, my questions:-
Now, this engine was 100% bombproof in my experience (racked up 150k on the pair in 3 years). So, I'm currently looking at getting back into another Octavia. My budget seems to put me into a PD engine, and occasionaly the later Common Rail engines. I'm going to stear clear of these latter engines, because i've heard a lot about DPF's and Injectors. Plus they are at top of my budget and very high mileage.
During my search for the Octavia, I have noticed there seem to be 2 variants of the PD engine. Until now, I always thought:-
1.9 = Unit Injector or PD (distinguishable by bhp as to which) 130PD being the one I want
2,0 - Common Rail - avoid - comes in 140 or 170 CR TDi
Until i saw an ad on eBay earlier, for a 2.0 PD Octavia, 2004, listed as 140bhp. So, off I trot to parkers and discover they did do a 2.0litre version of the PD. So, my questions:-
- Is the 2.0 litre PD as bomb proof as the 1.9 PD was
- What car?
Is the best with the PD engine for a 100 mile a day motorway hack with decent loadable space?
Lot of differances between the 1.9 & 2.0 the 1.9 is reliable but how reliable is related to how much power they produce. The 2.0 does have oil pump issues (normally the drive chain snaps) & that ime is just the tip of the iceberg & again is directly related to power output the higher it goes the more it goes wrong.
Frog Dog said:
Can you chaps expand on the turbo issues? Is it inevitable that the turbo will go? What's the symptoms??
It's pretty much accepted as a consumable nowadays.If the oil seals go, then you'll get lots of blue smoke and the back of your car will be splattered in oil.
If you get get variable vane faliure, there'll be lack of power. If the blades go, then it could kill your engine, or just result in lack of power. You can also get bearing faliure, where it'll whine like a b
d and eventually eat itself. That's all they really fail on though.
Following on from my query, answered my own question really:
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&...
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&...
neiljohnson said:
Lot of differances between the 1.9 & 2.0 the 1.9 is reliable but how reliable is related to how much power they produce. The 2.0 does have oil pump issues (normally the drive chain snaps) & that ime is just the tip of the iceberg & again is directly related to power output the higher it goes the more it goes wrong.
Isn't the oil pump issue just with the 2.0 PD variant in the Superb (i.e., the Octavia was ok)? Early 2.0 PDs had issues with porous heads IIRC. Injectors occasionally go on the 140PD, but the injectors in the 170PD (i.e., the vRS) are bad news and subject to a VOSA action. These should be replaced by Skoda free of charge, but the manner in which they fail sounds dangerous (no steering/brakes).
Triumph Man said:
Yeah longitudinally mounted 2.0 PD engines were worse for the oil pump problems apparently, i.e. A4, Superb, etc.
Whs not sure why though must be a design differance of some sort but I have had a golf in with oil pump failure also had 2 tourens with the 2.0 with excessive crank end float that causes problems with the clutch but not sure if it's specific to that model they were both on an 07 plate to The timing belt interval on the 1.9 is 60k or 5 years. I thought that both versions of the 2.0 (CR & PD) were problematic by comparison to the 1.9s? That said, a colleague had a 56plate A4 2.0TDi PD 140 and that was absolutely stonking, powerful and more refined than the PD130 I had at the time, but about 5mpg down by comparison.
The 1.9 PD came in 105, 115, 130 and 150bhp outputs. The Seat 110bhp 1.9 in mk1 Leons & mk2 Toledo's isn't PD, and is much more refined than the PD and better than the 105bhp PD in virtually every way (in my humble opinion!).
The 1.9 PD came in 105, 115, 130 and 150bhp outputs. The Seat 110bhp 1.9 in mk1 Leons & mk2 Toledo's isn't PD, and is much more refined than the PD and better than the 105bhp PD in virtually every way (in my humble opinion!).
eltax91 said:
- What car? Is the best with the PD engine for a 100 mile a day motorway hack with decent loadable space?
I've driven my 6 speed 2.0, and a similar age 5 speed 110ps 1.9 Golf. The Golf did feel sower off the line, and you can feel the extra 30ps of the 2.0, but on my Motorway comute it makes no real world difference. I can get high 50s mpg from the 2.0, and more from the 1.9.
I like the extra grunt of the 2.0, but with the benefit of hindsight the 1.9 would have been the better choice for the driving I do. Even cheaper to run and without some of the issues of the 2.0.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff