1.9TDi v 2.0 PD

[turnoot]

Currently on my 3rd Elegance in 9 years, which must say something....

The new wheels are 2.0 PD, replacing 2 1.9TDi's, but I'm a little disappointed in low rev pickup. The old 110s seemed to pick up their skirts and go a lot smarter than the new 140.

No complaints above about 2000 rpm, but around 1400-1800 it seems to fall asleep....

I thought at first it might be the new tight engine, but it's done nearly 3000 miles now, and still a bit lethargic at low speeds.

Any thoughts, or is 3k still a bit early? I don't remember it being a problem on the new 110's.

I believe this is now a fly-by-wire. Is that the difference?

[mdk1]

Welcome to briskoda,
never really remember a problem with my 2.0tdi oct'y, maybe i just had my foot on the floor more.

[Nathanio]

Test driving the 140 and the 170 and they seem to suffer the same as the PD130 in that below turbo boost they are a bit crappy compared to the 110!

I have a 110 and liz a PD130 and around town mine is much easier with better off boost performance (smaller turbo?). However, the trade off is much much better mid and top end performance in the PDs

[Dr Zoidberg]

My PD140 never felt sluggish after I changed from a Mk1 tdi 110.

The economy did improve noticably over the first 20k miles , and it certainly got a bit faster too

[nohands]

I found the 2.0 140 PD really disappointing at first. After about 3-5000 miles, it settled down and is now almost as good as the 1.9 130 in the oh's Fabia vRS. Happy now.

The power is delivered much more smootly in the 2.0 and will run happily at low revs, whereas the 1.9 is sluggish low down but then takes off as the turbo gets going.

[jamesmckelvie]

Originally Posted by nohands

I found the 2.0 140 PD really disappointing at first. After about 3-5000 miles, it settled down and is now almost as good as the 1.9 130 in the oh's Fabia vRS. Happy now.

The power is delivered much more smootly in the 2.0 and will run happily at low revs, whereas the 1.9 is sluggish low down but then takes off as the turbo gets going.

Which 1.9 are you referring to?

[Ivan-DK]

In the 2.0 the "accelerator" works very different than in the 1.9
Half down is only 20% power and then it's start to work - you will get use to it after a while.

[turnoot]

It just doesn't feel as sharp, somehow. Mid to upper range is great as long as the revs are above about 2500, but it's just that "Oh ****" moment as you turn out of a junction, and the artic's going quicker than you thought......

Can't even raise a chirp from the tyres from standstill unless you load up with beans, and slip the clutch a bit.

I think that Ivan-DK might be on the right track with the accelerator.

It's done about 3500 miles now, so hopefully it will improve a bit (and the mpg, which is also a bit disappointing at about 10mpg worse than the 1.9)

[greg123]

The pickup should be strong from 1,300 - pulls hard. BUT you do have to put your foot well down.

Greg.

[mannyo]

You need to use more throttle, mine spins the wheels easily pulling away in first, or indeed applying full throttle when already moving. The same thing happens when rolling in second as well, full throttle=wheelspin.

[turnoot]

Don't think anyone's ever accused me of not using enough throttle before

I tried some tests on the way to work this morning (quiet roads, honestly), and with the foot on the floorboards in any gear, there's no real grunt until about 2000rpm.

Another little symptom that I've noticed is that if taking a tight corner in the wet with welly on the 1.9, the traction control kicked in, and a nice satisfying, controllable angle of attack could be varied with said welly.

On the 2.0PD, traction control seems to just kill everything and it takes a kind of lurch and bogs down.

I think I might see if the dealer has a demonstrator around to borrow for comparison.

[SilveRS]

On the 2.0PD, traction control seems to just kill everything and it takes a kind of lurch and bogs down.[/quote]

That doesn’t sound right, I’ve had two 2.0 tdi's now and the traction control is quite restrained. Before going diesel I had a MK1 vRS and that literally killed all power when spinning the wheels in the wet.

[greg123]

I think the only way we can settle this is if you go and test drive another similar model. The 2.0 140 I have in with DSG pulls hard from 1,300 and changes up before 2,000 quite often while slinging you forward at a good pace, eg don't keep your foot on for long or you'll be doing 80mph on that 40 road out from the roundabout.

If you drive another you can tell us what you think and then we can look at the 'problem' if there is one, if not call it your perception and maybe look at chip or custom tuning to give you the spread of power you 'feel' is right when you are driving.

Do rule out problems before going down the tuning route though!

Good luck and please post back, Greg.
PS maybe another 2.0 owner in your area if you search or post on the various forums can take you out.

Originally Posted by turnoot

Don't think anyone's ever accused me of not using enough throttle before

I tried some tests on the way to work this morning (quiet roads, honestly), and with the foot on the floorboards in any gear, there's no real grunt until about 2000rpm.

Another little symptom that I've noticed is that if taking a tight corner in the wet with welly on the 1.9, the traction control kicked in, and a nice satisfying, controllable angle of attack could be varied with said welly.

On the 2.0PD, traction control seems to just kill everything and it takes a kind of lurch and bogs down.

I think I might see if the dealer has a demonstrator around to borrow for comparison.

[thebobster]

Originally Posted by mannyo

You need to use more throttle, mine spins the wheels easily pulling away in first, or indeed applying full throttle when already moving. The same thing happens when rolling in second as well, full throttle=wheelspin.

Sound like you need to swap tyour carpet slippers mate - nowt wrong with the grunt in my 2.0TDI goes like the proverbial off a shovel

[matt@theforce]

could the difference in low down grunt be down to the 1.9's being 8valve and the 2.0's being a 16valve and the 16valve engine needing to be worked harder at lower rpm?

They are 2 completly different engines and as such will respond and work better in different ways.

[turnoot]

Have to say that I wasn't aware that it was 16v, and from old Golf GTI days, I know that the 8-valver was a lot more driveable than the 16v (although quite considerably slower).

Can't help thinking that there's either something slightly amiss, or that the engine's still quite tight. (I'm struggling to average 40mpg, while the 1.9 did 50; it's new owner's claiming 62...!!)

More than 4,000 on the clock now.

[Ivan-DK]

The 2.0 tdi with DPF is a 8 valve engine

[Ivan-DK]

Take me away (double post)

[skomaz]

Originally Posted by Ivan-DK

The 2.0 tdi with DPF is a 8 valve engine

No it's not - its a 16 valver!

[dominic81]

I've had 2 2-litres now and been very happy with power from both. But - there isn't much below about 1500. Pulls like a train from 2000 upwards. Tails off above about 3500-4000.

Hope you get any probs with your ironed out.