1.9 or 2.0 that is the question

I understand on paper the 2.0(170) is faster but I'd like to see that in the real world against a pd150.
I'd go for the 1.9(bias as I have one) as it doesn't have a dpf. Although the mk2 sure does look good

The 2.0 is surprisingly a lot more torquey and faster than the 1.9.

Tried a new passat 2.0 diesel and couldn't believe the amount of torque it had, just wasn't expecting it considering it's only slightly bigger engine.

Not sure about mpg between the two, but the 2.0 is a lot quicker than the 1.9!

All depends what you class as better and what you want to do with it. Personally i would get a PD140 engine over any 1.9 PD engine. All of them have there good and bad points.

The 1.9 is still here and being sold as new which is an obvious testament to the engine.

Although the 2.0 is an evolution of the 1.9 I personally do not believe that the improvements warrant the additional premium over the 1.9 (when new).

On that basis and economics I would sway toward the 1.9.

take the new dpf off the 2.0l and expect to see 55+...i knw 2 peeps who have had this done and are easily getting this!

http://www.tdisport.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=5180

Depends where matey wants to go, if its stock then the 1.9 is the way to go (imo).

Now that the DPF problem seems to have been sorted on the 2.0 then to go that stage further the 2.0 would be the one to go for.

But where do you draw the line?

This is a relatively new mainstream procedure and the DPF has historically been the achilles heel for tuners of the 2.0.

Until the procedure you mentioned went mainstream, there was no way I would go 2.0.

The 140bhp 2.0ltr engine doesn't have a DPF.

Viking said:

The 140bhp 2.0ltr engine doesn't have a DPF.

Click to expand...

As the great man says.

But the 170 does have and that was what the link by digby 130 was referring to.

Hence my post.

Read linky first before posting.

Viking said:

The 140bhp 2.0ltr engine doesn't have a DPF.

Click to expand...

Later ones do, cant remember the engine code but they were being fitted in VWs like the Eos etc. SEAT are a little way behind the rest of the group on the engine side of things, we always seem to get them later.

Husbandofstinky said:

But the 170 does have and that was what the link by digby 130 was referring to.

Hence my post.

Read linky first before posting.

Click to expand...

But the original poster was asking simply about the differences between the 1.9 and the 2.0 engines. Then suddenly everyone gets hung up about the DPF on the 2.0ltr which confuses the whole issue. The 3rd post on the thread made a comparison about the 2.0ltr. 170 DPF and the 150 1.9ltr, and from thereon the DPF became the focus of attention for some people. I only pointed out that the 140bhp version has no DPF.

To be really pedantic we could also say that the 1.9 comes in many guises, some with rotary injection, some with pd, some with wastegated turbo instead of VNT, some without a turbo even, and then the 2.0 also comes in the same SDI format, the 170 also comes with commonrail injection etc.

Viking said:

and then the 2.0 also comes in the same SDi.

Click to expand...

Oooo nasty...lol

Viking said:

I only pointed out that the 140bhp version has no DPF.

Click to expand...

Not disputed.

I bought a 1.9tdi 130 passat from a company that runs 10 passats when they changed them to the newer 2.0tdi 140 passats, all the reps reported and average of 8 to 10 mpg less.
One of the 140s came up for sale recently and I had a test drive with it in mind to change. I found it much slower at lower revs and you had to rev it to make it go and was disappointed with its slow response, so I stayed with the 130. In the real world I think a remapped 130 is hard to beat.

deanomite said:

I bought a 1.9tdi 130 passat from a company that runs 10 passats when they changed them to the newer 2.0tdi 140 passats, all the reps reported and average of 8 to 10 mpg less.
One of the 140s came up for sale recently and I had a test drive with it in mind to change. I found it much slower at lower revs and you had to rev it to make it go and was disappointed with its slow response, so I stayed with the 130. In the real world I think a remapped 130 is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

Bit of a different comparrison a 3B and a 3C Passat though, different engine lay out makes a big difference with how it drives.

Bear in mind the new Passat is nearly 100Kgs heavier than the old Passat. Also, the people having their cars changed will be going from a nicely run in, well sorted, loosened engine at it's most economic to a brand new, tight engine. The difference in economy / performance will always be noticeable.

I went from a 1.9 130 Bora to a 2.0ltr 140 Altea and noticed an initial loss of economy. I'd get over 50mpg on every tank in the Bora, but average about 47 - 48 in the Altea. 60Kgs extra weight and a less aerodynamic body can count for that, although performance is better in the Altea.

One thing to bear in mind is that the 2.0ltr engine is much quieter and more refined though. However, I do agree that a remapped 130 is probably the best engine configuration for economy and performance.

The main difference with the engines other than the 100cc is the 2.0 also has a 16v layout (appart from the alhambra version which is still 8v)

The pds are all good engines and have different characteristics with regards to power, mpg etc but can all be vastly improved when remapped or have the dpf removed. VAG are now using Common Rail in favour of the 1.9 and 2.0 pd lumps and have improved the crappy dpf issues with better programming and part manufacture.
The dpf is fitted to some mk2 leons:

The 1.9tdi in the ecomotive (pre and post facelift)
The 2.0tdi 140 (BMM engine code - without is the BKD and this was optional not manditary)
The 2.0tdi 170 (BMN engine code)
The 1.6tdi common rail (which are not available as of yet)
The 2.0tdi common rail(CAGA engine code)

They are all unfortunatly subject to turbo issues which is down to parts manufacture (KKK and Garrett being the culprits).