New Skoda Octavia 1.6d or 1.9d

Boskowski

After looking at things for a while I find that the octavia estate elegance gives me what I need from a car and seems best value for money. Especially with reductions and scrappage and all that.

I'm looking at the 1.9 TDi Elegance Combi manual.

Now I noticed that Skoda brought a 1.6 cc version on the Market which the dealer also recommended. On paper they have the same power and i've been told the new 1.6 is a refined model that is quieter also and is especially good with the DSG transmission. The DSG is 3 grand extra though and I don't t see the added value. However the 1.6 is a wee bit better on emissions and brings tax down to 102€ instead of 156€ and also takes marginally less diesel.

I'm basically concerned that while on paper appearing to be equals the 1.6 will be struggling with the 1.4 tons of weight. Cue: torque curve.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated

homer90

There has been a few threads recently on this engine ( 1.6 v 1.9 TDI) etc.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=10909906

Henry Ford III

1.9 all the way

homer90

:rolleyes:

wayne0308

The 1.9d is the way to go. The engine is tried and tested. I know 3 taxi drivers with this car now and I never hear the end of how great the engine is One of those guys has crazy mileage up on his. Well over the 350,000 mark (I must ask him what it's up to now) but he hasn't had any major problems with his over the years and still going well.

Leonard Hofstadter

I'd also have the 1.9 TDI, it has been around for years and has been proven to be bulletproof, the 1.6 is brand new and unproven.

The OP may wish to consider the 1.2 TSI, it is in band B which is the same as the 1.9 TDI and delivers an identical 105 PS. It has the added advantage of being over 3 grand cheaper.

Boskowski

captainspeed wrote: »

I'd also have the 1.9 TDI, it has been around for years and has been proven to be bulletproof, the 1.6 is brand new and unproven.

The OP may wish to consider the 1.2 TSI, it is in band B which is the same as the 1.9 TDI and delivers an identical 105 PS. It has the added advantage of being over 3 grand cheaper.

Thanks for all opinions so far.

1.2 engine producing 105 HP just doesn't sound right, does it? Plus it actually consumes more petrol than the 1.9.

Henry Ford III

realcam wrote: »

Thanks for all opinions so far.

1.2 engine producing 105 HP just doesn't sound right, does it? Plus it actually consumes more petrol than the 1.9.

1.2 is a turbocharged petrol unit.

1.9 is a turbodiesel, and also a bit of an old nail/boat anchor.

JJJJNR

Ahem - not everyone wants to/can drive a 6 cylinder BMW, and not everyone is concerned with the fact there is an engine rattle from a diesel at idle now GET OVER IT!!

Henry Ford III

Gotta move with the times. That engine is no longer competitive.

Boskowski

JJJJNR wrote: »

Ahem - not everyone wants to/can drive a 6 cylinder BMW, and not everyone is concerned with the fact there is an engine rattle from a diesel at idle now GET OVER IT!!

I'm actually coming from a 6 cylinder BMW. Have engines really evolved this much that a 1.2 litre petrol engine is considered appropriate for 1.4 tons of car?

GTE

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Gotta move with the times. That engine is no longer competitive.

In what aspect exactly? Not getting at you but Im curious for myself.
50 - 57mpg is what I get from my TDI (2000) and for me that's competitive. Depends what everyone wants from an engine.

EPM

bbk wrote: »

In what aspect exactly? Not getting at you but Im curious for myself.
50 - 57mpg is what I get from my TDI (2000) and for me that's competitive. Depends what everyone wants from an engine.

But that's a ten year old car. Buyers of a brand new car expect better in fairness

Henry Ford III

bbk wrote: »

In what aspect exactly? Not getting at you but Im curious for myself.
50 - 57mpg is what I get from my TDI (2000) and for me that's competitive. Depends what everyone wants from an engine.

1/. NVH
2/. Weight
3/. Power
4/. Emmissions
5/. Economy

Frankly it's hard to think of any other area it could be uncompetitive in.

cadaliac

What engine beats the new 1.9 tdi in all areas?
Just curious. And no I don't want to drag this off topic, I'm seriously just curious.

FGR

New 1.9tdi?

Since when?

Unless you're referring to the 1.6tdi that replaced it. But you have a good point made! I'm wondering why VAG didn't improve on the current engine; being as it was rock solid as it stands?

Henry Ford III

In the VW stable the newer 1.6 and 2.0TDI's. There really is no contest.

p.s. Various HDI/TDCI units are superior too.

GTE

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In the VW stable the newer 1.6 and 2.0TDCI's. There really is no contest.

p.s. Various HDI/TDCI units are superior too.

I dont understand the post but if you saying that the 1.6 TDI is no match for the 2.0 TDCI then I would have thought thats pretty obvious.
The 1.6 TDi and 2.0 TDCI are the same technology, common rail, so its as close to a like for like comparison that you could have between VAG and Ford diesels for a long time. It would make more sense to compare the 2.0 common rail engines together.

ForegoneReality,
I think the new 1.9 TDI he is on about is the one that is currently still on sale in some VAG cars. Its a PD engine, not common rail and I think has had some work done for emissions.

Leonard Hofstadter

realcam wrote: »

I'm actually coming from a 6 cylinder BMW. Have engines really evolved this much that a 1.2 litre petrol engine is considered appropriate for 1.4 tons of car?

What are you doing going from a 6 cylinder BMW to one of these:eek::D?

The Octy is a fine car but it's no BMW, especially one with a decent engine like yours has(a very rare thing in this country), a 6 cylinder BMW is one of the few BMW engines that actually works(unless it's a mid 90s petrol or an early 530 diesel).

Truth is that you're probably going to find any of the engines mentioned (1.2 TSI, 1.6/1.9 TDI) slow coming from a BMW, you probably should be looking at the 2.0 TDI(especially an RS version:D) or the 1.4 TSI in that case.

Henry Ford III

bbk wrote: »

I dont understand the post but if you saying that the 1.6 TDI is no match for the 2.0 TDCI then I would have thought thats pretty obvious.
The 1.6 TDi and 2.0 TDCI are the same technology, common rail, so its as close to a like for like comparison that you could have between VAG and Ford diesels for a long time. It would make more sense to compare the 2.0 common rail engines together.

ForegoneReality,
I think the new 1.9 TDI he is on about is the one that is currently still on sale in some VAG cars. Its a PD engine, not common rail and I think has had some work done for emissions.

Sorry. I put in an unwanted "C". Now corrected.

JJJJNR

realcam wrote: »

I'm actually coming from a 6 cylinder BMW. Have engines really evolved this much that a 1.2 litre petrol engine is considered appropriate for 1.4 tons of car?

Horses for courses.

My old 1.6 with 105 bhp was more than capable day to day with my 1.4 tons. I would guess the same applies here.

Boskowski

captainspeed wrote: »

What are you doing going from a 6 cylinder BMW to one of these:eek::D?

The Octy is a fine car but it's no BMW, especially one with a decent engine like yours has(a very rare thing in this country), a 6 cylinder BMW is one of the few BMW engines that actually works(unless it's a mid 90s petrol or an early 530 diesel).

Truth is that you're probably going to find any of the engines mentioned (1.2 TSI, 1.6/1.9 TDI) slow coming from a BMW, you probably should be looking at the 2.0 TDI(especially an RS version:D) or the 1.4 TSI in that case.

I hear you. It pains me too to get rid of her. She's still a fine car even over 10 years old.

Thing is my requirements have changed. I used to do a lot of driving at all hours and weathers for which I wanted a nice to drive, reliable, safe, comfortable tank. Which is exactly what she is.
Now I only have a small commute and I haul the golf clubs and the dog around a lot. Plus I see a lot of potential savings on juice and motor tax.

Tea 1000

realcam wrote: »

I hear you. It pains me too to get rid of her. She's still a fine car even over 10 years old.

Thing is my requirements have changed. I used to do a lot of driving at all hours and weathers for which I wanted a nice to drive, reliable, safe, comfortable tank. Which is exactly what she is.
Now I only have a small commute and I haul the golf clubs and the dog around a lot. Plus I see a lot of potential savings on juice and motor tax.

By spending 20k? What 6cyl Beemer do you have?
I'd go with the new 1.6 over the old 1.9. Far more refined engine, better economy, better power delivery, easier on the ears. Don't worry about weight or engine size. Haven't checked, but I'd say there's very little difference in the torque figures of both those engines.

Boskowski

Tea 1000 wrote: »

By spending 20k? What 6cyl Beemer do you have?.

I know this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but the huge motor tax just feels like dead money. Id be spending a quarter of the purchase price for the octavia on road tax if I kept my cuurent car over the next five years say.I got a 1998 523i.

Tea 1000

realcam wrote: »

I know this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but the huge motor tax just feels like dead money. Id be spending a quarter of the purchase price for the octavia on road tax if I kept my cuurent car over the next five years say.I got a 1998 523i.

That's much less of a tank than an Octavia really, in terms of handling. THe E39 is a fine car with good handling, decent comfort and a nice 6 cyl engine. The Octavia isn't particularly special to drive, fine comfort wise, but an unexciting engine.
Your E39 costs €800 more to tax per year than the Octavia, but it has pretty much stopped depreciating. The Octavia will depreciate a lot more than €800 per year for a lot of years to come.