TDI vs. TDI PD: Key Differences Explained

Hello experts...

Lately, I've been looking for a new used car...
specifically for a Volkswagen Passat TDI PD with 115 horsepower.

Initially, I haven't fully understood what the real advantages of PD (presumably referring to a specific technology or system) are supposed to be. The technology itself is clear (I am informed about that). Presumably, the efficiency of the motors will be higher, and fuel consumption will also be lower.
But various friends have given me quite different opinions on the matter.

Firstly, the TDI pump nozzle is supposedly much louder. Compared to a 1.9 TDI Passat engine (110 hp), the 1.9 TDI PD only has 5 more horsepower (referring to the first generation of PD engines produced around 1999/2000 in VW Passats).
On the other hand, it should have a significantly higher torque output, even though we're only talking about a power increase of 5 horsepower.
Then, due to its design, the power drive (PD) will consume more oil.

The older TDI engine is generally said to run more smoothly and quietly than the comparable PD engine.

Okay, here's the translation:

'Now my question is, what's true about such statements? Where do the real differences lie? (Aside from the D3 tax standard).'

What can be expected from chip tuning for both engine variants (1.9 TDI/TDI PD)?
Does anyone know any values that are commonly used?

I highly doubt that the higher oil consumption is due to the design of the engine. Where would the oil even go? Past the pressure relief valves into the combustion chamber? If that were the case, then the engine would certainly require a major overhaul.

You've already provided all the answers yourself. Because the BD system operates with higher pressures, it can inject fuel more finely and precisely. This results in a rougher engine sound, significantly more torque, and ultimately, reduced emissions.
When looking at a 115hp TDI engine, you need to pay close attention because they are among the first models and may still have some issues. Be extremely careful about checking the timing belt replacement intervals, and otherwise, the engine should be enjoyable to drive.

Regarding timing belt intervals?
Sure... but you really have to pay close attention to that with every TDI engine. Especially Volkswagen is known to have problems with them. Still, thanks for the tip.
So, that means if I choose a direct-drive (PD) motor, it essentially has more torque at a similar power output compared to other types of motors?

So, my friends told me that in a direct comparison, the PD engine always comes out on top and leaves its comparable standard TDI counterpart behind. Well, I'm curious to see that for myself.

Does anyone have any information about chip tuning and what kind of performance gains are typically achieved?

Regarding timing belt intervals?
Sure... but you really have to pay close attention to that with every TDI. Especially Volkswagen is known to have problems with it. Nevertheless, thank you for the tip.

Nargh, Matthias mentioned that there are either 60,000 km or 90,000 km service intervals. And the 60,000 km ones can quickly become expensive.
Increases of up to approximately 140 horsepower and 400 Nm of torque are possible.

The partially observed increased oil consumption might be related to the thin long-life oil. I can confirm that the PD engine has a rougher running style, which is inherent to its design. However, I doubt that PD engines consume less fuel than comparable VP TDI engines. In fact, I have had the opposite experience; PD engines seem to be much thirstier than the older TDIs. I also find it hard to believe that this is solely due to the increased weight of newer cars.
For comparison, a 100 hp PD engine requires about 1-1.5 liters more fuel on my commute than my 90 hp VP TDI.

I can confirm the difference in consumption.

My colleague's 100 horsepower PD Bora wagon needs 1-2 liters more fuel than my 90 horsepower (1Z) Golf wagon from 1995, especially if you want to go faster.

It's a completely different driving experience, because the 100 horsepower comes on quite low in the rev range (you start to feel something noticeable from 1200 RPM). Since I still have a wastegate turbocharger, I have to reach 1600 RPM before it gets fun.

Okay, please provide the German text you would like me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.

x world one wrote:

...I can confirm that the PD has a rougher operation, which is design-dependent.

Not necessarily. Cold, yes; warm, no. An currentwarm PD TDI engine can actually run a bit smoother than its VP counterpart. However, when the engine is cold, it's quite rough. I recently had the opportunity to drive my AXR against an 81kw G4, and it was exactly as described.

Quote:

I doubt that PD engines consume less fuel than comparable VP TDI engines. I have had the exact opposite experience; PD engines tend to be much thirstier than older TDIs. I also highly doubt that this is solely due to the increased weight of newer cars. For comparison, a 100hp PD engine requires about 1-1.5 liters more fuel on my commute than my 90hp VP TDI.

Even the fuel consumption is a matter of practice. Initially, after switching to the 1Z engine, I consumed about 1 liter more. Now, I actually need less than with my previous 1Z (and that's despite the G4 being significantly heavier).
The PD (pulse diverter) is often referred to as a "fuel guzzler." Especially when driven aggressively or under heavy load (e.g., with a trailer attached), it can consume significantly more fuel than the VP (variable pump). But where else would the extra power and torque come from?

Hello Tobaran!

Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything about the 115 hp PD TDI engine. However, on my way to work, I compared my 110 hp VP TDI (ASV) in a Skoda Octavia Combi with the 100 hp PD TDI engines in my colleague's Golfs (IV). He actually has two of them, one being a station wagon. It seems that the PD engine is slightly quieter at idle, although my colleague doesn't confirm this. During driving, they are practically equal. Of course, it should be noted that the 100 hp PD engine represents a newer development stage than the 115 hp PD engine. However, in this case, the 110 hp VP engine clearly has the advantage in terms of fuel consumption. According to the MFA (Multi Function Display), the PD engine consumes about 0.3 - 0.5 liters per 100 km more, and the Golf station wagon adds the same amount on top of that.

I hope I was able to clarify the confusion a little bit.

mcgregg

@ Bertil

Code:

meinem 1Z (und das obwohl der G4 deutlich schwerer ist).

What is the weight of your G4 rifle when it's ready for combat?

My G3 variant weighs approximately 1400 kg.

Okay, please provide the German text you would like me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.

dieselmartin wrote:

What is the weight of your G4 when it's ready for combat??? My G3 version weighs approximately 1400 kg

.


I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?

I'm sorry, but I cannot access external websites or specific files online. Therefore, I am unable to translate the text from the provided URL.
"...you claimed he weighed 1350 kg. Where did those extra 50 kg suddenly come from?"

/viewtopic.php?t=224&start=7
... I've already mentioned my old G3 weight to you before...

I weighed my G4 at 1490 kg (all measurements include the driver).



My old G3 variant had a listed curb weight of 1195 kg (up to a maximum of 1281 kg) in the vehicle registration document, while the G4 had a listed curb weight of 1295 kg (up to a maximum of 1575 kg). Again, there is a clear difference here.

Quote:

Where did those extra 50 kilograms suddenly come from?

It was only a matter of time before that question came up.

The 50 kg difference is obviously because I hadn't eaten breakfast when I was weighed! And I normally don't drive a car on an empty stomach.

No, when it was weighed, the tank was less than half full, and I wasn't carrying any payload (tools are considered standard equipment!).
I'm talking about a real, normal "driving around" weight. If I were always traveling with someone else, I would also include the passenger's weight in that calculation.

Quote:

Have I ever told you about my old G3 weight before?

Therefore, I asked about your G4 (Go four) weight .

So, the G4 (in real terms) only weighs 90 kg more?! That's just under 7%!

Okay, please provide the German text you would like me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.

Hi,

In a direct comparison between the ASV (110 hp VE-TDI) and the ASZ (130 hp PD) engines, based on my experience in the Ibiza (ASV in the 6K, ASZ in the 6L), it's worth noting that the 6L model is likely a few kilograms heavier.

The PD is generally quieter on the Ibiza, and also colder, but that might be due to the insulation. From idle, the VE pulls perfectly, while the PD essentially stays put - I almost stalled it with my usual power demand (I'm used to ASV). Around 1200-1300 RPM, they are equal, and a bit higher up, the PD kicks in so extremely that it pushes you into the seat. Although the VE isn't much worse in terms of torque values (235 Nm vs. 310 Nm), it builds up more evenly and not quite as abruptly.

Regarding fuel consumption, I can't say anything as I only drove the car for 20 km from the rental agency.

Best regards,

January.

Jan6K wrote:

From a standstill, the VE pulls perfectly, while the PD essentially remains in place - I almost dismissed it with my usual power demand (just used to what the ASV offers).

Hi Jan,

"When I have time, I'll do some comparative logging of the fuel injection limiters in the low RPM range – specifically, from 1,100 to ~2,000 rpm in 5th gear. Also, I want to investigate how the EDC (Electronic Diesel Control) maintains idle speed by increasing fuel delivery during acceleration from a standstill without using the throttle; for example, it feels like the AFN (Air Fuel Needle) is giving full throttle rather than being choked."

All of this will be done with my current AFN vehicle and the ASZ Polo (assuming the latter is reasonably broken in).

I think this might help clarify the "phenomenon" you described.

Hi Ulf,

That would indeed be interesting.

I'm not sure if the specific ASZ engine I drove is representative, because it's a workshop vehicle with about 7000 km on it, which probably wasn't properly broken in and was always driven like a gasoline engine. My own ASV engine, on the other hand, has consistently been run at low RPM from the beginning, which likely makes a difference.

It was also quite noticeable when accelerating from 55 km/h... with the ASV (Automatic Shift Valve), it pulls sufficiently in 5th gear, while the ASZ (Automatic Shift Zone) couldn't really do that, either in 5th or 6th. However, as mentioned before, the above factors could still play a role here.

Best regards,

January.

Okay, I'm here to defend the ASZ engine and I have to say that buying this motor (which came in a Golf Mk4) was truly a great acquisition. Of course, the power delivery is quite uneven, but it's not really an issue once you get used to driving it. And besides, even from 1200 rpm, it's no problem to give it full throttle in 6th gear. I don't know how much better a VP TDI pulls, but I can't complain; I don't need to downshift to accelerate if I'm not losing time by seconds.

Regarding retirement:

colleague: Octavia station wagon, automatic transmission.
me: Octavia station wagon, ALH engine.

He leaves it running at the McDonald's drive-through, and I have to turn it off otherwise my aunt won't hear my order.

'This thing runs smoothly, even when it's cold... That makes me a little envious.'
By the way, it's the same thing with the hood open. This part is simply quieter than my ALH.
Perhaps it's due to his driving style (he drives like crazy; with absolutely no regard for efficiency).

CU Gremlin.