Diesel 2,0 mit 170 PS? | Posts 16+

Of course, the acoustics can vary even between different PPD engines.

But when I say "good," I mainly mean that no parts fail unexpectedly, like cracked cylinder heads, broken timing chain modules, or clogged DPFs, etc.

Regarding performance, the CR doesn't subjectively feel as powerful as the PPD, even though it has 320 Nm of torque.
However, it is still faster.

In the new T5, he also performs well with the register charging system.
Hopefully, there will be something available in the A4 class soon, perhaps with around 200 horsepower.

Steffarn wrote:

It's clear that the acoustics are also different between the various PPD engines. But when I say "good," I mainly mean that no parts fail unexpectedly, like cracked cylinder heads, broken timing chain modules, or clogged DPFs, etc. Regarding performance, the CR doesn't subjectively feel as powerful as the PPD, even though it has 320 Nm of torque. However, it is still faster. In the new T5, he also performs well with the register charging system. Hopefully, there will be something available in the A4 class soon, something like 200 horsepower.

Before ordering a CBBB engine, I did some research online, and I actually found very, very few negative points about this engine – quite the opposite of what I found about the corresponding PD engines. I personally know the owner of an A4 with a 170 HP PD engine. He has experienced complete engine failure six times while driving on the highway. He also experiences power loss. Even after a mysterious "ultrasonic cleaning" of the PD engines, things were good for a short time, but then the problems started again after a few months. Another colleague bought a used Octavia RS, also with a 170 HP PD engine. He has been in a dispute with the dealer for some time due to a lack of power. The car can't even reach a speed of 200 km/h. Based on these experiences, I personally would not consider this engine as a strong option.

However, it's fair to say that the CR models haven't been in the hands of customers for nearly as long as the PD models. There's still a theoretical possibility of problems arising later with the CR models as well. But I think the company has learned from those experiences (and the damage to its reputation), and has been particularly careful with the current generation of engines to ensure that this kind of drama doesn't happen again. *End of hopeful mode.*

One (already read and, in my opinion, perfectly logical) theory regarding PD injectors and DPFs is that, due to a lack of storage capacity, the PD injectors can only inject a very limited amount of fuel for active regeneration. The duration is determined by the angle of the cam lobe on the camshaft, and at that point, the pressure can only decrease significantly towards the end, which would severely distort the spray pattern and thus greatly promote potential deposits on the injectors.

Perhaps the emergence of DPF technology also contributed to the relatively rapid adoption of CR (Common Rail) technology. Since then, we've certainly heard much less about problems related to performance or carbon buildup.

So I wouldn't take either of them.

Seriously!
I rarely drive engines this bad, and lately, I've been constantly struggling with these things in the company fleet. We have both types of vehicles. The CR engine is slightly quieter during cold starts, but once warm, there's hardly any difference. However, the CR engine feels very "tired." All my colleagues who previously had the PD engine as a company car are now extremely disappointed with the dull and sluggish CR engines. Especially the extremely restricted EU5 engines are awful.
I believe it should be much more feasible to achieve that today.

For me, it's clear that the 2L TDIs are completely unsuitable as towing vehicles (both PD and CR). There's no power initially, and then the engine suddenly kicks in with full force. I much prefer my AXR engine. This lack of responsiveness is the worst characteristic a towing vehicle can have. Unfortunately, the CR engine inherited this characteristic, although with slightly less top-end power (it feels like it).
The 1.9 TDI engines, despite having a nominally lower power output, offered noticeably better drivability and felt like they had more power.
And even outside the VAG group, this development can be observed. Well, it's a shame, really.


Dear car manufacturers... Just keep doing what you're doing. Don't be surprised if fewer and fewer people want to buy your cars, or if they simply end up buying whatever they happen to come across. Especially considering the sometimes outrageous prices.

"I can talk about the BiTDI engine in the T5.2 today, as I was able to drive it again yesterday. It has 180 horsepower, compared to our BPC with 174. Objectively, it's noticeable that the engine is incredibly quiet, especially when compared to the older 2.5 PD TDI. I know that both concepts aren't directly comparable, due to the 5-cylinder versus 4-cylinder design, and the PD versus CR technology. However, another observation is that the 2.0 BiTDI consumes noticeably more fuel (although this is a very basic comparison)."
"While I was driving to work on the usual route (the day before), I got 8.6 liters per 100 kilometers according to the MFA (Multi Function Analyzer). However, with a similar trip (again, this was a one-time occurrence and not statistically significant, but the temperatures and route were the same), the BiTDI showed 10.8 liters per 100 kilometers according to the MFA."

It's probably also because you have to turn the dial significantly higher to achieve comparable performance, which aligns with Bertil's observations. I also subjectively felt that the engine felt less powerful. Looking at the technical specifications, it's noticeable that the 5-cylinder engine, despite the extra weight and lower power output, has slightly better figures for acceleration and responsiveness...

However, I also drove a 1.6-liter model with 105 horsepower some time ago, and I felt quite comfortable with it.

Since then, we have definitely heard less about problems related to performance or carbon buildup.

But increasingly, it's about a lack of performance .


Anyone who previously owned a PD engine and now buys the same performance level as a CR engine will almost certainly end up visiting the workshop sooner or later. However, most questions are usually resolved on the test bench.
The CR simply lacks the noticeable punch that the PD always delivered. The engine is just a bit more subdued.
Whether it's good or bad... everyone has to decide that for themselves.


Regarding the PPD system, I can only offer limited advice. It's Siemens' first product of its kind, and that means there are inherent limitations in its development and troubleshooting. It's simply not fully developed, and further development was halted shortly after its launch.
Too bad, actually...

goettmann wrote:

Roger wrote: .... Since then, we have definitely heard less about problems with performance or carbon buildup. But increasingly, it's about a lack of performance . Anyone who previously owned a PD engine and now buys the same performance level as a CR engine will almost certainly end up taking it to the workshop sooner or later. However, most questions are usually resolved on the test bench. The CR simply lacks the noticeable punch that the PD always delivered. The engine is just a bit more subdued. Whether it's good or not ......... Everyone has to decide that for themselves.

Ich steige ja vom ASZ um, und bin vorher mehrere Motoren Probe gefahren. Im G VI waren es der 2.0/110 PS und der 2.0/170 PS. Den 2.0/140 PS konnte ich leider nur im EOS fahren (und mal als PD im 3C). Der 110er ist insgesamt wirklich zu schlapp, aber ich fand ihn schon extrem kultiviert und gerade in der Stadt sehr gut mit niedrigen rpm fahrbar. Der 140er ging schon besser, war aber mindestens genauso kultiviert (obwohl ich offen gefahren bin). Der hat ja im Gegensatz zum 110er auch schon das Ausgleichswellenmodul. Der 170er im GTD mit DSG machte dann schon so etwas wie Spaß . Ganz aus dem Stand kam er mir auf den ersten Metern etwas zurückhaltender vor, was ich aber auf das DSG geschoben habe. Leider war nirgends ein 170er mit Schaltung aufzutreiben, so dass ich den noch nicht fahren konnte. Aber dass er dann PD-mäßig brachial los stürmt, kann ich nicht behaupten. Eher drückt es einen sehr lange sehr deutlich in den Sitz. Der hat eben nicht mehr den PD-Peak, sondern ein kleines Plateau von 1750-2500 rpm. Und er hat im Gegensatz zum ASZ so etwas wie Drehwillen . Der It doesn't stop at 3000 rpm.

Comparing it to the AXR is unfair here; the AXR also holds a special position within the 1.9 series, boasting the highest torque at 1,400 rpm. When comparing it to an ASZ, it's the compression ratios that allow the ASZ to deliver a much more consistent performance at lower RPMs.

I intentionally didn't order the 140 hp version because, due to the lack of a particulate filter, it subjectively felt less powerful than the ASZ (even though the speedometer might have indicated otherwise). The extra 40 hp and 40 Nm of the GTD should, in my opinion, be more than enough to compensate for the Euro 5 emissions standards and the 90 kg extra weight.

At least, that's the case if you're not dragging half your household belongings behind you on a hook .

Roger wrote:

... The 170 hp GTD with DSG was actually kind of fun . From a standstill, it felt a bit restrained in the first few meters, which I attributed to the DSG. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a 170 hp model with a manual transmission anywhere, so I haven't been able to drive one yet. However, I wouldn't say that it launches with the same brute force as the PD models. Instead, it pushes you very firmly into the seat for a long time. It no longer has the PD peak, but rather a small plateau from 1750-2500 rpm. And unlike the ASZ, it has something like willingness to rev . It doesn't stop at 3000 rpm. ...

Hello,
I would definitely agree with that. I drove the 170 hp Skoda Superb with DSG /viewtopic.php?t=22569&highlight=super and was very positively surprised by its acceleration and responsiveness. Of course, it's not a problem to drive it in a way that significantly increases fuel consumption, and they are all relatively quiet compared to the AVB (presumably referring to a different engine type). But the 170 hp engine (in the Skoda = poorly insulated?) wasn't really quiet.
haithamina

Roger wrote:

... The comparison to the AXR is unfair in this case...

Naja .... Okay.


However, it's true that this is a turbocharged engine with only a very slight turbo lag. On the other hand, the AXR engine has almost negligible low-end torque.

The engines mentioned above remind me more of a BMW 2002 turbo or a Saab 900. Those were very aggressive turbo setups. Nowadays, with VTG (Variable Turbine Geometry) technology, such aggressive turbocharging should be a thing of the past (or unnecessary).

Quote:

At least, that's the case if you're not dragging half your household belongings behind you on a hook .

This small AXR enclosure has very little trouble with the Dutch apartment building. Even larger antennas are not a problem.


I don't have much to say about the small 1.6 TDI 105 engine. Unfortunately, we don't have that one at the company... Therefore, I could only drive it very briefly. My initial impression was relatively consistent. That's what I would also hope for from the larger engines.
The fuel consumption of the new DPF TDIs is simply outrageous.

The 170 hp engine in the Golf VI GTD is a CR engine, while Skoda (so far) only offers the PD engine in the Octavia RS .

D. wrote:

The 170 hp engine in the Golf VI GTD is a CR, while Skoda (so far) only offers the PD engine in the Octavia RS

.

That's it. Even at Seat and Skoda, modernity has arrived.

Quote:

Motor Installation orientation: front, transverse. Power - kW (hp) at rpm: 125 (170) / 4200 Compression ratio: 1:16.5 Mixture preparation Common-rail injection Emission class: EU 5. Fuel: Diesel, minimum 51 Cetane. Exhaust gas treatment: Diesel particulate filter (DPF). Engine type: R4-turbo diesel engine with variable geometry DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, common rail injection, mounted transversely at the front

.

http://skoda-auto.de/index.php?typ=Combi&motor=2%252C0%2BTDI%2BCR%2BDPF%2B125%2BkW&datenfilter2=+Alle+Daten+anzeigen&adaten=1

However, it was about a Suberb, and according to the data sheet, there are only EU5 engines with CR technology available.

matthiasTDI96 wrote:

However, it was about a Suberb, and according to the data sheet, there are only EU5 engines with CR technology available.

Is O² the same as CR (see the link above)?

The 170 hp engine in the Golf VI GTD is a CR, while Skoda (so far) only offers the PD engine in the Octavia RS .

That's it. Even at Seat and Skoda, modernity has arrived.

Motor
Installation orientation: front, transverse.
Power - kW (hp) at rpm: 125 (170) / 4200
Compression ratio: 1:16.5
Mixture preparation Common-rail injection
Emission class: EU 5.
Fuel: Diesel, minimum 51 Cetane.
Exhaust gas treatment: Diesel particulate filter (DPF).
Engine type: R4-turbo diesel engine with variable geometry DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, common rail injection, mounted transversely at the front.

http://skoda-auto.de/index.php?typ=Combi&motor=2%252C0%2BTDI%2BCR%2BDPF%2B125%2BkW&datenfilter2=+Alle+Daten+anzeigen&adaten=1

Oh, yes - Sorry!

I configured a Scout just yesterday, and yet, only the PD version is currently available.
I thought they hadn't switched the OC over to CR yet, sorry!

@D.
Whoever can read is clearly at an advantage!

haithamina wrote:

...I drove the 170 hp Skoda Superb with a DSG transmission.

haithamina

Hi, I also drove a rental A4 CAGA (143 hp) for over 1,000 km, and my impression is: it's quite quiet, with no sudden turbo boost but rather a smooth acceleration, although it revs a bit more freely than the PD models.
It's great for cruising, but even though the engine revs well, it's still only 143 horsepower, and you can definitely feel it. The unladen weight is too high.

We had a temporal overlap there, Roger .

"However, yesterday, out of boredom while waiting in a car dealership, I was browsing through some listings, and I saw a Superb with a 140hp TDI engine being devalued because it only had Euro 4 emissions standards... whatever those peripheral issues might be."