Was haltet Ihr vom VW CR 2.0TDI mit 81kW | Posts 16+

Quote:

"Idle speed control"

What do you think?
What do you experience there?

m;

Quote:

If you want to buy a car within the VW Group and your priorities are affordability, fuel efficiency, and robustness, your selection will be quite limited.

Oh, I didn't even know something like that still existed, since Lopez got involved.

What comes to mind for me is... . I think there's a lot of luck involved in whether the "toy" works or not .

dieselmartin wrote:

What do you think? What do you experience there? m;

I'm used to letting the clutch out when starting in TDI cars without using the accelerator, and the car accelerates smoothly.
With the 1.6 TDI engine, it shuts off.
Starting uphill requires plenty of acceleration .

BMP and especially BMR can also fail .

m;

I need to bring up this topic again because it's becoming increasingly relevant.

Is there currently a diesel engine within the VAG group that is as reliable and durable as the AHU/1Z/AFN generation?

Hi,

"Since you specifically asked about the 81 kW 2.0-liter engine three years ago, I actually drive one just like that. However, it's not the CBDC engine that was used in the Golf VI, but the CFHF engine, which is almost identical to the 140 hp CFHC engine except for the software. I'm absolutely satisfied with it, and it's really very fuel-efficient to drive (I've driven from Berlin to Hagen and back multiple times with a fuel consumption of around 5.0 liters per 100 km using cruise control at 130 km/h whenever possible) – often with a fairly loaded station wagon."

Regarding durability, I can't say anything definitive with the current mileage of 28,000 km, but at least all previous research has shown that it is absolutely identical to the CFHC in all parts (except for the software). This at least gives some hope for longevity.

The problems described above (which in 2011 referred to the 81 kW engine in the Golf, i.e., the CBDC) are not present in the CFHF engine. I almost always start it without using gas, and I also maneuver it that way. It's a bit more sensitive than the ASV engine I had before (with which you could really clutch in aggressively while idling), but there is absolutely no risk of the engine stalling.

I'm now riding it at a similarly low RPM as I used to with the ASV, meaning mostly below 1200 RPM in the city.

In the Octavia 2, the CFHF engine is technically identical to the CFHC in terms of the transmission, meaning it has the very long 6-speed gearbox that reaches 120 km/h at 2000 rpm. Since the engine produces about 7/8 of the torque of the 103 kW version (280 vs. 320 Nm), the acceleration is sufficient even in higher gears (at least for me).

The :-)power plateau is something to get used to with the CFHF engine. Like most TDI engines, it has a torque plateau (280 Nm from 1750-2750 rpm), but after that, there's a power plateau (81 kW from 2750-4200 rpm). Therefore, downshifting only makes sense when you're below 2750 rpm }. However, this also means you won't experience the subjective "boost" when revving it up – but when does one do that with a TDI anyway?

Best regards,

Jan.

Thank you for sharing your experience.
"At the time, I specifically inquired about the 81 kW motor. I felt that the power-to-displacement ratio of that motor still seemed 'reasonable'."

Unfortunately, it's probably not really possible to say at this point whether these types of engines can realistically achieve mileage exceeding 300,000 km.

Hello,

"I've had the 81 kW CBDC engine in my Passat 3C Bluemotion for 2 years. It now has over 140,000 km on the clock. Of that, 50,000 km were driven by me, and 90,000 km were driven as a company car. Before that, I had a Golf V Variant with a 1.9 PD-TDI engine."

"Engine problems so far: The EGR valve/cooler was replaced at approximately 120,000 km. However, the clogging of the EGR cooler is apparently a problem for all Euro 5 TDI models. In the Passat, the replacement is time-consuming and expensive."

In my opinion, the engine's performance is also sufficient for the 3C model. The maximum torque of 250 Nm is available over a wider RPM range compared to the 140 hp version, and the acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h is almost the same. However, when accelerating at higher speeds (above 140 km/h) on the highway, the long-geared 5th gear combined with the 81 kW output will likely perform slightly worse than the more powerful 2.0 CR TDI engines.

Regarding the Passat 3C, it's worth noting that, to my knowledge, the 81 kW engine was only available with the "Bluemotion" package, which included features like the start-stop system, a longer 5-speed gearbox, and a slightly lower ride height. Personally, I find the gear ratios of the Bluemotion's 5-speed gearbox to be very well-chosen; in urban areas, you typically drive in 4th gear. However, the suspension is a bit stiff.

The Bluemotion variant with the CBDC engine is stated to have a combined fuel consumption of 4.9 liters, which, based on my experience, is also achievable in everyday driving. The low fuel consumption could be an advantage for the lifespan of the particulate filter.

And you're right, the balance shaft module is not present. At certain engine speeds, this likely causes slight vibrations in the steering wheel, and you might also hear some noises from the dashboard. However, the noise level is very pleasant and nothing like the 1.9 two-valve TDI. It's really just about vibrations in specific RPM ranges.

"In this design, the oil pump drive is more robust than in models with the balance shaft module. In the latter, the hexagonal shape may become rounded prematurely, similar to what happens in the 4-valve PD-TDI engines, and the resulting repairs can be very complex and expensive."

The clutch is matched to the engine's torque. Therefore, I think the dual-mass flywheel (DMF) will not last any longer or shorter than with the larger engine. At least, I haven't noticed any signs of a potential DMF failure yet.

The engine doesn't have a weak starting problem. However, with a bit of (lack of) skill, it can be stalled, partly because the Bluemotion has a lower idle speed and only revs up when the clutch is engaged.

CR-TDIs are sometimes prone to a slight oil consumption. In my case, at least, there is no longer any oil increase, unlike what I experienced with the 1.9 PD-TDI.

The maximum torque of 250 Nm is even available over a wider speed range than in the 140 hp version, and the acceleration from 0 to 100 is almost the same.

Is it true that a car with 110 horsepower and 250 Nm of torque can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h just as quickly as a car with 30 horsepower and 70 Nm MORE?

I would never believe that.

It's possible that the 250 Nm of torque is maintained for a longer duration, but the 140 PS engine has more power overall, and that's across the entire RPM range. If it were different, it wouldn't have 140 PS.

Hi,

For the Octavia, the figures are 11.1 seconds versus 9.6 seconds, both for the wagon with a 6-speed gearbox (the gear ratio is the same). In my opinion, this is not "almost the same" - especially for the 0-100 km/h acceleration, a difference of 1.5 seconds is a significant gap.

Quote:

The maximum torque of 250 Nm is available over a wider speed range than in the 140 hp version.

This statement is indeed meaningless, as can be easily seen from the torque curve. While the maximum torque (250 Nm for the CBDC, 280 Nm for the CFHF) is achieved over a wider range than the maximum torque of the CFHC (or its equivalent in the Passat, both 320 Nm), this is comparing apples and oranges, because the 103 kW engine has a higher maximum torque:

CFHF: 280 Nm from 1750 to 2750.
CFHC: 320 Nm from 1750 to 2500 rpm.

BUT: the CFHC engine achieves 280 Nm of torque at around 1500 rpm and remains above that level until approximately 3250 rpm. Therefore, it maintains the same or a higher torque for a significantly longer period compared to the CFHF engine (and this is even more extreme with the CBDC engine, which delivers 250 Nm or more from 1400 to 3800 rpm). The figures are estimates taken from the diagram, and they are not necessarily perfectly accurate.

However, it doesn't change the fact that 280 Nm and 110 hp are actually sufficient for a car like the Octavia 2.

Best regards,

Jan.

BUT: the CFHC achieves 280 Nm at approximately 1500 rpm and remains above that level until about 3250 rpm. Therefore, it maintains the same or a higher torque for a significantly longer period compared to the CFHF .

How can he have more if it says 280 to 320 Nm?

'Longer' is better, but ultimately, more is more, and that also means more power/acceleration.

PS:

Where is the torque higher in the 110 hp engine compared to the 140 hp engine?
Do you have the diagram handy?

Hi,

Quote:

How can it have more torque if it's stated as 280 Nm to 320 Nm?

I'm not saying that. Or you're simply confusing the engines - the CFHC has 140 horsepower, and the CFHF has 110. The CFHF has its 280 Nm peak from 1750-2750 rpm, while the CFHC has at least 280 Nm between 1500 and 3250 rpm. That's exactly what you're saying. More power at the top end, and at least the same amount over a significantly wider range.

Quote:

Where is the torque higher on the 110 hp engine compared to the 140 hp engine? Do you have the diagram handy?

Nowhere... but I also don't claim anything anywhere. My post was actually meant to support your statement with numbers, not to question it. The quotes referred to your previous poster, who mentioned the wider plateau as a positive aspect, without realizing that it's actually irrelevant because it's lower.

There are diagrams, but question (c) is quite something .

Best regards,

Jan.

Hello.

Are the mentioned engines identical in terms of hardware, except for the balancing module?

THANK YOU.

Hi,

In the Octavia, at least (CFHC vs. CFHF, but also used in some other group vehicles), they are 100% identical except for the software (as I mentioned above - various parts lists have already been compared). Both do not have a balancing module, and the error-prone swirl flaps have also been eliminated.

By the way... this goes even further: CFHE. Same family, which probably means 100% identical hardware. This engine produces an incredible 62 kW and 2000 Nm of torque from a 2.0-liter displacement! It was installed in the Caddy (exclusively for use by the German postal service).

I had also done some research on the rest of the family.

CFHA: 81 kW / 110 hp / 250 Nm, used in vehicles such as the Yeti.
CFHB: 100 kW / 136 hp / 320 Nm, used in the Scirocco, among other models.
CFHC: 103 kW / 140 hp / 320 Nm, O2 sensor and many other features.
CFHD: 105 kW / 143 hp / 320 Nm, used in vehicles such as the Seat Ibiza.
CFHE: 62 kW / 85 hp / 200 Nm, for postal service Caddys.
CFHF: 81KW/110PS/280Nm, u.a. O2

Best regards,

Jan.