1.6 CR vs. 1.9 PD: Which is better?

Hello forum.

Can anyone share their experiences with the new 1.6 diesel engine from VW? I'm especially interested in how it compares to the older 1.9 diesel. Would you recommend going with the new engine, or would you prefer to stick with the proven 1.9, which is sometimes offered as an alternative in certain models, like the Seat Ibiza?

Best regards,

I've never driven a 1.6 CR before, but with the 1.9, you kind of know what to expect .

'But the new 1.6-liter engine is supposedly incredibly fuel-efficient, and it also has precisely tuned CO2 emissions of exactly 120 grams.'

I've also been considering it. But a brand new engine block from VW? Without any problems? Hmm... considering they've been successfully running the 1.9-liter engine for decades?

Hello,

I drove the 1.6 CR engine with 66 kW in a Polo. It feels a bit smoother than the 1.9 PD-TDI. Otherwise, there's not much to say, except that you have to be quite gentle with the accelerator pedal to achieve the stated fuel consumption. But that's nothing new.

Best regards, Rainer.

I've already driven the CR. It's very quiet, runs smoothly, and I haven't experienced any problems with it so far.
Unfortunately, VW is "forced" to now build cars with common-rail (CR) engines because their previous direct-injection (PD) engines no longer meet emissions standards.
The lively responsiveness, or torque, between 1500 and 2000 rpm, is unfortunately no longer available! Therefore, many people are dissatisfied!
As far as I know, with the Ibiza, you can only order the CR version now.

Best regards,

lichti wrote:

... Unfortunately, VW is "forced" to now build CR engines because they can no longer meet emissions standards with PD engines.

Mööööp .... FalShh!

PD cannot easily manage the required DPFs without significant effort. The integration with CR is considerably simpler and cheaper.

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.



But speaking of the topic:

I was able to drive the 1.6 CR engine. Unfortunately, only for a very limited time. The engine actually makes a good impression. My concern is whether it can handle being strained by pulling a trailer.

The fuel consumption was highly dependent on the throttle position. The downsizing was definitely noticeable. If the engine is frequently operated in the low-speed, partial-load range, it is significantly more fuel-efficient. However, in the higher load range, it is noticeably thirstier.
That was also the case with the previous engines... after all, nothing comes from nothing.

All in all, for the "average driver," this is a worthy small engine. Those who want more...

Throughout all the Auto Bild and other tests, the PD (Pumpe-Düse) engine in Skoda and VW vehicles was consistently criticized for being too noisy and producing a rumbling sound. This often led to a devaluation of the vehicles.
It's interesting that 6 years ago, the PD engine consistently scored better than other engines in terms of performance. Now, it's the other way around. Also, regarding fuel consumption, is the CR engine more fuel-efficient?
Therefore, one should no longer buy PD motors.
Price? I think the CR engines from VW aren't cheap!! At least, the cars aren't being sold for less.
I recently drove a rental car, a 1.9 Golf. I have no issues with the engine; everything is new and runs smoothly!

scroll tdi wrote:

Throughout all the Auto Bild tests, etc., the PD engine was always criticized for being too loud and noisy. Therefore, the PD engine always led to a devaluation of the car.

Correct... And when the first CR engine from VW was received, it was precisely with this pamphlet (I wouldn't call it a newspaper!) that it was determined that it wasn't much better than the "Rupel Düse" (as AB always referred to it). There was a wave of outrage about this test, and that's why it can no longer be found online.
Meanwhile, people are spreading the claim that the CR offers "superior" running smoothness compared to the PD.
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-vw-tiguan-tdi-4motion_422540.html (in the middle "Common-rail technology surpasses the pump-nozzle principle").

To be honest, I still think the VW CR TDI engine is quite rough. The competition can do it much better. While the CR technology allowed for some improvement in smoothness, I believe it still hasn't reached the level of its competitors.

Quote:

It's interesting that 6 years ago, the PD engine consistently scored better than other engines in terms of performance. Now, it's the opposite. Also, regarding fuel consumption, is the CR engine more fuel-efficient?

No!
PD is more efficient because the use of high-pressure generation is applied more strategically.
Unfortunately, the current CR and PD techniques cannot be compared with each other. The development of PD was frozen about 3-4 years ago, while CR has been significantly further developed. Therefore, a real comparison is currently difficult.
About 4-5 years ago, diesel engines were significantly more powerful, cleaner (even without a DPF), more fuel-efficient, and, above all, more performant.
If both concepts had been developed to the same extent, the lead would certainly have been maintained.

Quote:

Therefore, one should no longer buy PD motors.

Of course, outdated technology often loses out to newer technology.

Quote:

Price? I think VW's CR engines aren't cheap!!

Yes, the difference is quite clear.

Quote:

...at least, the cars aren't being sold for less.

That's on a different sheet.
You also believe that VW shouldn't be allowed to make money from their cars, right?

Does anyone know what the differences are between the three performance variants: 55 kW, 66 kW, and 77 kW?
What do you think about the 300,000 km (approximately 186,000 miles) interval for the timing belt replacement? Does that also increase the time interval, or does it remain at 6 years?

Best regards,

Quote:

What do you think about the 300,000 km service interval for the timing belt

Where do we even know that from? *scratching head*
-> https://community.dieselschrauber.org/en/viewtopic.php?p=155573#155573

Quote:

Right... And when they received the first CR engine from VW, they discovered, precisely in this pamphlet (I wouldn't call it a newspaper!), that it wasn't much better than the "Rupel Düse" (which AB always referred to). There was a wave of outrage about this test, and that's why it can no longer be found online. Meanwhile, people are spreading the claim that the CR offers "superior" running smoothness compared to the PD. http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-vw-tiguan-tdi-4motion_422540.html (in the middle "Common-rail overcomes the pump-nozzle principle")

The CPU cooler (including those from other manufacturers) is only quiet when running at low speed or under low to moderate load.
When you really push them, the CRs actually seem louder to me than a PD with a comparable development stage.
Perhaps this is because PD (port fuel injection) always uses hydraulic pre-injection, while CR (common rail injection) eliminates electrically controlled pre-injection in the upper load range?

Due to a specific reason, I have a question because, apparently, even Auto Bild doesn't always know what's installed.

Does the 1.6 CR TDI engine have a timing chain or a timing belt, and if so, what is the replacement interval?

Autobild has been repeatedly mentioning "timing belt/chain" for some time now.

Okay, so what now?! Either/or.

Ibiza1986 wrote:

either, or.

It's not necessary, see the 1.8T: timing gears for the exhaust camshaft/crankshaft, and the chain for the exhaust camshaft/intake camshaft.

and the 1.6L CR TDI engine only uses a belt, even for the oil pump.

damn.

I was dreading it... at least 120,000 km? Because our "old" Octavia has a 90,000 km interval.

Ibiza1986 wrote:

mist.

Why nonsense?

Quote:

I had feared it... at least a 120,000 km interval? because our "old" Octavia has a 90,000 km interval.

120,000 km is already a lot!

READ!

bindpe wrote:

What do you think about the 300,000 km

service interval for the timing belt.http://www.michaelneuhaus.de/golf5/golf5-tips.shtml

and

}


I'm starting to wonder why some people are still constantly bringing up "unfortunately, ZR."
The maintenance intervals are far beyond what many vehicles will ever experience.

...because the cost of replacing the timing belt is no longer included. Often, the engines are so tightly integrated that the replacement belt simply doesn't fit or function properly with the installed engine. Furthermore, most modern vehicles are not designed to last for 300,000 or 400,000 kilometers.

Manufacturers currently estimate the "useful life" of small cars to be 10 years or 150,000 km. At that point, there's no point in replacing the timing belt! For compact cars or lower-mid-range vehicles, the estimates are 10-12 years and 200,000 km. The timing belt can also break at that age. And when a car is 12 years old, even used car buyers won't invest in comprehensive maintenance. They'll only repair what's broken.