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 "old" 1.9 diesel. Would you recommend going for the new one, or would you prefer to stick with the proven 1.9, which is sometimes offered alongside it 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 emissions of exactly 120 grams of CO2.'

I've also been thinking about it. But a brand new engine from VW? Without any problems? Hmm... considering they successfully used 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, Volkswagen is "forced" to build common-rail (CR) engines now because their pump-injector (PD) engines can no longer meet the emission 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, Volkswagen is "forced" to now produce common-rail (CR) engines because their pump-injector (PD) engines can no longer meet the emissions standards.

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, but 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 economical. However, in the higher load range, it consumes noticeably more fuel.
That was also the case with 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 both Škoda and Volkswagen vehicles was consistently criticized for being too noisy and producing a rumbling sound. This often led to a lower overall rating for those models.
It's interesting that six 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 economical?
Therefore, one should no longer buy any more permanent magnet motors.
Price? I think the CR engines from Volkswagen aren't cheap either! At least the cars themselves 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., with both Skoda and VW, the PD engine was always criticized for being too loud and noisy.

Therefore, the PD engine always led to a decrease in value.


Correct... And when the first CR engine from VW was received, it was precisely with this pamphlet (I wouldn't call it a newspaper!)http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-vw-tiguan-tdi-4motion_422540.html that it became clear that it wasn't much better than the "Rupel Düse" (as AB always called 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 has "excellent" running smoothness compared to the PD.

Quote:

(in the middle: "Common-rail overcomes the pump-nozzle principle"). To be honest, I still consider the VW CR TDI engine to be a bit of a rough character. The competition can do it much better. While common-rail technology allowed for some improvement in smoothness, I don't think it has quite reached the level of its competitors.

It's funny how, six years ago, the PD engine always scored better than other engines in terms of performance. Now it's the opposite. Also, regarding fuel consumption, is the CR engine more economical?

Quote:

No! PD is more efficient because the use of high-pressure generation is applied in a more targeted manner. 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, offered better performance. If both concepts had been developed to the same extent, the lead would certainly have been maintained.

Therefore, one should no longer buy any more permanent magnet motors.

Quote:

Of course, outdated technology often loses to new technology.

Price? I think the CR engines from Volkswagen aren't cheap either!!

Quote:

Yes, the difference is quite clear.

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


That's on a different sheet...
You also believe that Volkswagen 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 replacing the timing belt? Does that also increase the time interval, or does it remain at 6 years?

Best regards,

[Translating...]

Quote:

Was haltet Ihr von dem 300tkm Wechselinterval für den Zahnriemen

Woher kennen wir das nur *kopfkratz*
-> https://community.dieselschrauber.org/en/viewtopic.php?p=155573#155573

Quote:

Richtig .... Und als man den ersten CR Motor von VW bekam stelle man genau bei diesem Pamphlet (Zeitung nenne ich das nicht!) fest das dieser gar nicht so viel besser war als der "Rupel Düse" (wie AB ihn immer bezeichnete). Es gab über diesen Test eine Welle der Empörung und so ist er nicht mehr online zu finden. Inzwischen verbreitet man die "tolle" Laufruhe des CRs gegenüber dem PD. http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-vw-tiguan-tdi-4motion_422540.html (in der Mitte "Common-Rail besiegt das Pumpe-Düse-Prinzip")

Der CR (auch der anderer Hersteller) ist ja nur dann leise, wenn er im LL oder im unteren bzw. mittleren Lastbereich läuft.
Wenn man ordentlich Leistung abruft, dann kommen mir die CRs sogar deutlich lauter vor als ein von der Entwicklungsstufe her vergleichbarer PD.
Liegt vielleicht daran, dass PD die hydromechanische Voreinspritzung immer macht, bei CR die elektrisch gesteuerte Voreinspritzung im oberen Lastbereich wegfällt?!

Due to a specific reason, I have a question because even Auto Bild seems not to know what is installed sometimes.

Do the 1.6 CR TDI engines have a timing chain or a timing belt? 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 chain for the exhaust camshaft/intake camshaft.

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

crap.

I was dreading this... At least it's a 120,000 km service interval? Because our "old" Octavia has a 90,000 km interval.

Ibiza1986 wrote:

crap.

Why nonsense?

Quote:

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

That's already a lot of miles! / That's quite a few kilometers!

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 it simply doesn't work with the installed components. Furthermore, most modern vehicles are not designed to last for 300 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 economic justification for replacing the timing belt! For compact cars or lower-mid-range vehicles, a lifespan of 10-12 years and 200,000 km is assumed. The timing belt can also break at any time. And when it comes to a car that's 12 years old, even used car buyers won't invest in comprehensive maintenance; they'll only repair what's broken.