VE vs. PD: A Comparison

Hello everyone,

A short personal account... I'd be interested to know if others can confirm my observations.

I had my Ibiza checked during the last service (at 30,000 km, which was the end of the 2-year warranty), but I actually want to do all the other maintenance myself.

Since I couldn't do without a car today, I rented one for 20 euros (the shop doesn't offer this for free) and mentioned that I would like to try out the new Ibiza. After a brief search, a somewhat disappointed voice from behind the counter said, "We only have a diesel," to which I replied with even more enthusiasm, "Yes, exactly that one!"

(It's ridiculous, when a customer brings in a diesel car for an inspection, isn't it obvious that they want a diesel service, or what?)

Anyway, it was a black Ibiza 6L Sport with the ASZ engine and 7500 km on the odometer, and it was the first PD engine I had worked on.

In a direct comparison to the ASV in the slightly lighter 6K model, I would say the following:

It sounds a bit more like a gasoline engine, even when cold, which might also be due to the good insulation. Then, the power when starting from idle is lower than with the VE system, and the feeling at higher RPMs is somehow more like a gasoline engine (not necessarily in terms of torque, but more in terms of the sound). Well... and the thrust just below 2000 RPM is simply amazing; you immediately get the impression that there is MUCH more torque available than with the ASV.

I could only test the 6-speed version briefly in the city, but I had the feeling that the ASZ (presumably a specific model) struggled more at 50-60 km/h in 5th gear compared to the ASV (another model). Also, the power in neutral isn't sufficient here; with the ASV, I can coast in the city at 45 km/h in 5th gear without any issues, running in neutral. The ASZ, on the other hand, couldn't be brought below idle speed in that situation.

Even when wearing a suit, I find the ASV to be slightly more powerful in the range of 1000 to 1400 RPM.

Overall, I found myself driving at a slightly higher RPM, sometimes exceeding 1500, but that might also be due to the noise, as the ASV is simply much louder.

It was a shame that there was quite a bit of traffic, because accelerating around 2000 really was a lot of fun ).

In the end, I was glad to be back in my 6K, because even though the engine is truly amazing, I think the dashboard isn't as good in the 6L.

What were your experiences when directly comparing VE (Variable Expense) versus PD (Permanent Discount)?

My impression that it has very little power at low speeds could also be due to the fact that the car was likely driven primarily on gasoline, and it's a demo car that probably hasn't been properly broken in, and especially isn't driven at extremely low RPMs.

Best regards,

Jan.

Hi Jan!

So, we've both been AEX and ASZ drivers before. Honestly, I prefer the ASZ over the AEX (just kidding, of course).

I'm driving my Golf with the ASZ engine and my girlfriend's Golf with the 90 hp TDI engine. I don't know the exact engine code for hers, as I've never looked it up. What I notice, as you said, is the power from the VP TDI starting at idle. I also prefer the much better smoothness and consistency of the engine. It doesn't have that pronounced surge like my ASZ. However, I mostly drive mine (mostly on the highway and country roads) keeping the RPMs below 2000. The 5-speed transmission works well in the city, as long as there aren't any steep hills. The 6-speed transmission seems to be more suited for constant speeds above 60 mph.

Hi Jan,

The PD bites a little more.
I don't notice the higher weight of my AXR compared to the 1Z.
Higher RPMs? Not with the AXR. It's naturally a bit less responsive at higher RPMs compared to the 96 kW engine, so it's not worth it.

What do you think is going on when you have your own house behind it?

Okay, comparison of VP vs. PD. I have a 1Z in my Passat, and at work we have Tourans with 100 HP PD engines. The turbocharger in the 1Z comes on more gradually, while the PD engine really kicks in hard. It really feels like the 1Z is like an old man, and the PD is like a young whippersnapper. The PD engine seems to really want to push the car forward with force. The PD engine is louder than the VP (the PD engine also has a knocking sound, which the 1Z doesn't). It's also really fun with the PD engine to briefly lift off the gas and then immediately get back on it. The sound (not a typical turbocharger whistle, which I attribute to the VTG technology) when the turbocharger comes down, and the acceleration when it spools up again, is amazing. I hope this post wasn't too confusing, but I can't wait to drive a Touran again.

Best regards, WarLord.

I compared the 100PS PD 4-cylinder variant with my 1Z. Subjectively, the PD feels like it has more power. I also noticed that the PD consumes significantly more fuel, I'm not sure why or if I'm driving differently with this engine. In any case, it's about 1 liter more fuel consumption. Personally, I don't think the power delivery of the PD is that great. For my taste, it has too much power at the bottom end and nothing at the top. This is my subjective impression.

I often compare the 100hp PD engine to my 110hp AFN. I have a Golf Variant with the PD engine, while mine is in an A6 – but with a chip tuning. I agree with the previous commenters – the PD engine really bites. Perhaps that's why the torque feels less noticeable below 1500 rpm. I'm not sure if my A6 (1600 kg) is actually faster than the Golf 4. I haven't done Ulf's traction test yet – that might be worth trying. The PD engine is quite good, but the question is whether it will last as long as my AFN engine with 180,000 km.

arne

x world one wrote:

...Furthermore, I've noticed that the PD models consume significantly more fuel, and I have no idea why or whether I'm driving differently with the engine. In any case, it's about 1 liter more fuel consumption.

That's partially true; it also took me two months to get the AXR engine back to normal fuel consumption. Initially, it was consuming 7 liters per 100 km, but now I'm back to 6 liters per 100 km. If you push the PD engine hard, it will reach that "fuel-guzzling" zone much faster. The VP engine is a bit more fuel-efficient in that regard.

Quote:

I personally don't think the power delivery of the PD is that great.

In my opinion, it has too much power in the low end and not enough in the high end. } That's my subjective impression. }
This is not a subjective impression, but a fact. For example, the AXR engine has the highest torque of all 4-cylinder TDI engines when idling. The electronically limited, constant torque of 240 Nm between 1600 rpm and 2400 rpm makes the engine unspectacular but pleasant to drive.

Bertil wrote:

This is not a subjective impression but a fact. For example, the AXR has the highest torque of all 4-cylinder TDI engines at idle. The electronically limited, constant torque of 240 Nm between 1600 rpm and 2400 rpm simply makes the engine unspectacular but pleasant to drive.

That's interesting, thank you. However, whether this behavior can be described as "pleasant to drive" is ultimately subjective .

This is not a subjective impression but a fact. For example, the AXR has the highest torque of all 4-cylinder TDI engines at idle. The electronically limited, constant torque of 240 Nm between 1600 rpm and 2400 rpm simply makes the engine unspectacular but pleasant to drive.
That's interesting, thank you. However, whether this behavior can be described as 'pleasant to drive' is ultimately subjective .

'It's already impressive! But what happens from around 1500 RPM onwards is insane!'

'I experienced the same thing as Bertil. For a long time, I was consuming fuel beyond good and evil because driving with the accelerator pedal pressed down was just too much fun. But every time I stopped at a gas station, it brought tears to my eyes. Fuel consumption between 7 and 8 liters was considered 'normal.' Now, I drive more quickly but with a bit more restraint, and I'm getting around 6-6.4 liters.'

x world one wrote:

... But whether this behavior can be described as pleasant to drive is, ultimately, subjective.

.... come and experience my age .... ... when the crocheted toilet paper roll is on the shelf (in my rally car, there's actually one there!) ... when the hat stays on your head ... ... when the crutch is used as a turn signal ...

Seriously, for someone who wants performance, the 74 kW engine is not enough. It's far too underwhelming in terms of power delivery, but as a sensible choice, it's certainly not a bad option.
Once you get used to it, you won't want anything else. I find the 96kW engine's power delivery to be too uneven. As you said, it's all subjective.

I find the 96kW engine's power delivery too unbalanced. As you already said: it's all subjective.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's disharmonious! I'd say it's more something you need to get used to!
But it's still fun to drive this device! It's a shame that the Passat is so heavy! I don't want to give up the 96kW engine!

Okay, I think 74 kW is a bit on the low side, even for a Passat.

So, in the Passat, I also think that 74 kW is a bit on the low side...

Sure! But there are many models with the smaller engine. The 130 hp version isn't as common.

'It just makes me think that I even pulled a caravan with my 1.0-liter car! But I also managed to get to my destination with the souped-up 90s models, although not as quickly or comfortably.'

Hello everyone,

When I say "high RPM," I don't mean engine speeds exceeding 2000, but rather speeds above 1400 compared to those below that level.

I tested it again today with the ASV - when I give it full throttle (1100 RPM) in 5th gear, it definitely produces more power than the ASZ I had yesterday. Of course, things change a bit higher up; below 2000 RPM, the ASZ pulls much stronger, and the torque at 2000 RPM is simply enormous.

The impression is naturally reinforced by the shape of the torque curve, as the ASV is simply more balanced in that regard.

Regarding idle speed, it seems the ASZ engine is different from the AXR engine, as the torque is clearly lower than what I experience with my ASV engine.

In terms of weight, the cars are probably quite similar. The 6L is only slightly heavier than the 6K in its basic configuration, and my 6K has a better equipment level than this 6L, which also adds weight and might offset the difference. Unfortunately, I couldn't check the curb weight, as I didn't receive any paperwork with the car (or it might be in the glove compartment, but I didn't check).

Best regards,

Jan.

Hi.

I have a G3 Variant 1Z (90 hp) and have previously driven a Bora Variant 100 hp PD and a G4 Variant 130 hp PD.

- The Bora consumes significantly more fuel (but also has more features, including Climatronic). (I don't have any fuel consumption figures for the G4).
G3 max 6.5 L - Bora over 8 L.

- The 100 horsepower engine delivers strong and CONSISTENT power from 1200 RPM.

- It has 130 horsepower (like the 1Z, but with more power) and a "magical" RPM where it really starts to pull (around 1600 RPM for the 1Z, I don't remember the exact number for the 130 horsepower version).

- I missed the 6th gear in the Golf Mk1 and Bora.

- My 1Z is really loud, especially when I accelerate (180 km/h).

m;

Jan6K wrote:

Below 2000, the ASZ starts accelerating much more strongly, and the thrust at 2000 is simply enormous.

Hello everyone,

I once contacted Ibiza forum users who owned 6L cars with a 96kW engine, asking them about their 0-200 km/h (0-124 mph) times. I then used this data and the DZR (drag coefficient) to calculate the approximate real-world power output of the ASZ engine in its stock, untuned configuration.

On average, the engine produced approximately 140 horsepower / 330 Nm of torque.
But even with that, the Ibiza (without any weight-adding extras!) doesn't quite reach the average acceleration in 3rd gear that my Golf 3 with 130 hp does - the higher weight and longer gearing of the Ibiza simply negate the engine's advantage of about 10 hp / 55 Nm .
-> So, my Golf still manages to overtake a truck on the country road a bit faster than the Ibiza with 96 kW, despite the noticeable "kick" in the back when the turbocharger starts working.
I suspect that the contrast between the Nm hole at the bottom and the charging socket significantly enhances the subjective feeling of power, at least with the 96 kW PD model - apparently more than is actually there .