Mazda 323 TDI: Seat Toledo AFN Conversion

I've been driving a Seat Toledo 1.0 TDI with 110 horsepower for the past year. Now, I've bought a Mazda 2.0 TDI with 90 horsepower.

The Seat has a PSI powerbox installed, so it's tuned to 135 horsepower. The Mazda also has a powerbox, tuned to 110 horsepower.

My problem is that the Mazda simply doesn't have enough power. Compared to the Seat, it feels very slow.

I would be very grateful if someone could give me a tip on how to increase the performance of my Mazda. I would really like to have around 120 horsepower.

Does anyone know how to increase the turbo boost, or if it's even possible, and if so, how?

I think that nobody here knows anything about the engine.

but it seems like the engine is not up to par. 2.0l, 90 horsepower .

Does it have a PD or a VP?

You probably can't do much to fix it yourself, because there's no diagnosis or anything like that.

Even a chip would be a waste of money for a car like that.
Sell something and buy something worthwhile.

Well, I really think the biggest problem is that nobody here seems to know anything about cars or engines. Otherwise, this seems like a pretty robust vehicle. Speaking of being out of date: it has something to do with how much they inflate the engine. VW 'inflates' the 1.9-liter engine so much that they can get 150 horsepower out of it. Mazda, on the other hand, only gets 90 horsepower out of a 2.0-liter engine.

By the way, there isn't much positive being said about the B5 either, so much for getting something worthwhile. Sorry, but comments like 'sell it and buy something decent' don't really help anyone, do they?

Best regards, WarLord.

Hello Steffarn,

but as it seems, the engine is not in good condition. 2.0l, 90 horsepower .

Does it have a PD or a VP?

You probably can't do much to fix it yourself, because there's no diagnosis or anything like that.

Even a chip would be a waste of money for a car like that.
Sell it and get something good.

I would say that was a solid 6.
Please refrain from providing such responses in the future.

Furthermore, it's likely that Mazda uses a pressure differential (PD) system, as Stefarn mentioned. Perhaps he has a variable pressure (VP) system.
Otherwise, I don't know much about the engine, but we have a lot of knowledgeable people here. It's called a "diesel mechanic" forum, not a "DIY VAG diesel" forum!

This is a DITD engine, a TDI with 16 valves and an intercooler with a VP44 injection pump. I don't believe it's outdated. The engine operates with a boost pressure of 0.5 bar. If you were to reduce the boost pressure of a 1.9 TDI VP44 to around 0.5 bar, you would lose all the modern sporty characteristics of your diesel. Furthermore, I also have a Seat Toledo with an AFN engine and a PSI box. In my opinion, the Mazda engine is technically superior to both of those. The Mazda is much quieter, revs surprisingly high for a diesel, and has very good torque. With 110 hp and 265 Nm, the VW TDI with 110 hp only produces 235 Nm! The power is well distributed across the entire rev range, up to over 4500 rpm. Fewer horsepower from a specific engine doesn't necessarily mean it's an older engine, especially not with turbocharged engines. An old VW with a 1.6L TD engine with a swirl chamber has 80 hp, while a 1Z TDI with a 1.9L engine has 90 hp. Does that mean the 1.6L swirl chamber engine is more modern than the 1.9L TDI with 90 hp, just because the 1.6L produces 50 hp per liter, while the 1Z produces 47 hp per liter?
'The ditd engines are also available with 110 horsepower, and with a chip tuning upgrade, they can reach 138 horsepower while achieving very high mileage without needing to replace the mass airflow sensor ten times or experiencing turbocharger failures.'

I would prefer it if someone wrote, 'I'm sorry, I can't help you; I'm not familiar with that engine.' But to suggest buying something 'decent' without knowing the engine is not helpful. Take a look at the ADAC statistics to see which cars have the fewest breakdowns; those are Toyota and Mazda, not an Audi B5.

I am grateful for any help, as long as it doesn't involve suggestions for me to buy something 'sensible,' whatever that may mean.

konjoy wrote:

The engine is a ditd; it's a TDI with 16 valves and an intercooler with vp...

Are you sure it's a DITD?
The DITD (Direct Injection Turbo Diesel) engine was installed in the 323 series starting in October 2000 and had an output of 74 kW / 100 horsepower.
http://www.autoundverkehr-umweltliste.de/anzeigen.aspx?id=13087
To my knowledge, the 90 hp engine installed until 9/00 was a water-cooled/vented engine. This would also explain the quieter running noise and the higher RPM range.


EDIT:

http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php?artikel_id=4054&artikel_seite=1

Quote:

The diesel engines of the older generation (2.0 D with 71 hp and 2.0 TD with 90 hp) are relics of the past: rough, loud, and not particularly spirited. The 2.0 DITD with 100 hp is significantly better, but even this engine is not particularly quiet.

That's all I have to say about your statement "current engine" ...

The 90 hp engine is also a DITD (Direct Ignition Turbocharged Diesel) engine. It was used in the Mazda 626 with 100 hp starting in 1998, and also in the 323 with 90 hp starting in 1998. Later, the 323 had a 100 hp engine, and the 626 had a 110 hp engine, but they are all DITD engines, as stated in the documents.

konjoy wrote:

The 90hp engine is also a DITD (Direct Ignition Turbocharged Diesel) and was used in the Mazda 626 with 100hp starting in 1998, and also in the 323 with 90hp starting in 1998. Later, the 323 had 100hp and the 626 had 110hp, but they are all DITD engines, as stated in the documents.

Read the Auto Bild article I attached above... the 90 hp engine is a TD (turbo diesel), and direct injection (DI) wasn't introduced by Mazda until 2000.

Here's the model history:
http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php?artikel_id=4054&artikel_seite=2

It already mentions there that the 90 hp engine is not a performance powerhouse.

Hi,

According to the KBA (German Federal Motor Transport Authority) documents, the 323 only has one engine option with 66 kW (until 9/00), which is classified as a "D" engine.
The 74kw engine, on the other hand, is classified as a DUD engine (Diesel Uncontrolled catalytic converter Direct injection). In the 626, there is a 66kw engine that is also classified as a DUD.

The 1Z is listed as a DUD... just for comparison.

What's surprising is the high torque of the 66 kW engine, at 220 Nm, which is quite high for a WK/VK engine.

Hi everyone,

For a quick update: My colleague at work has a 626 DITD 2.0 with 90 horsepower.
(220 nautical miles) and had a new engine installed last week, which provides 20% more power.
'It has 108 hp (260 Nm), and indeed: I have an A3 that has been chipped by tuneline (116 hp).'
major difficulties in getting away from him...

Furthermore, the component in the engine compartment is incredibly well-designed, making it very accessible.
'All the connections are accessible, and the turbocharger is also easily reachable.'

That's the 'state of the art' from 1999...

Best regards, wolf

Quote:

but statements like "sell it and buy something worthwhile" don't really benefit anyone, do they?

I didn't mean to say that the car is bad; it's probably more reliable than any Audi. It's just that if you want performance, you need a good diesel engine as a foundation, and Mazda won't be able to offer that.

Achieving 220 Nm of torque with a 2.0-liter engine isn't particularly difficult. The engine is likely heavily detuned to ensure a long lifespan. (However, an AFN engine can also easily reach 400,000 km).
And I believe that tuning the engine (turbo, injectors, etc.) will be a significant expense.
"Chip in and done" --- I don't like the idea of using a tuning box, and it doesn't offer as much improvement as a different engine map.

Yes, you are right, my mistake. But the 90 hp engine in the 323 2.0 TDI is also a 16V engine with a charge air cooler and direct injection, just like the DITD, and it is Euro 3, while the TD is Euro 2.

I have another question: The car's manual specifies 10W-30 oil. Is it worse if I use 10W-40 instead?

/viewtopic.php?t=3147&highlight=viscosity

So, is 10W-40 actually better than 10W-30 because the viscosity range is higher, and therefore better?