[Closed] Golf 1.9 TDI or 2.0 TDI?

2.0 tdi if you can stump up the extra cash,
just make sure it had the Mass flywheel recall if its
circa 2004 to 2006

All things the same I'd say 1.9 as the engine seems more popular (or at least round here WAGs with 1.9 are more commonly seen).

Wifes got a 1.9 A3 and I have a 2.0 Passat (both 06), apart from the extra power, the 2.0 is a lot more refined. No problems with either to comment on reliability so far.

Have had both and no problems with either. Isn't the 1.9 just an older engine hence cheaper/more on road? I'd have a 130 1,9 over a 104? 2,0

1.9 TDi are pretty nippy and return over 50mpg, heard the 2.0 TDi have more power but are very thirsty!!!

Your make your choice!

Bloody good lumps though!

I love my 1.9 Golf. It's the 100bhp version, but is about right for what I need.

I did previously for two days (before taking it back to Arnold Twunt's) have a Cordoba SE 130BHH TDi, which in all honesty I didn't notice that much difference between the two, but there probably is and some STW member will come along waving his chip and whittering on about the PD engine differences.

My next car, if finances let me will be a Superb 2.5 TDi V6

You have to get the 2.0, huge torque, 170BHP, 50 MPH & a clean exhaust - bonus £110 cartax, a no brainer!!!! 😀

I've just changed from a 1.9TDI PD 105ps Golf Match 07 plate to a new Octavia VRS 2.0TDI CR 170ps estate this week. The difference is huge - obviously massively faster but much smoother and more refined too. Both were/are DSG boxes. The sheer grunt the Skoda has makes it really relaxing to drive but its a rocket if you nail it. The 1.9 Golf was a bit breathless - loads of noise but didn't actually accelerate too well.
I loved my Golf but the Octy is way better than i expected. If it was my money i'd get a 2.0 TDI 170 engine if possible.

2.0 TDI (170) in Seat Altea - Worst car I have ever driven - Thirsty, impossible to drive without loads of lag, span the front wheel constantly so wore front tyres for a habit. Handed it back to Seat with a turd in the glove box.

1.9 if I was forced to have a VAG car.....

As someone mentioned above, the 1.9's are the older 8 valve lump. The 2 litre engines are newer, 16v engines, with common rail injection.

The 1.9 is a tough old unit, very reliable in general but a bit of a tractor engine in terms of refinement (I'm on my 2nd, having done more than 40k miles in a car with a 1.9tdi now). Plenty strong though.

The 2 litre is a much more refined, more powerful unit.

I would only choose the 1.9 on price in comparison with the 2 litre myself, as the same car with the older engine should be significantly cheaper 2nd hand.

I have a 1.9TDI Ibiza and a 2.0TDI octavia. I've had them both remaped, its difficult to compare as the cars are so different but the 2.0 is much more refined, but performance wise there is probably not much in it (there was before the remap, the 1.9 was gutless) . Some come with 100PS and some with 170, but they can all get more. I think the 1.9 is generally more economical too. I had the 100PS 1.9TDI remaped to 150 and it doesn't hang around now.

Have you thought of the supercharged 1.4 tsi version very quick torqie and good emissions.

Lots more variants than referred to here - it's the output that's important rather than the size.

Really old 1.9's in 90something and 103?

1.9 PD's came in 100, 130 and 170 variants.
2.0's now coming in 140 and 170?

early 2.0 units have balancer oil pumps, were talking 2005 engines fitted in auds vw etc. be careful if buying these as an oil pump failure can mean a new short motor at around 3500 - have a quick good and youll find some stories of it. it is a known fault in the trade so whilst the 2.0 has more power as std and is more refined if you want something cheap and reliable pick up a 1.9 - treat it well and youll get well over 200k from it.

1.9 came in 100, 130 and 150 not 170 !!

If you want economy, it's hard to beat the 1.9. If you want refinement and sub-50 mpg, get the 2.0. I drove 140K miles in my Vento 1.9 TDI, and it returned 55mpg over this period. The 2.0 Eos I have now struggles to get 45-50 (it is a lot heavier, mind).

I bought the Vento in 2000 as it was the cheapest car with the 1.9 engine. Turned out to be a superb family car - boot was enormous and would take a buggy length ways. Never missed a beat in 6 years. You might look at a Bora or Jetta, as a Golf alternative. We also ran a Golf 1.4 at the same time, dreadful car!

guys at work seem to have problems on the 2.0. unless i was buying a car that justified the extra power and refinement (e.g. new gt tdi) my money would go on the 1.9.

1.9 came in 100, 130 and 150 not 170 !!

Anniversary edition was 170

the anniversay was 150 bhp in the diesel and 180 bhp in the petrol.

vw never made the 1.9 pd engine give more than 150bhp as when they tried it started to eat its clutches with all the torque it was producing.

They did, the ibiza cupra was 160ps as standard from a 1.9

ok i stand corrected , the pd anniversary gold was 150 though not 170 !! so there!!!!!!!!!!!

oh and being a bit more pedantic 160ps is 158bhp

Wife on third VW 2.0 TDi 140 - Golf, Touran and now Passat estate - fantastic engine. One tip though - don't get the DSG if interested in fuel economy. The Golf and the new Passat regularly getting 45+mpg as they are manual. DSG in Touran returned 35 on a good day. Huge difference despite being identical engines - only difference is in the transmission as the DSG has the added load of effectively running 2 gearboxes.

Only owned the 1.9pd's version (vw golf), so cannot comment on the the 2.0L version.

But had the 115bhp, 130bhp & 150bhp (the so called gti version 😉

Did not notice a great deal of difference with MPG between them, but out of the three I prefered the way the 130bhp put the power down, far easier to live with than the 150bhp version.

They do have some problems to watch out for, smaller electric fan on PD TDI 150s failing regularly and requiring a £400 replacement!

Water pumps impeller blades can go (replace at the same time as the cambelt is done with the metal blade version)

Heard mixed reviews on running them on long service interval services too.

But myself, I have run all three versions well over 150k without any major problems.

Just avoid the Golf Mark IV as its plagued by loads of reliability issues (other than the engine).

I ran a few mark 4 golf's over 100k as Fleet cars woithout any issues. The mark 5 was a step down in build quality too although the mark 4 is starting to look its age now.

Thanks for the info!

Forgot to mention i was thinking getting an auto, interesting comments about avoiding the DSG gearbox. Official figures give 50+ for the 1.9 DSG. Might have to think about a manual

A mate had the 1.9 DSG/auto? Jetta recently and hated it - wouldn't pull the skin off custard.

I had a 2.0 (140bhp) '56 Passat and it went ok, but obviously not as well as the Golf as it was big and heavy - returned about 39mpg with a heavy right foot.

Had a 1.9 Audi A4 for a while and it was a bit sluggish.

Personally I'd go for the 2.0 every time - depending on your driving style a higher powered car [i][u]can[/u][/i] return a better mpg - obviously not if you rag it. A higher powered car can also get you out of trouble when needed too.

If it helps you my 07 1.9TDi DSG Golf was returning an average of 45mpg doing 800 miles per week. 2 days of long motorway jaunts and 3 days of tootling around London was an average week. At a steady 50mph for a few miles you will see about 58mpg with a light foot.
Had one issue with the DSG - mechtronic unit was replaced under warranty just under 60k (which was a common issue apparently) apart from that the car was faultless. Just changed it last week at 130k for my new Octy VRS DSG. Wouldn't swap it for a manual - the DSG is excellent.

Also had a manual diesel Touran for a bit. Gutless brick that struggled to get 40mpg anywhere. Too heavy for the engine i reckon.

Depends on the vintage. Some folk above are comparing common rail with PD which is not a fair fight. Plus there are more than one version of each. Not all 2.0s are 170bhp for example.

The Golf and the new Passat regularly getting 45+mpg as they are manual. DSG in Touran returned 35 on a good day

I get 50mpg in summertime from my DSG 2.0 Passat, sticking to the speed limits. Up to 57mpg on one or two occasions too 🙂

I suspect the reason for the 2mpg or so drop with the 6 speed DSG is the fact that the clutch runs in some kind of transmission fluid. The 7 speed DSG you get on new Golfs has a dry clutch and is apparently MORE economical than the manual.

i had a 1.9 (2001) that was 136 hp and kept if for 8 years / 130,000 miles. fastish, 53-55 mpg, never broke down, sold for £2.5K.. great.

now have a 2.0 140 hp (ish), new in early 2010. same feel of power and slightly better mpg. obviously feels more refined as brand new.

We had a A3 2.0 140 for 4 years (same engine I think). Wife picked it as it was far less 'dieselly'??? than the 1.9. Every year for a service we got a 1.9 as a courtesy car - every year we thought it was about to die - noisy, rattly, on it's last legs (they were new cars). The 2.0 averaged around 30mpg mainly town driving.

BTW Our computer was wildy optomistic about mpg - dividing the miles driven (optomistic) by the litres we'd put into it was very different to the comp.

My computer is not too far out, it under-reads slightly if anything.

obviously feels more refined as brand new.

It feels more refined because it's common rail, not because it's new. The engine's different.