-
1.6TD vs 1.9TD
by
HP
on 21 Jun, 2006 09:49
-
Hi! I have this very straight question for you experts: Which one is the most reliable engine? The 1.9TD (AAZ) or the 1.6TD (JR/MF) :?:
Very simple.
-
#1
by
malone
on 21 Jun, 2006 12:13
-
If preventative maintenance is not done to the defective AAZ (1.9TD) crank, then the 1.6TD will have better odds for a long life.
I'm unsure which engine is more reliable after a AAZ crank fix is done though.
-
#2
by
HP
on 22 Jun, 2006 17:27
-
Thank you for the reply.
I would like to know some more opinions.
So, which one is better? 1.6L or 1.9L :?: :?:
Don't be shy.
-
#3
by
burn_your_money
on 22 Jun, 2006 18:10
-
What are you looking to get out of the engine?
Perhaps a hybrid is best for you
-
#4
by
QuickTD
on 22 Jun, 2006 19:21
-
There is no replacement for displacement.
-
#5
by
HP
on 22 Jun, 2006 19:22
-
:? 1.6 or 1.9? The one that lasts for longer. Stock. No crank (edited :mrgreen:) nor headgasket fixes.
huh?!
-
#6
by
SMOKEYDUB
on 22 Jun, 2006 20:03
-
stock over stopck i would say 1.6 rules in longevity.
-
#7
by
QuickTD
on 22 Jun, 2006 20:21
-
Without any intervention all 1.9TD's will die between 100000 and 300000km. Most 1.6's will need a head gasket sometime in that range as well. The 1.9's disease is more serious than the 1.6's, but both have their faults.
-
#8
by
HP
on 23 Jun, 2006 05:53
-
OK. Now let's say, 1.9L crank problem repaired and 1.6L metal hg :!: "Bugs" fixed.
Both new engines (or completely rebuilt) with only regular maintenace.
Again, stock output, not tuned.
Which one lives for longer? :twisted:
-
#9
by
HP
on 23 Jun, 2006 11:36
-
Great. Then there's the Euro intercooled version to tear it all up. :twisted:
OK, I think I got it. :wink:
Anyways, I'm now thinking of the turbo! One can consider that you will less probablly have turbo failure on a 1.6L with a K24/T3 rather than on a 1.9L, hein!!? Ain't these more robust than any of turbos installed on the AAZ?
-
#10
by
QuickTD
on 23 Jun, 2006 14:18
-
Anyways, I'm now thinking of the turbo! One can consider that you will less probablly have turbo failure on a 1.6L with a K24/T3 rather than on a 1.9L, hein!!? Ain't these more robust than any of turbos installed on the AAZ?
The K03 used on the 1.9TD is very tough if the boost pressure is left stock or kept reasonable. Mine is original and the car just passed 300000km, it has run 15psi for the past 200000km with no special care. If you want bigger boost the k24 or T3 would probably be a better choice both for performance and longevity.
-
#11
by
addautomotive
on 23 Jun, 2006 17:46
-
Option 2: put a t3 or k24 on the 1.9TD. My t3 has made a significant difference, even if it is a bit laggy.
-
#12
by
andy2
on 24 Jun, 2006 08:38
-
We just put a t3 on my dads AAZ powered 95 passat wagon as the k03 was blowing oil out the exhaust.Also we put an A3 tdi intercooler setup on,hollowed out the cat,cranked up the fuel,boost controller set to 15 psi,1.6 boost pin,boost and egt gauge.It works well now and he isn't bothered by the lag of the t3 when compared to the k03 :shock: .EGT's are staying at 1250 deg max and she works great with minimal smoke until boost comes on :twisted:.
The AAZ is a nice engine when intercooled and tuned also with the crank fixed.Other than that though as mentioned both the 1.6td and TDI's are both better setups off the shelf in terms of longevity and fuel econemy!
You have to remember that a 1.6td pulling around a rabbit doesn't compare to a heavy passat wagon that the AAZ pulls around though.If the 1.6td was transplanted into the wagon the fuel econmey could be worse than the AAZ.I had my modded twin turbo engine in my A2 jetta and without a doubt I sure that on the HWY cruising I could have obtained 1000kms to 55L.Thats if I drove it with a light foot and didn't use 150hp to pass other cars,also not cruising at 120km/hr.