Author Topic: 1.6 vs 1.9 (Read 22314 times)

carrizog60 · « **on:** September 12, 2005, 06:33:56 am »

whats the best?
performance/reliability.

the 1.9 is an evolution of the 1.6 so i might be better, am i right? :roll:

carrizog60 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2005, 11:45:19 am »

asking because have to find a replacement to my 1.6 (JR)...

BlackTieTD · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2005, 11:51:55 am »

more displacement is more power potential..

i dont want to go into specifics, but long story short... i blew my old engine, and was looking at two options: 1.6L TD, or 1.9L TD. i chose the 1.6L TD because it is far more readily available, cheaper, parts are easier to find, and the clincher was the crank bolt issue and reliability issues. i have a friend who's family has put 400,000km+ on their diesel golf (he took it back and forth across canada a couple times) and its never given them any problems. so for me, the 1.6L is the reliable and practical choice. the 1.9L will make more power though. depends what your priorities are. (and i'm not saying the 1.9L isnt reliable. the 1.6L just seemed like less hassle and was proven to me)

carrizog60 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2005, 12:21:04 pm »

was it a JR or SB?
i want power and reliability... :lol:
i have the KKK24 from the othre engine and bought an i.c. from a seat toledo tdi(110hp) so i have to push a little the engine...

BlackTieTD · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2005, 12:23:24 pm »

the one i put in my rabbit as a replacement was an MF code. 1.6L TD from a 1990 Jetta. it gets the rabbit moving well and its bone stock at the moment other than a stupid K&N filter. with the gearbox i have in it, the car can see 170km/h.

carrizog60 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2005, 04:57:22 am »

never saw MF code in europe..
only codes for gtd were JR, and RA,SB for the later ones.

Patrick · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2005, 05:08:49 am »

code here for hydraulic head engines (85 and up?) were ME (1.6l na @52 hp) or MF (1.6l td 2 68 hp) 1.9 after 1993

Mark(The Miser)UK · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:37:20 am »

Over here (UK t least ) we never had the MF we just carried on with the CY AFAIK

carrizog60 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2005, 10:16:34 am »

we have the JR(60hp) and the SB/RA (80hp)

Maarten · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2005, 01:32:25 pm »

Quote from: "carrizog60"

we have the JR(60hp) and the SB/RA (80hp)

JR is 70HP a the other 1.6TD is the ECO version 1V 1.6TD with a small KKK K14 or Garrett T2 with 60hp (without LDA/fuel enrichtment)

Mark(The Miser)UK · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2005, 06:49:12 pm »

Quote from: "Maarten"

Quote from: "carrizog60"
we have the JR(60hp) and the SB/RA (80hp)

JR is 70HP (at least in the netherlands) and the ECO version 1V 1.6TD with a small KKK K14 of Garrett T2 with 60hp (without LDA/fuel enrichtment)

Ok here in the UK we also had the GTD with SB... and the 1V
I'm a bit anal here with my Quantum passats... The later passat had the intercooled option But that was the transverse engine crossover with no grill front B3? a POS IMO Just a large rabbit (leveret?) :twisted:

carrizog60 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 14, 2005, 02:47:07 am »

sorry...yes the JR is 70hp

carrizog60 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2005, 05:38:28 am »

so, any more opinions on 1.9 td?

i can get 1.6 or 1.9 for the same price... choose?

Maarten · « **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2005, 10:17:44 am »

My opinion is that the 1.9 is evenly reliable as the 1.6, because it is based on that engine. Some improvements like the serpentinebelt make it even better I think.

dieselweasel · « **Reply #14 on:** September 25, 2005, 12:01:33 pm »

I'd go with the 1.6 if I were you since the 1.9 is notorious for crankshaft sprocket keyway failure. An extra .3 litres of displacement will hardly make a difference in power.