-
1.6 vs 1.9
by
carrizog60
on 12 Sep, 2005 04:33
-
whats the best?
performance/reliability.
the 1.9 is an evolution of the 1.6 so i might be better, am i right? :roll:
-
#1
by
carrizog60
on 12 Sep, 2005 09:45
-
asking because have to find a replacement to my 1.6 (JR)...
-
#2
by
BlackTieTD
on 12 Sep, 2005 09:51
-
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)
-
#3
by
carrizog60
on 12 Sep, 2005 10:21
-
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...
-
#4
by
BlackTieTD
on 12 Sep, 2005 10:23
-
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.
-
#5
by
carrizog60
on 13 Sep, 2005 02:57
-
never saw MF code in europe..
only codes for gtd were JR, and RA,SB for the later ones.
-
#6
by
Patrick
on 13 Sep, 2005 03:08
-
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
-
#7
by
Mark(The Miser)UK
on 13 Sep, 2005 07:37
-
Over here (UK t least ) we never had the MF we just carried on with the CY AFAIK
-
#8
by
carrizog60
on 13 Sep, 2005 08:16
-
we have the JR(60hp) and the SB/RA (80hp)
-
#9
by
Maarten
on 13 Sep, 2005 11:32
-
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)
-
#10
by
Mark(The Miser)UK
on 13 Sep, 2005 16:49
-
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:
-
#11
by
carrizog60
on 14 Sep, 2005 00:47
-
sorry...yes the JR is 70hp
-
#12
by
carrizog60
on 24 Sep, 2005 03:38
-
so, any more opinions on 1.9 td?
i can get 1.6 or 1.9 for the same price... choose?
-
#13
by
Maarten
on 24 Sep, 2005 08:17
-
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.
-
#14
by
dieselweasel
on 25 Sep, 2005 10:01
-
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.