Ecomotive 1.9TDI or 1.6TDI??

[davidif]

I am looking to return to the fold. My last SEAT was a 2008 Leon FR 170 TDI, since which time ive had a couple of VAG cars including a Jetta and a Passat. Most recently ive had a mk3 MX5 2.0 Sport which is great fun although not very fast. I intend to keep the MX5 for weekends/fun and get a daily.

Ive narrowed my choice down to a Leon Ecomotive and am looking for some real world advice between the 2 engines. Ive a little bit of experience of the 1.9 but none of the 1.6.What should i do?

 

[Jarre]

The 1.9TDi ran until sometime in 2009. They're a reliable unit, but is the older PD engine. It's fairly tractor like. I test drove one before and it drove pretty nice.

The 1.6TDi replaced the 1.9. It's got the same power, but is a newer Common Rail engine. It's also a lot more refined and shouldn't have any DPF issues either. It also has start/stop, the 1.9 may have this but I cannot confirm.

It it was my choice I'd go for the 1.6TDi

 

[davidif]

Thanks Jarre. I have a budget of 11k max (if I am going to keep the MX5) and this seems to be enough for either car so budget isn't really an issue.

I am looking for maximum practicality & economy and am slightly worried that many of the reports I've read about the 1.6 TDI suggest that it isn't as economical as official figures suggest whereas I know from past experience that the 1.9 TDI can be very economical indeed.

However I will be doing about 20k miles pa and so could be swayed if for example the newer engine is 'almost' as fuel efficient but say much more refined etc. I would be interested in as many opinions as possible and in particular from owners with experience of both.

 

[Masterkm]

I would say the 1.6TDi too, I have the normal 1.9TDi on mine (not eco) and get around 43mpg around town.

For that budget though, consider the FR CR170 mate as you get alot for your money and they are efficient with low tax too. Insurance wouldnt be that different either I would guess, in my case it isnt anyway

 

[Jarre]

I nearly suggested the same. There's a fair few CR FRs out there for under £11k. Also if you use honest Johns real mpg website you can see what people really get. Using that the 1.6tdi is 49.7 and the 2.0tdi 170 is 48.8 I believe!

 

[LeonCR]

Funny this i been looking at a leon Eco car too

 

[mattster]

I have just returned my 1.9 eco and replaced it for a 1.6. i was getting very good economy on the 1.9 between 55-60 mpg for daily commute of Bristol to Swindon with the odd 70 mpg when I drove like miss daisy. and it has a lot more pull than the 1.6. the 1.6 however is much smoother and quieter and seems to drive better at lower revs. its only on 800 miles so too early to compare mpg.

 

[Deleted member 74601]

I would say the engines do need to be driven differently, which I'm sure mattster will figure out over time.

The old 1.9PD could be driven like a traditional diesel, at low revs, however the CR isn't too big a fan of low revs, I know mine never drops below 1,500RPM, where as the PD, people would drop to 1,200/1,300RPM in them. The CR engine needs to be driven more like an engine halfway between a petrol and a 'traditional' diesel, otherwise you WILL have DPF problems. If you drive it properly, the DPF will be fine.

The other thing I would say is that it was easier with the old engines to reach the official economy figures. In the CR you've got no chance of reaching it over a tank. You can reach it over the length of a journey, but it will put too much soot in the DPF, causing a regeneration and lower fuel economy.

If it were me, I'd still take the 1.6TDI, because from my signature you can see it gets really nice economy figures, considering I drive everywhere at 70mph and don't dawdle. In the summer I see ~65mpg, and in the winter ~60mpg. I do about 75% motorway driving usually though. In urban driving situations, in big cities like Liverpool (with bigger roads) I'll see anywhere between 50-60mpg, and in smaller places like towns, I'll see more like 45-50mpg because the roads are shorter, more starting and stopping etc.

The other thing you will have to get used to with 1.6TDI, and I'm sure the 1.9TDI doesn't have this, is the tremendously long gearing. It only has a 5 speed box, but the gearing is so long, it's impossible to use 5th gear before 60mph.

 

[mattster]

I would say the engines do need to be driven differently, which I'm sure mattster will figure out over time.

The old 1.9PD could be driven like a traditional diesel, at low revs, however the CR isn't too big a fan of low revs, I know mine never drops below 1,500RPM, where as the PD, people would drop to 1,200/1,300RPM in them. The CR engine needs to be driven more like an engine halfway between a petrol and a 'traditional' diesel, otherwise you WILL have DPF problems. If you drive it properly, the DPF will be fine.

The other thing I would say is that it was easier with the old engines to reach the official economy figures. In the CR you've got no chance of reaching it over a tank. You can reach it over the length of a journey, but it will put too much soot in the DPF, causing a regeneration and lower fuel economy.

If it were me, I'd still take the 1.6TDI, because from my signature you can see it gets really nice economy figures, considering I drive everywhere at 70mph and don't dawdle. In the summer I see ~65mpg, and in the winter ~60mpg. I do about 75% motorway driving usually though. In urban driving situations, in big cities like Liverpool (with bigger roads) I'll see anywhere between 50-60mpg, and in smaller places like towns, I'll see more like 45-50mpg because the roads are shorter, more starting and stopping etc.

The other thing you will have to get used to with 1.6TDI, and I'm sure the 1.9TDI doesn't have this, is the tremendously long gearing. It only has a 5 speed box, but the gearing is so long, it's impossible to use 5th gear before 60mph.

can i ask what your driving style is like for that mpg? do you get upto speed quickly and coast or just steady acceleration? also at what revs do you change up? im guessing based on your post that im changing too low as the higher gear changes to around 1500rpm and the suggested gear seems as useless as the 1.9?
the 1.9 used to be about feathering the accelerator where as the 1.6 seems to be different as per what you are suggesting.
one more question is how many miles did it take yours to run in and get better mpg? im averaging around 55 where the old one would do 60 driving the same.

 

[davidif]

Thanks for all of the great info chaps.

It seems that what I've read elsewhere regarding fuel economy between the 1.6 & 1.9 is born out in practice. As a 'traditional' diesel driver ie low revs whenever possible I am starting to lean toward the older engine. In addition the 1.9 is a proven reliable engine with many having done hundreds of thousands of miles. The 1.6 is ,I guess, a little to recent in design to have proved itself in the longer term.

I will try to drive each variant and make my mind up that way. Is there anything else I should consider?

 

[Marshall]

Funny this i been looking at a leon Eco car too

You thinking of changing your R mate?

 

[ddc]

Not sure how the additional initial cost of the ecomotive translates into the second hand market... But personally I'd probably not pay the extra again if I were buying new over a non eco 1.6 CR as I'm not convinced the eco's really give a day to day noticeable mpg improvement over a standard CR.. The only real difference is the £30 tax over zero for the eco.. Unless you expect to be running up 100k + within the next 4/5 years the difference in real life running costs are probably negligible..

In hindsight I would have gone with a 1.6 CR SE Copa which I could have had for almost the same money as my eco S Copa.. But the SE came with a few more toys.. Like a lot of people I was "taken in" by the zero tax and promise of 70-80mpg! Real world I'm getting 55mpg put of my CR eco..

Having said all that the 1.6 CR really is a much smoother drive over the 1.9 PD.. I've done over a 100k with a PD and just over 30k with my CR..

 

[LeonCR]

You thinking of changing your R mate?

No lol thinking of replacing our commuting car

 

[Deleted member 74601]

can i ask what your driving style is like for that mpg? do you get upto speed quickly and coast or just steady acceleration? also at what revs do you change up? im guessing based on your post that im changing too low as the higher gear changes to around 1500rpm and the suggested gear seems as useless as the 1.9?
the 1.9 used to be about feathering the accelerator where as the 1.6 seems to be different as per what you are suggesting.
one more question is how many miles did it take yours to run in and get better mpg? im averaging around 55 where the old one would do 60 driving the same.

Up to speed steady, not quickly, but not slowly. I change gear at 2,500RPM. Ignore the gear change indicator.

 

[olitaylor07]

I have to disagree my dad PD1.9 hates to be driven at low revs however my CR170 can easily do it.

 

[olitaylor07]

Repost

 

[dirtdemon]

I have had my Leon 1.6 TDI for 6 months now and love, ok I do not have anything to compare it by as this is my first leon, sister in law has a Ibiza.

I managed a 68 MPG on a trip from Silverstone to Hampshire, sitting 70mph the whole way.

This morning commute to work mix of B roads, motoway and traffic - aversaged 62.3 according to computer.

I find to get a good MPG just drive smoothly, also no road tax.

The only trouble I find is that it will not recongise my Ipod Touch when I plug it in with a AUX, though reading around this is a common problem.

Nick