User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: 1.9 cdti or 3.0 cdti

  1. #1
    Regular Member Angel1368's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    liverpool
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Vectra

    Trim : VXR

    Engine : 2.8 V6 turbo

    Year : 2006

    Mileage : 44,000

    Default 1.9 cdti or 3.0 cdti

    Just wondering what people think and why would you choose 1 over the other

  2. #2
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Golf 7

    Trim : GTD

    Engine : 2.0 TDI 184PS

    Year : 2014

    Mileage : 40000

    Default

    The known tuning options available to the 1.9. The 3.0ltr doesn't - in theory - have good results in tuning - however I have to say no one has really tried so no one really knows there. I had a 1.9 before and loved it so I got me another. I wouldn't say no to the 3.0ltr either.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stevie16v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    East Ayrshire
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Vectra

    Trim : SRI XP1



    Default

    1.9
    Fuel consumption (urban) 38.2 mpg
    Fuel consumption (extra urban) 60.1 mpg
    Fuel consumption (combined) 49.6 mpg
    0 - 62 mph 9.8 seconds
    Top speed 135 mph
    Cylinders 4
    Valves 16 v
    Engine power 150 bhp
    Engine torque 235 lbs/ft

    3.0
    Fuel consumption (urban) 27.7 mpg
    Fuel consumption (extra urban) 53.3 mpg
    Fuel consumption (combined) 39.8 mpg
    0 - 62 mph 9.7 seconds
    Top speed 140 mph
    Cylinders 6
    Valves 24 v
    Engine power 184 bhp
    Engine torque 295 lbs/ft



    There's not really that much of a difference esp with the 0-62 time. However obviously the 3.0 has more torque. I test drove both and opted for the 1.9 for better fuel consumption

  4. #4
    Regular Member rockafella8587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Akrotiri, Cyprus
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    I think the 1.9 is great obviously as i have one and its remapped, but i guess the v6 cdti is also a great engine! If i had a 3.0 cdti id be temped to remap that too but ive not heard of many owners doing this. I think the 1.9 150 when mapped gives a great balance of power / economy....as far as the 3.0 goes, ive never driven or owned one so cant comment on them

  5. #5
    Regular Member m8internet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cumbernauld, Scotland
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Mentioned before, I compared both the 1.9 CDTI and 3.0 V6 CDTI at a dealership
    There was very little between them, but the 3.0 V6 CDTI was much easier to drive on the country roads, overtaking with much more confidence
    Equally, it had much more punch mid-acceleration (which I knew would be beneficial on driving on many of Scotlands rural roads) with no need to change gear which was almost essential in the 1.9 CDTI
    I had concerns over the higher warranty costs, but this turned out to be identical
    The difference in insurance was just £12

    My personal consideration was for a reliable high mileage engine, cost was no object (whilst under warranty)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Angel1368's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    liverpool
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Vectra

    Trim : VXR

    Engine : 2.8 V6 turbo

    Year : 2006

    Mileage : 44,000

    Default

    i never knew the 0 to 60 time would be so close

  7. #7
    Regular Member m8internet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cumbernauld, Scotland
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevie16v View Post
    1.9
    0 - 62 mph 9.8 seconds

    3.0
    0 - 62 mph 9.7 seconds
    Are those for the 2006MY onwards?

    The 0 - 60 time on mine is 8.3 seconds, compared to the equivalent 1.9 CDTI having 8.8 seconds
    However, compare the 50 - 70 time of 5.3 seconds against 6.5 seconds

  8. #8
    Regular Member HenryD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    cornwall
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    My V6 is an auto and I think its very smooth and quiet,the mid range torque is great too,I've driven the 1.9's and agree that performance is much the same but the v6 is so much more relaxed in the way it does its job.

  9. #9
    Regular Member pogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    having a laugh and banter when permitted
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Audi

    Trim : A5

    Engine : 2.0 turbo petrol

    Year : 2009

    Default

    Ive owned two 1.9s one boxed and one not,its an excellent engine when its running right,ive never had an ounce of bother eoyh either of mine but they are not without issues,egr valve,flywheels etc,ive not heard too much about reliability on the 3.0 but to be fair its a far rarer engine than the 1.9,with a box/remap the 1.9 is around the 190+ bhp mark,the 3.0 similarly tuned should be about 220ish,i had tuning box on one of my 1.9s and it was as fast a car as youd ever need ,mind you i now jsve v6tutbo petrol and thats an even bigger beast lol

  10. #10
    Regular Member rickisgrate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    I wanted the 3.0 but the fuel costs and tax price difference persuaded me to go for the 1.9

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 1.9 Vectra CDTi 150 VS 2.0 CDTi 160 insignia Sri
    By Derek Mc in forum Vectra C / Signum Car Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12th May 2011, 11:38
  2. Weird noise from Signum CDTI 1.9 CDTI (150)
    By oneightycd in forum Diesel Engine related
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22nd June 2007, 22:27
  3. CDTi 120bhp Vs CDTi 150bp
    By bennyk in forum Diesel Engine related
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 6th December 2006, 23:45

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Nobody landed on this page from a search engine, yet!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •