1.9 vs 2.0 TDI ?

[ARMY]

Anyone benchmarked the difference of the 1.9 TDIs vs the newer 2010/2011 2.0 TDIs? Im hearing they are saying 61mpg.

Also, with consideration to aftermarket mods, has anyone considered what the potential for the 2.0 would be?

[RalphVa]

Didn't the 2.0 come out with the 2009s?

Problem with the newer ones is not digging into all that power available. They almost have to be more efficient to get the extra power, but how to keep from using it?

Think the 2011 did a backslide with hydraulic power steering. That has to hurt mileage. Maybe on the diesels they've put the electro-mechanical back? Maybe the 2011s are a tad lighter with the fewer piece rear suspension? Anyone have the details?

[oilhammer]

My 2004 is a 2.0L

The new "clean diesel" technology has largely been used to increase power, not fuel consumption, on North American bound cars.

They still get "very good" fuel economy, all things considered.

[09R/T]

We have had this discussion on the truck side of things for a couple years now. My 2006 5.9L Cummins was getting 20 USmpg before the mods. My dads 2008, with the 6.7L and all the emissions crap was getting 16 US mpg. Same general technology (common rail, except the 6.7L uses higher pressure), same body design yada yada. He pulled the DPF, NOX catalyst, and cat convertor off, and now gets upwards of 22-23 usmpg....mostly a result of freeing up the breathing of the engine. In theory the 2.0L should return the same or better mileage than the 1.9L, but due to the emmisions crap, wil return lower mileage on average. Take that stuff of, and it should be higher than the 1.9L based on the more efficient fuel system.

[oilhammer]

The exhaust aftertreatment requires extra fuel to operate, so the engines must run "richer" hence the increased fuel use. I know it seems strange, but that is how gas engines have been for quite a while: use more fuel but are cleaner*


*at least how the EPA/CARB see it.