i would say the order of value would be

1.6td
KR
1.6d

Reason i say that is because alot of people can't afford to either run or insure a KR as a daily so will try to drop in a 1.6td

For me the 1.6d is a rubbish engine, not that light on fuel, painfully slow and expensive to tax for the power, it doesn't make any sense, you'd be better off with a small petrol.

 

QUOTE (DavidK @ Apr 12 2012, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i would say the order of value would be

1.6td
KR
1.6d

Reason i say that is because alot of people can't afford to either run or insure a KR as a daily so will try to drop in a 1.6td

For me the 1.6d is a rubbish engine, not that light on fuel, painfully slow and expensive to tax for the power, it doesn't make any sense, you'd be better off with a small petrol.
i was thinkin the same myself but what would you price them at? cash is king in the world

thats fairly true about the 1.6d there sluggest enough now..

 

Its hard to know really, I wouldn't put much value on any the 1.6d, less than a ton.

Paddycl was trying to shift a low mileage KR for something ridiculous like 150 euro and it didn't move, problem with the KR is its thirst, I'm using my 16v as a daily until it sells and on a gentle cruise 28-31 mpg, step up to motorway speeds and it will drop to 26, given the fact that its only 140bhp it's an expensive price to pay. In saying that though, every time I show that car a windy road I let the KR sing, its a lovely engine.

If you're looking for a 16v engine the ABF makes alot more sense, I've never driven one to really compare it to a KR but it can be tuned to give you fairly decent power and can achieve a reasonable 35mpg.

1.6td I don't know, they are becoming increasingly rare especially the SB engine and most people selling one will be aware of its rarity, so at a guesstimate I would say 250 to 500 euro for a low mileage lump.

 

Well the 1.6 td engines are a nippy engine with the few simple mods, turn up fuel pump, turbo, fmic, steel head gasket and boost gauge and controller. The td engines are snapped up very quick so i would hold onto it andy or get someone with a fair bit of knowledge to look at it. The 1.6d (block and box) would only be about 80-100e while a td running well could get €300. As for the KR i wouldn't have a clue.

 

Kr engines make about the 300 mark too.

 

QUOTE (DavidK @ Apr 12 2012, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For me the 1.6d is a rubbish engine, not that light on fuel, painfully slow and expensive to tax for the power, it doesn't make any sense, you'd be better off with a small petrol.

Would have thought the 1.6 straight diesel is one of the best engines available in old vw's. I have always got 55MPG out of them regardless of how their driven, granted they are slow. There cheap to buy and are bomb proof.

The running costs and low maintenance costs will outweigh the tax over any small petrol available at the time. There is nothing to go wrong with them. Try using a 1.3 engine, you'll get lower tax, but usually you'll be messing about with carb and ignition system continuously to keep it running. Possibly get 40 MPG if your nice to it.

I would never fit a small petrol to a mk2's anyway.

 

QUOTE (DavidK @ Apr 12 2012, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For me the 1.6d is a rubbish engine, not that light on fuel, painfully slow and expensive to tax for the power, it doesn't make any sense, you'd be better off with a small petrol.
This is total rubbish, the 1.6d will do 55-70mpg, i dont know what was wrong with the one you drove, I have been known for my mpg tests and i got 73.9-74.1mpg out of a 1.6d on a daily commute of 80 miles where i could take my time. I know lads that get 55mpg out of the 1.6d engine even though they are driving the arse off it. A 1.6 d engine running well is not as slow as people think, 0-50 takes 12seconds, 50-60 takes 6 seconds! They will do 400,000 miles plus if they are looked after. They are a fantastic engine that can be appreciated by car lovers who are into reliabilty, longevity and economy motoring. The 1.6 d has its roots(90% the same) in the engine that brought the first mass produced diesel car to the world, that is the mk1 golf. The 1.6d is a true legend of an engine.

 

QUOTE (vwconvert @ Apr 12 2012, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is total rubbish, the 1.6d will do 55-70mpg, i dont know what was wrong with the one you drove, I have been known for my mpg tests and i got 73.9-74.1mpg out of a 1.6d on a daily commute of 80 miles where i could take my time. I know lads that get 55mpg out of the 1.6d engine even though they are driving the arse off it. A 1.6 d engine running well is not as slow as people think, 0-50 takes 12seconds, 50-60 takes 6 seconds! They will do 400,000 miles plus if they are looked after. They are a fantastic engine that can be appreciated by car lovers who are into reliabilty, longevity and economy motoring. The 1.6 d has its roots(90% the same) in the engine that brought the first mass produced diesel car to the world, that is the mk1 golf. The 1.6d is a true legend of an engine.

the 1.6 diesel was not in fact the leader in mass diesel production,mercedes pioneered a diesel car.
and the 1.6 diesel was not the first diesel vw used either it was a 1.5 in the mk1 which was also available in a gtd 1.5 turbo in germany
the fuel consumption on these depends on where your fuel screw is.

and yes they are slow,

a 1.6 sb gtd engine is by far the best engine,they are better on fuel the the 1.6na because the turbo atomises the air ,much smoother,and even bog standard are lots faster.but tuned they are a fantastic engine reaching 120 bhp without too much hassle.

 

A 1.8 16v kr is very cheap now, think i gave 200 for one including a gearbox about 2 years ago
but a 2.0l 16v 9a would be expensive and hard to get imo

 

QUOTE (vwconvert @ Apr 12 2012, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is total rubbish, the 1.6d will do 55-70mpg, i dont know what was wrong with the one you drove, I have been known for my mpg tests and i got 73.9-74.1mpg out of a 1.6d on a daily commute of 80 miles where i could take my time. I know lads that get 55mpg out of the 1.6d engine even though they are driving the arse off it. A 1.6 d engine running well is not as slow as people think, 0-50 takes 12seconds, 50-60 takes 6 seconds! They will do 400,000 miles plus if they are looked after. They are a fantastic engine that can be appreciated by car lovers who are into reliabilty, longevity and economy motoring. The 1.6 d has its roots(90% the same) in the engine that brought the first mass produced diesel car to the world, that is the mk1 golf. The 1.6d is a true legend of an engine.

You clearly have a boner for this engine which is fine but you are not factoring power or refinement nor are you placing any kind of value on them as attributes. As a benchmark the 1.6d is a good engine, its simple and very reliable but at this stage it is antiquated. You clearly drive it without any kind of haste to get your alleged figures but its noisy and according to your figures 0-60 is 18 seconds, that is simply unacceptable.

You cannot relax in a car with an engine like that, its not enjoyable, it would ruin driven for me. I like economical cars and I have a car that is extremely economical and still kicks out just shy of 170bhp. With the 1.6d, if you get stuck behind anything, you're gonna stay there, I for one would be fighting the urge to shoot myself in the face driving a car that slow.

Yes its bulletproof and reliable but consider the cost of having a car with that engine. Assume you're putting it in a mk2, you cannot buy a mk2 that doesn't need work for under 2k, so no matter what you buy its going to need money spent. Lets put a figure of 2.5k on a tidy mk2 with a well sorted 1.6d engine and I think thats quite an optimistic figure.

If your goal is to have a cheap economical car there are far superior options, as I've said before the 6n2 1.4tdi is a much better option. They can be bought for sub 1.5k now and at that you don't have the work that comes with owning a 20+ year old car.

 

QUOTE (taita @ Apr 12 2012, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>the 1.6 diesel was not in fact the leader in mass diesel production,mercedes pioneered a diesel car.
and the 1.6 diesel was not the first diesel vw used either it was a 1.5 in the mk1 which was also available in a gtd 1.5 turbo in germany
the fuel consumption on these depends on where your fuel screw is.

and yes they are slow,

a 1.6 sb gtd engine is by far the best engine,they are better on fuel the the 1.6na because the turbo atomises the air ,much smoother,and even bog standard are lots faster.but tuned they are a fantastic engine reaching 120 bhp without too much hassle.

Yes I know about the 1.5 in the mk1 and they were a heap of shit with the lucas cav pump. My point was that the mk1 diesel golf was the first affordable car in mass production for the masses and even then you had to be well off to get one. The mercedes diesels that you are refering to were so expensive only the very rich could afford one. Its not like today where every tom dick and harry can afford a merc, mercs are cheap in relative terms today.
I realase the 1.6 diesel in n/a form is slow and that there are better engines, my point was that it is not heavy on a fuel and not a crap engine. I wanted to make this clear for the op as I felt he was been lead to believe that they were a shote engine.

 

QUOTE (DavidK @ Apr 12 2012, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You clearly have a boner for this engine which is fine but you are not factoring power or refinement nor are you placing any kind of value on them as attributes. As a benchmark the 1.6d is a good engine, its simple and very reliable but at this stage it is antiquated. You clearly drive it without any kind of haste to get your alleged figures but its noisy and according to your figures 0-60 is 18 seconds, that is simply unacceptable.

You cannot relax in a car with an engine like that, its not enjoyable, it would ruin driven for me. I like economical cars and I have a car that is extremely economical and still kicks out just shy of 170bhp. With the 1.6d, if you get stuck behind anything, you're gonna stay there, I for one would be fighting the urge to shoot myself in the face driving a car that slow.

Yes its bulletproof and reliable but consider the cost of having a car with that engine. Assume you're putting it in a mk2, you cannot buy a mk2 that doesn't need work for under 2k, so no matter what you buy its going to need money spent. Lets put a figure of 2.5k on a tidy mk2 with a well sorted 1.6d engine and I think thats quite an optimistic figure.

If your goal is to have a cheap economical car there are far superior options, as I've said before the 6n2 1.4tdi is a much better option. They can be bought for sub 1.5k now and at that you don't have the work that comes with owning a 20+ year old car.

You said the engine was rubbish and not that light on fuel, that is why I commented. The reality remains the engine is not a rubbish engine, the time the engine was designed must be taken into account. Also the reality is that the engine is very light on diesel. I know as well as you do that the 1.6td is twice the car to drive, i have no problem with that and i understand that overtaking in the 1.6d can be bordering on very dangerous. I commented as i felt you were misleading the op in regards to that the engine was not that light on fuel and a rubbish engine. If you had said that the 1.4 in a mk4 golf was a rubbish engine then i would have been fine with that for example.
In fairness you did say that the 1.6 diesel for you was a rubbish engine rather than saying that they are a rubbish engine in general, I'll give you that no problem. Also you are entitled to your opinion but I felt that I must contradict your opinion in order to give the op a better and more accurate image of the 1.6diesel engine. To clarify they are slow, if you want power look elsewhere, but they are light on diesel and reliable not rubbish.

 

QUOTE (vwconvert @ Apr 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You said the engine was rubbish and not that light on fuel, that is why I commented. The reality remains the engine is not a rubbish engine, the time the engine was designed must be taken into account. Also the reality is that the engine is very light on diesel. I know as well as you do that the 1.6td is twice the car to drive, i have no problem with that and i understand that overtaking in the 1.6d can be bordering on very dangerous. I commented as i felt you were misleading the op in regards to that the engine was not that light on fuel and a rubbish engine. If you had said that the 1.4 in a mk4 golf was a rubbish engine then i would have been fine with that for example.
In fairness you did say that the 1.6 diesel for you was a rubbish engine rather than saying that they are a rubbish engine in general, I'll give you that no problem. Also you are entitled to your opinion but I felt that I must contradict your opinion in order to give the op a better and more accurate image of the 1.6diesel engine. To clarify they are slow, if you want power look elsewhere, but they are light on diesel and reliable not rubbish.

ok, you're right

 

QUOTE (DavidK @ Apr 12 2012, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ok, you're right

Haha, Yes I am

 

I would be interested in the td engine if your selling! let me know if you are!

 

I have had all of the engines mentioned above.
The kr is not a realistic daily in my personal experience if you're doing any sort of mileage.
I would have no real problem with a 1.6D.
The 1.6 td is a fantastic creation with loads of potential.
I would say the order of pricing would be 1.6d Kr 1.6td.

 

thanks for all the advice lads but i really just wanted a ballpark figure of the PRICE of each engine as im swappin my straight diesel for a 16v.. thanks all the same doh

and im not getting rid of my td so its not for sale sorry..

 

QUOTE (ventoPOWER @ Apr 12 2012, 11:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>thanks for all the advice lads but i really just wanted a ballpark figure of the PRICE of each engine as im swappin my straight diesel for a 16v.. thanks all the same doh

and im not getting rid of my td so its not for sale sorry..

i paid 500 quid for a whole donor 1.6td with 140000 miles on the clock, it came with loads of parts though, a timing belt kit, new water pump, break lines, 2 track rod ends, a front wheel bearing, and a full tank of fuel!
dont know if i paid over the odds for it, probably did, but with all the parts and low enough millage i though it was a good deal
hope it helps

 

Buy a 1.6D, give it a recon and bolt on Poole's Janspeed turbo he's selling on here! Best of both worlds.

I put a 1.6td into my mk2 years back and I wouldnt say it was any serious performance upgrade, but then again, what would you expect.

An average 130k mile engine for each one all in acceptable condition, Id consider maybe 100 to 150 for a 1.6D, 300ish for a 1.6TD, and about the same, maybe a little less for a KR considering the mileage/wear in respect of the diesels.

Thats the realistic value Id put on it myself, asking prices would be more of course.

Personally, Id get an 8v

 

QUOTE (Oisin @ Apr 13 2012, 01:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Buy a 1.6D, give it a recon and bolt on Poole's Janspeed turbo he's selling on here! Best of both worlds.

I put a 1.6td into my mk2 years back and I wouldnt say it was any serious performance upgrade, but then again, what would you expect.

An average 130k mile engine for each one all in acceptable condition, Id consider maybe 100 to 150 for a 1.6D, 300ish for a 1.6TD, and about the same, maybe a little less for a KR considering the mileage/wear in respect of the diesels.

Thats the realistic value Id put on it myself, asking prices would be more of course.

Personally, Id get an 8v

did you do any work on the 1.6td ? power can be be got very cheap and easy thats why theyre desirable , have one here to drop into my mk2

 

The biggest work I did on it was fit new injectors and a k&n filter. I wasnt trying to break any land speed records in it though

If your putting one in your straight 1.6, be forewarned, the oil pressure sensor and clocks need attention, otherwise the buzzer will go off every 2 mins.