Agree totally im young so in the words of clarkson i wanted power! Though have had egr issues and a new box dmf and clutch (not cheap) but its hit 100k now and the engine still seems happy im not getting rod anytime soonMeh, there's no definitive answer
Purely subjective and circumstantial![]()
The 'engine' on the 1.9 is pretty much bulletproof, just like the one on the 1.7. It is all of the bits that bolt onto it that cause the problems.way more reliable engine, the 1.9 has lots of common problems, just search around here for instance, sure the 1.9 is more powerful, but will be hit with the big bills like gearbox rebuild, egr valve, swirl flaps etc. I would look at the 1.7, but i have one anyway so I can't talk
Nice advice! ThanksThe 'engine' on the 1.9 is pretty much bulletproof, just like the one on the 1.7. It is all of the bits that bolt onto it that cause the problems.
Usually the same things go wrong on the 1.7 as the 1.9:-
Alternators, EGR valves, turbos, DMF's, gearboxes, water pumps, management system failures.
The incidence of failure seems to be greater on the 1.9, but in reality I think it is luck of the draw and just as likely to happen on either engine type.
To add to this, mine is on 169k.A bloke in works had 2 1.9 autos 1st one did 180k miles and he had to replace the egr valve at170k. His current one is at 150k miles and still going strong
4 1/2 years of my 1.9 and no problems whatsoever.
I'd guess the answer to the OP would be... Nothing. The 1.9 has better economy, power, refinement and even sounds less agricultural. (Y)
even sounds less agricultural. (Y)
I have to point out the 1.9 doesn't have more mpg? Lol.
1.9 has more power but worse mpg.
yeah, its like going from 1960s massey ferguson to 1990 massey ferguson, they are all massively agricultural :lol:4 1/2 years of my 1.9 and no problems whatsoever.
I'd guess the answer to the OP would be... Nothing. The 1.9 has better economy, power, refinement and even sounds less agricultural. (Y)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk