Any reliable diesel estates, £2000-£3000 mark

Stigy

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Yes, I KNOW the 1.9SDI was used, I didn't ever dispute that. No need to prove that, I was questioning your assertion, subsequently repeated, that the 2.0SDI appeared in all the vehicles you said it did.

I edited as you were posting, apologies...Look at previous post.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kia-CEED-1-6-CRDI-Estate-Manual-08-reg-/272278134351?hash=item3f650a9e4f:g:yE8AAOSwzJ5XZRo9


If you want something without DMF and DPF's then your going to be stuck down in years with high mileages.


2008 kia ceed SW in price range level 3 comes with extra toys than the base level.


I had a then new 2013 proceed 120BHP level 2 1.6crdi never had DMF or a DPF issue with it.


my father had a 2008 model from 2 yrs old, drove it like miss daisy and never had an issue with it, did low miles and a basic service every 6 months by kia dealership till 2013 when he part exd it for a new ceed level 2 CRDi, and this one poses no issues either.


SW has good boot space, in boot storage box tray under the false floor.
up until the lion nose came out diesels were 88-113bhp, lion nose and beyond 126bhp.

EDIT: timing chain driven also.
I got 78MPG on cruise control from Wales to Dorset and 38mpg doing the school run.


I'm gunning myself for either a new MG or another proceed GT 202BHP next.

bigjl

People always seem to see diesels with a DMF are a nightmare and lack reliability.

However I have never replaced one. And both of those cars had huge mileage when sold.

Agree totally on the DPF. An absolute nightmare when they start to play up.

I didn't know the Kia Ceed diesel never had a DMF. Pretty rare for a diesel not to have one must be a smooth engine.

londonTiger

I'm worried that the 1.9tdi would be a little bit too weak for a heavy a6. That engine is used in mk4 golfs so wonder how it will do on such a heavier a6 estate.

The 2.5 is prtobably the more comfortable engine for the car but it is expesive and seems to have reliability issues.

I will have to test drive and see how it feels for me.

BeenThroughItAll

londonTiger wrote: »

I'm worried that the 1.9tdi would be a little bit too weak for a heavy a6. That engine is used in mk4 golfs so wonder how it will do on such a heavier a6 estate.

The 2.5 is prtobably the more comfortable engine for the car but it is expesive and seems to have reliability issues.

I will have to test drive and see how it feels for me.

It won't be. Don't forget it was available in power outputs up to and including 160PS, although the 160 was only used by Seat.


The 1.9TDI PD is a fantastic motor, with bucketloads of torque. It'll be a 130PS in the A6, and the A6 isn't actually as heavy as you might think, since it uses a lot of aluminium in its construction - performance will be more than adequate unless you're expecting a sports car.


The Skoda Superb, for example, is heavier than an A6, and I've had the 130PS 1.9TDI PD in one of them. With the auto box, it wasn't a Porsche, but it was more than sufficient for any modern traffic and would happily cruise at well over 100MPH on the autobahn without any fuss.

Clive_Woody

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

It won't be. Don't forget it was available in power outputs up to and including 160PS, although the 160 was only used by Seat.


The 1.9TDI PD is a fantastic motor, with bucketloads of torque. It'll be a 130PS in the A6, and the A6 isn't actually as heavy as you might think, since it uses a lot of aluminium in its construction - performance will be more than adequate unless you're expecting a sports car.


The Skoda Superb, for example, is heavier than an A6, and I've had the 130PS 1.9TDI PD in one of them. With the auto box, it wasn't a Porsche, but it was more than sufficient for any modern traffic and would happily cruise at well over 100MPH on the autobahn without any fuss.

My wife had a Fabia estate with a 1.9TDI, around 110BHP I think and that was certainly very nippy. Admit it was a lot smaller than an A6 but the engine had plenty in reserve.

These days we have both gone for petrol cars as neither do high mileage. I have an Octavia vRS estate which is great fun.

Stigy

bigjl wrote: »

People always seem to see diesels with a DMF are a nightmare and lack reliability.

However I have never replaced one. And both of those cars had huge mileage when sold.

Agree totally on the DPF. An absolute nightmare when they start to play up.

I didn't know the Kia Ceed diesel never had a DMF. Pretty rare for a diesel not to have one must be a smooth engine.

Not advisable, but you can replace a DMF with a Single Mass Flywheel at a lot less cost. The downside is that the longevity will be reduced and performance could be impacted. I'd imagine most garages won't offer the same sort of warranty on doing this, if they are prepared to do so at all.

bigjl

Stigy wrote: »

Not advisable, but you can replace a DMF with a Single Mass Flywheel at a lot less cost. The downside is that the longevity will be reduced and performance could be impacted. I'd imagine most garages won't offer the same sort of warranty on doing this, if they are prepared to do so at all.

I have heard of more than a few engines suffering bottom end failure after having a DMF replaced by a solid flywheel. They were all Transits though.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

bigjl wrote: »

I have heard of more than a few engines suffering bottom end failure after having a DMF replaced by a solid flywheel. They were all Transits though.

Early cheap sold flywheel conversion kits and chinese fleabay special kits did not come correctly balanced and wieghted, this lead to a few engine nightmare stories. My BIL has been running a PD TDI 130 on a solid conversion kit for over 4 years with a average yearly mileage of 30k no issues.


Many people say they have had issues with SMF conversion, but theres a problematic harmonic balancer pully on a certain engine that doesn't like the added the stress of a SMF on a originally a DMF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBcAWqksIWc