I'm new into car techniques, but as I've been driving both systems of cars, I would like to hear from you what is preferred under chiptuners?

I had a Peugeot 307 HDi 2.0 from 2003 with RHS engine and 107 bhp. But I think it had much more horse power because many chiptuners told me that the ecu file had been remapped before. Of course my vendor didn't mention that fact. One day (it was in February this year) the highpressure pump of the common rail failed, so I couldn't give 100% to the engine as it stopped immediately. It was a big financial failure for me as I only could get 1000 euros from it. At the end, the engine didn't start anymore.

Now I'm driving a VW Golf MK5 1.9 with 105bhp and it drives a lot better, the consumption is a lot less than my car before (from 6,5 to 5,4). I often read about the high pressure of pumpduse (about 2000bar) and common rail does now reaches equal pressures.

So what is more easier to deal with as it's being to be remapped?
Regards

Common rail engines are much better then pump duse engines. Take a look how long VAG produced their PD engines.They dropped that design and went for common rail in 2006.
No mater if you have CR or PD remapped engine, you will need to make more frequent oil and filter changes. Also smart thing to do is to lower the mileage when toothed belt and tensioners are changed.

Even though the injector-pump engines VAG used were technically very advanced, they still let go to the CR engines. They are less refined, noisier, use more fuel, and pollute more. To be honest on average they are a bit more "aggressive" in delivering the power but nowadays they are pretty outdated. The PD engine limit has been more or less reached, while the common rail units still can be developed a lot.

VAG kept building them for the only reason that upgrading them to the technical limit was much cheaper than paying for Bosch's common rail licences (Bosch bought them from Fiat).
When the end users finally found out that the famous "german engineering" was pretty much outdated (the other makers started using CR in ~2000) they were forced to go on the new route. It's incredible how the VW group badge is so strong that they can afford to use weaker tech for 6 years and still retain the "they are the cutting edge of technology" common belief.

Erm, actually it was emissions regs that killed the PD engine, nothing to do with "End users finding out"! :? They couldnt make the engines more powerful (Think the current 2.0 TDi 170bhp engine) but still meet the ever more stringent emissions regs in force. I expect cost had something to do with it aswell - The fact that Bosch (Who also supplied the PD system) probably made their CR system more cost effective than continuing with the PD system. ;)

Common rail is a far more flexible design than PD. In PD you have a very narrow window in which to inject the fuel, which is why the fuel pressures were so high in PD. In Common rail, in theory you can inject fuel for 360 degrees (Of course you wouldnt want to though). Also the fuel pressure is totally adjustable in CR, something which is pretty much mechanically fixed in PD.
In my opinion, CR is certainly a lot more advanced than PD, which was nothing more than a glorified mechanical injection system.....

ross2482 wrote:Erm, actually it was emissions regs that killed the PD engine, nothing to do with "End users finding out"! :?

Well both of them probably. I know of many people wanting to buy a in 2000-2005 VW TDi but ending up with another maker because they did not want to have a engine that was born old already!

OdinEidolon wrote:Even though the injector-pump engines VAG used were technically very advanced, they still let go to the CR engines. They are less refined, noisier, use more fuel, and pollute more. To be honest on average they are a bit more "aggressive" in delivering the power but nowadays they are pretty outdated. The PD engine limit has been more or less reached, while the common rail units still can be developed a lot.

VAG kept building them for the only reason that upgrading them to the technical limit was much cheaper than paying for Bosch's common rail licences (Bosch bought them from Fiat).
When the end users finally found out that the famous "german engineering" was pretty much outdated (the other makers started using CR in ~2000) they were forced to go on the new route. It's incredible how the VW group badge is so strong that they can afford to use weaker tech for 6 years and still retain the "they are the cutting edge of technology" common belief.

Hello there,

I totally agree with you, my friend, but most of the customers (or potential customers) looks only on the "badge/brand" on the front of the vehicle, unfortunately... And marketing is stronger than technical, unfortunately again... VAG Group had a 2-times advantage: they used a long-gone technology for many years WITHOUT INVESTING extra (I mean to EVOLVE towards CR) and, against those who was a bit smarter guys, they pushed onto the fact that those are German cars (for example, in my country, that counts unbelievebly a lot...)
There's a lot to talk on this, but, unfortunately, without effect...

Regards,
Laur.

The reason for VAG using PD instead of CR was that when Fiat sold the CR license to Bosch, they specifically prohibited Bosch from re-licensing it to VAG 4-cylinder diesels for a certain amount of time.

I very much doubt that! That would fall foul of countless EU competition laws...
Remember that Siemens also made Common Rail systems and so if VAG had wanted to use a CR system they could have used that system.
WOuld you be good enough to supply a source for that information? :)

Sorry, but you just have to choose to believe it or not. :)
The PD system isn't actually that bad, there are some benefits to it as well. Such as easy to achieve high injection pressure, which is, when combined with carefully CFD designed combustion chambers, the key to reducing smoke especially when using very high EGR rates to achieve low NOx emissions. Some of the biggest problems with PD is the inflexibility in providing pre- and post-injection, former for noise control and later for DPF regeneration.

pump duse , because of the vagedc suite . Very good software and 10000 times easier than WinOLS . Now , i try to edit some common rail map with vagedc suite , i hope i can