Looks tempting, especially up against the madly priced Focus and always loved VAG cars. Thing is wonder how this engine would cope in a car this size as regards to long service life as must have to work very hard delivering the spritely performance ( About 10.5 to sixty and 115 mph) Don't know whether it is worth considering the £500 more 1.4 TSI instead but it is known for less than impressive fuel consumption.
What do you thinK?
|
|
Go the whole hogg and get a GTI.!!!!!
|
>> What do you thinK?
>>
too much weight for too weedy an engine thats being whipped to death to deliver sufficient poke.
|
|
The Americans have a relevant saying, "There is no substitute for cubic inches".
|
This very quote appears at the start of a review in this week's Autocar of the Golf 1.2 TSI - it's answered 'There is - it's called a turbocharger'.
I've always believed in cubic inches (or even centimetres), but all of us who are interested should perhaps try a 1.2 TSI / 1,4 TSUI comparison.
The choice with the Polo is easier, as the 1.4 engines are quite a bit less powerful tan the 1.2 TSI (at least for now, until the GTI comes along).
Last edited by: Avant on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 14:48
|
|
Sorry - in the interests of accuracy this appears in Autocar's long-term review of an Octavia 1.4 TSI. It's Auto Express that has done a test of a Golf 1.2 TSI.
|
>> "There is no substitute for cubic inches".
Cubic centimetres?
;-)
|
I dont think it'll be the fact it has to work hard that will kill it, but the number of extra parts, which are pretty pricey to replace.
This engine's got a supercharger (bearings will go eventually, VAG can't recondition so it's a replacement job) and a turbocharger, if the actuator doesn't go then the bearings will at some time in it's life.
These turbo'd vag engines are mighty impressive. For this one think 1.6 or 1.8 rather than 1.2. For fuel economy think 1.4.
|
>> These turbo'd vag engines are mighty impressive. For this one think 1.6 or 1.8 rather
>> than 1.2. For fuel economy think 1.4.
Easy to compare on the VW site:
www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/polo-v/which-model/engines/overview
Interestingly the official figures imply the 1.2TSI (105ps) is more economical than the ordinary 1.2s (60/70ps) as well as the 1.4 (85ps), although of course real life might be different.
|
They're missing a trick with that website, smart though it is.
Joe Punter will look at the power output of the engine (105ps or whatever) and think, hmmm, ok drives like a 1.6 -- then think nomore about it.
Noone will tell him the beauty of these engines is the torque curve -- straight up, then straight across == very drivable, punches well above it's size!
|
|
This is the future. Small capacity, forced induction, direct injection petrol engines. Even BMW are rumoured to be exploring this route for the next-gen 3-series.
|
I think you're right, DP. But how durable are they going to be in the long run? You've chosen carefully and picked up two high-mileage Golfs with plenty of life left in them - but will someone in the same position in 2020 be able to do the same, with either petrol or diesel?
I still have the feeling that a big, lightly-stressed engine will last longer than a smaller, higher-revving unit. Or is this an old-fashioned view?
|
|
I am with Avant. force too much horsepower out of a small engine and it has to be fragile in some area
|
>> I am with Avant. force too much horsepower out of a small engine and it
>> has to be fragile in some area
>>
As I understood it turbocharging doesn't mean higher revs - that's the Honda VTEC answer to extracting more power from small engines.
Turbocharged engines should be designed to withstand higher pressures - which is why turbo diesels have tended to weigh more, a corollary being that they actually used to last longer.
Both the VTEC and strengthening approaches require additional engineering but AFAIK VTECs have a great reputation for longevity and so do (or did) turbo-diesels? The VAG 1.4TSi is reputedly a very strong engine and I assume its 1.2TSi cousin will have inherited some of its design ?
The advantage of both these engineering approaches over larger displacements is that when the greater power isn't actually required the smaller capacity engine uses less fuel.
|
>> I am with Avant. force too much horsepower out of a small engine and it
>> has to be fragile in some area
How much is too much? In the 1950s, you maybe got 30 bhp out of a 1.2, in the 1960s, maybe 50bhp, in the 1980s maybe 60 bhp. Now it's over 100 bhp. The specific power output of internal combustion engines has been going up ever ever since they were invented, as technology advances and is refined.
Last edited by: Typ 8L on Fri 30 Apr 10 at 22:37
|
MY VAG cars with petrol turbo engines had 150PS from 1.8 litres. The same engine block got to at least 225PS in the Audi TT and SEAT Leon.
The 1.2l petrol turbo mentioned here seems good to me. A 1.6 normally asipirated equivalent but with benefits.
If we are worried about getting too much from a small 1.2l engine. What about the 260+PS from VAG 2.0 turbo petrol engines?
|
>> smaller higher-revving unit
Do you mean ones like the 1.2TSI? Because I thought the turbos meant you don't have to rev them.
|
|
Hi Craig I don't think the 1.2 and base 1.4 Tsi have superchargers but I have heard positive reviews on the 1.2 in the Yeti on Briskoda so may just go and try one!Don't but the no relacement for displacement with modern turbos.Torque on 1.2 and 1.4 comes in at 1500 rpm so not screamers on paper.
Last edited by: mattbod on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 22:21
|
AFAIK the 105PS 1.2 TSi is merely turbocharged, the 122PS 1.4TSi in the S and SE is turbocharged and the 160PS 1.4TSi in the Sport is 'twincharged' i.e. it has both a supercharger and a turbocharger but interestingly 10PS less than the Golf V with the same engine which it replaced....
SWMBO's 122PS 1.4TSi SE is lovely to drive, getting high 30s mpg (in mostly urban crawl), has a lovely 'sporty' exhaust note whilst being almost silent at tickover and is very tractable like a good turbo diesel (so not like the outmoded 2.0 PD then IMHO....).
The base 1.4S has no turbocharger so I suspect will not be winning any traffic light grand prix, neither is it as economical as its more powerful brethren - at least on paper.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 22:42
|
>> interestingly 10PS less than the Golf V with the same engine which it replaced....
I thought that about the latest 1.4TSi cars. I wondered if the supercharger was dropped or something.
I wonder when the detuned VAG 2.0T engine in the A5 Sportback comes available for more cars. 180PS instead of 200PS and lower emissions.
|
>> Do you mean ones like the 1.2TSI? Because I thought the turbos meant you don't
>> have to rev them.
Exactly! Compared my old 1.6 A3, the 122PS 1.4TSI Golf engine is much longer-geared (even ignoring the 6th gear) - the turbo give lots of low-end torque, so high revs are simply not necessary.
The 1.2TSI also has quite a bit more torque in the low rev range than the 1.6 from what I've read.
|
It will be interesting to see, Avant. I do wonder how such highly stressed engines will cope with a combination of hard use and long service intervals, or even skimped servicing by later owners, but I guess we just have to hope the manufacturers have done their R&D and testing thoroughly.
My old Volvo S60 had a 90bhp per litre turbo engine and had done 150k when sold. Oil consumption was negligible, and it still pulled well. That said, it had been treated well, and had sensible (12,500 mile) service intervals which had been religiously adhered to.
It wasn't that long ago when 100k was considered an exceptional life for a turbocharger on a petrol engine, but that seems to have changed. The Volvo was on its original turbo, as is my petrol Golf at 135k.
A mechanic mate of mine described modern diesels as "highly strung". Great when they work, but as soon as something isn't quite spot on, it all goes horribly wrong. I'm not knocking CR by the way, and I don't subscribe to the doomsday scenarios of many on these engines, but in this context, are these new generation petrol engines really any more complex? There are high mileage common rail diesels out there which have never given a day's trouble, and my experience with the Renault dCi (supposedly one of the most highly strung of the lot) was nothing but positive. I suspect these engines will follow suit - most will be fine, but some will spring eye watering bills after a few miles.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 30 Apr 10 at 08:19
|
>> Easy to compare on the VW site:
>> www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/polo-v/which-model/engines/overview
Apologies - those are the Polo engines, which for some reason I thought we were discussing (yes I know it's in the subject line). The Golf ones are here:
www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/overview
|
>>Interestingly the official figures imply the 1.2TSI (105ps) is more economical than the ordinary 1.2s (60/70ps) as well as the 1.4 (85ps), although of course real life might be different. >>
Most likely because it won't be working quite as hard as the lower PS rated engines. A Golf, as mentioned, is no lightweight and the larger the engine usually the better return overall fuel consumption wise.
Even more interesting (?) is the fact that the three Ford 1.8 diesel units earlier in the decade (from 90 to 115bhp) were all listed as having the same fuel economy figures on Ford's advertising boards in the car showrooms.
|
>> A Golf as mentioned is no lightweight
As I mentioned in a later post the link I gave was to the Polo rather than the Golf.
|
Volkswagen Golf VI - Golf 1.2 TSI: Enough or go for 1.4 - Bigtee
