Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

1.6 TDI - 75vs 90 vs 105BHP


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 RapidRonnie

RapidRonnie

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,171 posts
  • Car:Rapid 1.2TSI (86) SE

Posted 21 October 2011 - 15:07

Is there much discernable difference between these engines for someone who is not exploiting their full performance all the time? I'm thinking specifically of driveability and turbo lag?

There's a fair bit of difference in price between them although they're all exactly the same on economy and emissions and I guess they're all the same mechanically?

#2 seboni121

seboni121

    Are we really here ?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,908 posts
  • Location:Cemaes bay , Anglesey
  • Car:VW GOLF 1.6 tdi 105bhp, match with bluemotion tech , gunmetal grey metallic

Posted 21 October 2011 - 15:59

Get the 105 bhp it will put ;) on your face

#3 Dempsek

Dempsek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Location:Biddulph
  • Car:MkIII Octavia 1.4TSI DSG Elegance Estate with ACC, three spoke wheel and auto boot in white

Posted 21 October 2011 - 16:09

Get the 105 bhp it will put ;) on your face


It's the engine I have chosen for the scout and they seem to be very popular.

#4 seboni121

seboni121

    Are we really here ?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,908 posts
  • Location:Cemaes bay , Anglesey
  • Car:VW GOLF 1.6 tdi 105bhp, match with bluemotion tech , gunmetal grey metallic

Posted 21 October 2011 - 17:17

I tried the cr tdi 1.6 in the 70 bhp and then jumped into the 105 and it's definate much better torque

#5 BossFox

BossFox

    Richard

  • FREEDOM
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,594 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK
  • Car:Fantasy Green 2001 Skoda Fabia 16v, with 100 raging horses. And one or two others...

Posted 21 October 2011 - 18:17

Sorry, but if you want the low powered version (75bhp), you'd probably be better off with a Greenline II quite often with the 1.2 diesel.
Yes, the 1.6 CR is smoother, but if you are going to get one then go for one with a bit of poke IMO.

#6 Dempsek

Dempsek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Location:Biddulph
  • Car:MkIII Octavia 1.4TSI DSG Elegance Estate with ACC, three spoke wheel and auto boot in white

Posted 21 October 2011 - 19:20

Sorry, but if you want the low powered version (75bhp), you'd probably be better off with a Greenline II quite often with the 1.2 diesel.
Yes, the 1.6 CR is smoother, but if you are going to get one then go for one with a bit of poke IMO.


Have to agree and dependent on variant the price will be very much the same for the Greenline.

The torque of the two cars is very similar - 180nm for GL2 at 2000 rpm and 195 for 75ps between 1550 and 2000.

#7 Kablam

Kablam

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 21 October 2011 - 20:41

75 just runs out, its no good.

#8 Estate Man

Estate Man

    Actual Photo...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,302 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK
  • Car:Fabia 2 Estate 105PS 1.6 16v Tiptronic

Posted 22 October 2011 - 10:41

Octavia, I've driven the 75ps version of the 1.6cr and it was a good drive. Very quick pick up and good mid range torque (just a bit more than the 1.2TSI 105ps engine!). In fact, it went about the same as my own 1422cc 1.4PD TDI 80ps which has 195nm of torque, but the 1.6 was not as fast on top speed as my estate car. Not much in it though although the 1.6cr is slightly more economical than my 1422cc engine in real terms especially around town. It all depends (the way I think!) as to what sort of motoring you are going to do. The 75ps will do everything fine, motorway cruising at 70-80mph, fast country road cruising and town work etc, it's never really stressed in normal driving. But if you are going to be heavily loaded ALL the time, then go for the 90 or 105ps. It will pay back the extra cost over time in better consumption as it won't work so hard fully loaded. But even then, the 75ps version can handle heavy loads fine and still perform very well.

Remember too, that until it's run in it will not be giving it's best power output or fuel economy. So if you go for a test drive the car is unlikely to perform like it will once it's run in with a few thousand miles on the clock.

Edited by Estate Man, 22 October 2011 - 10:44.


#9 RapidRonnie

RapidRonnie

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,171 posts
  • Car:Rapid 1.2TSI (86) SE

Posted 22 October 2011 - 11:17

Thanks for all the replies.

Estateman - was it better for turbo lag than your 1.4? I've driven that one and it's fine once it gets going but I prefer to have instant go!

The car would actually be for my mum, looking to take advtantage of the current zero vat and finance offers. She currently has a 2002 Fabia 2.0 so is used to a reasonable amount of power but is getting fed up with the massive road tax bills. She mostly drives on longer runs so actually gets pretty decent economy out of the 2.0 so I don't think the 1.2TSI would do significantly better for her on fuel costs, even though it is a nice engine and a fair bit cheaper than the diesels.

#10 Dempsek

Dempsek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Location:Biddulph
  • Car:MkIII Octavia 1.4TSI DSG Elegance Estate with ACC, three spoke wheel and auto boot in white

Posted 22 October 2011 - 11:55

If she is thinking of the 75ps then again go for the Greenline. Zero road tax and on long runs up to 80mpg.
If she is going to be fully loaded get the 105 ps 1.6cr the mpg will not be that far off of the Greenline.

#11 logiclee

logiclee

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 17:29

How many miles does she do? If the milage is below 8k miles a year I'd suggest she tries the 1.2Tsi. It feels much stronger than the old 2.0 due to the midrange turbo torque and will return over 50mpg on a run.
Savings on the purchase price will easily pay for the slightly worse economy over the diesel if she is a low milage user.

Cheers
Lee

#12 RapidRonnie

RapidRonnie

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,171 posts
  • Car:Rapid 1.2TSI (86) SE

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:20

She doesn't do that many miles but the main point of changing the car is to reduce the running costs and I'm not sure the TSI would achieve that?

Diesel would cost more to buy but she she should get some of that back on part ex eventually?

#13 logiclee

logiclee

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 19:39

Do you have a friendly dealer with a range of used Fabias ?
I would take her along and try everything, even models you are not even considering. You might suprise your mum.
My mum wouldn't even consider an automatic. We managed to get her to drive the dsg and that's what she now drives and loves it. They were originally looking at the Greenline but the tsi dsg is just so much more of a fun refined car and with their 3000 miles a year the maths didn't add up. Used tsi's especially dsg versions seem to be holding more of their value than the tdi.

My wife had a 1.9 tdi and had her heart set on a 1.6 105 tdi, more or less a direct replacement. She drove the 1.6tdi, 1.4tdi, 1.6 16v, 1.2tsi and a 1.2 12v htp. When I had suggested the htp my wife said You will have me pedalling one next.
What did she buy? Yep the Htp. She loved the character amd the feel of the car which has a front end nearly a quarter of a ton lighter than her diesel. Below 70mph it has all the power she will need and the 3 pot is sweet to rev and has bags of character. On a normal A and B road run it will top 50 mpg and around town it's not far off her old diesel. The purchase price saved us a few thousand and as she will keep it 5 years the resale price difference will be nowhere near getting her money back if we'd gone diesel.
I'm not suggesting your mum buys a specific model but suggesting she tries out all the engine choices, then do some maths. It's easy to buy a car that looks the right buy on paper but that may not be the one your mum would love to own.
Get her down to the dealers.

Cheers
Lee

Edited by logiclee, 22 October 2011 - 19:42.


#14 Estate Man

Estate Man

    Actual Photo...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,302 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK
  • Car:Fabia 2 Estate 105PS 1.6 16v Tiptronic

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:01

Thanks for all the replies.

Estateman - was it better for turbo lag than your 1.4? I've driven that one and it's fine once it gets going but I prefer to have instant go!

The car would actually be for my mum, looking to take advtantage of the current zero vat and finance offers. She currently has a 2002 Fabia 2.0 so is used to a reasonable amount of power but is getting fed up with the massive road tax bills. She mostly drives on longer runs so actually gets pretty decent economy out of the 2.0 so I don't think the 1.2TSI would do significantly better for her on fuel costs, even though it is a nice engine and a fair bit cheaper than the diesels.


Hi Octavia, I don't get any turbo lag on my 1.4TDI, it's instant power and goes much better than the last new company 2,0ltr petrol golf that I had (115ps engine)! The 1.6cr 75ps was also instant power. The turbos on the diesels are very good now with variable vane technology to reduce and virtually eliminate turbo lag. I'm not sure the petrol TSI has variable vane, some of the TSI guys may be able to answer that. I've had one of those for the day and turbo lag did take some getting used to after driving diesels all the time. If you can buy a diesel at the right price I'd go that way but bear in mind they do now have diesel particulate filters and if mum drives very very few miles the filter may ask for a lengthened run now and again. But mostly the DPF's don't give problems even on lower mileage cars. The old arguments about needing to cover loads of miles each year in order to make it worthwhile to buy a diesel don't really apply now and for the extra bit you may spend on buying each gallon of diesel you get a whole bunch of extra miles per gallon making it well worth having diesel. They warm up much faster now too. I concur with Logiclee, do get mum to take test drives in all of the Skoda models she likes the look of. Don't rule out petrol but for my money I think she will be swayed by the diesel.

#15 RapidRonnie

RapidRonnie

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,171 posts
  • Car:Rapid 1.2TSI (86) SE

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:15

Interesting examples guys. Taking a trip to the dealer tomorrow to pick up some brochures and have a look!

#16 logiclee

logiclee

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:46

I dont feel the 1.4tdi or 1.6tdi suffered from lag issues but the 1.4tdi really needs you to work at keeping it in the sweet spot of 2000-3500rpm. Drop below that and it's flat. My wife said it felt like hard work to keep it on the boil. The newer common rail tdi's have a very linear power delivery a big change from the pd but the 1.6 still needs 2000 rpm to give its best. I prefer the bigger pd power delivery but love the cr refinement. I run a 2.0cr myself but miss the bottom end shove of the old 1.9 pd.
The tsi petrols dont have instant throttle response but they will produce full boost and full torque from as little as 1500rpm on some models. Not turbo lag in the style of early Cossie's, Scooby's or Evo's that wouldnt come on boost until 3500-4000rpm but boy they would put a smile on when they did. Have owned all three.
Higher revving petrols didnt need variable vane to cut out massive lag diesels did but variable vane is coming to petrol. The new 911 turbo had them and Vag has hinted the new high output 1.6 tsi will have vnt. The blades will have to be ceramic to cope with exaust output being directed to the blade tips. Petrol exhaust temps are far higher than diesels.

Edited by logiclee, 22 October 2011 - 21:14.


#17 fabia55

fabia55

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,184 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Car:Skoda

Posted 23 October 2011 - 01:49

could you buy the 1.6 75bhp and chip it?

#18 preston334

preston334

    Advanced Member

  • FREEDOM
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:10

I got the 1.2 tsi dsg and last month went back home to northern Ireland. Went from Newport gwent via Pembroke up to Londonderry in the north west with 2 of us and fully loaded and covered 360 miles on 3 quarters of a tank of petrol. The car handled fantastic, never struggled to over take and with all the driving it did over still acheived 49 mpg and only still has 3700 on the clock. I always had diesels but I sat down and did the figures and with my yearly mileage it wasn't worth the extra outlay for the diesel. I love the car and even though it was brought for the gf she nagging me all the time that she wants to drive it. It's definatly put the fun back into driving for me the 1.2 tsi dsg

#19 PTG

PTG

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:27

75 just runs out, its no good.


what does mean that it runs out?

the dealer I spoke with told me that 1.6 tdi 75bhp is the most suitable for mainly interurban usage (say 80% interurban, 20 % urban, no motorway) w/o sporting ambition...
...tell me what do you mean with running out, please.

#20 mrkev

mrkev

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 17:57

My gf has the 75ps version. Does about 60% motorway driving but doesn't really exceed 70 and even goes over the pennines in it on the m62. She says it's adequate for that and has no problems overtaking slow moving vehicles. She did try the 1.2 TSI and loved it but sense had to prevail (15k miles pa). Gets about 58mpg on average but this week doing over 60 due to less traffic. Insurance is only £250 for the year which is way less than the 8 year old corsa we had before.

If you're not going to do high mileage seriously consider the 1.2 TSI as it's far more fun.

Edited by mrkev, 21 February 2013 - 18:00.

  • PTG likes this

#21 Igloo Vindaloo

Igloo Vindaloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:23

Get the 105 bhp it will put Posted Image on your face

...and a dent in your pocket
...and continuously larger nibbles out your pocket than the smaller engine.

Proof if needed is available in my post in another thread, summarised below:

There is a very useful website called www.spritmonitor.de, which allows users to enter and monitor their fuel consumption figures.
Better still you can interrogate their database to yield some interesting results for real-world motoring.

I selected Skoda Fabia 2010-2012 Diesels, and divided the statistics for different power engines:
Here's what you get:
0-80hp: 187 vehicles - Average 4.64 l/100km (range 3.50-6.72) - that's 61mpg(UK)
80-95hp: 43 vehicles - Average 5.00 l/100km (range 4.07-6.72) - that's 56mpg (UK)
95+ hp: 49 vehicles - Average 5.24 l/100km (range 4.07-6.39) - that's 54mpg (UK)



#22 seboni121

seboni121

    Are we really here ?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,908 posts
  • Location:Cemaes bay , Anglesey
  • Car:VW GOLF 1.6 tdi 105bhp, match with bluemotion tech , gunmetal grey metallic

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:31

Vindaloo that's a load of tosh IMO , I used to get high 60's and low 70's in the fabia easy peasy so the figures you've quoted are way out , my opinion the golf I have now has same engine and is slightly better mpg so go figure, I'm for one am more than happy with the engine although a little altering of driving style is required

#23 Igloo Vindaloo

Igloo Vindaloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 14:29

Spritmonitor reports user's fuel consumption based on their brim-to-brim figures. Other values are only any use for relative comparisons with the same car, driver, etc.

Most of the users from Spritmonitor are in Germany, where the winters are colder, people use winter tyres and many people drive faster than the UK. So you could do better than that. But I don't with my Greenline II. (Although I used to be able to beat both the official figures and most other users with my old Citroen C3.)

Simple fact is the more power you have, the more fuel you use. See http://www.spritmoni...wer_vs_mpg.html

#24 John Eva

John Eva

    Finding my Feet

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:Stafford
  • Car:Skoda Fabia 1.2 TSI Monte Carlo

Posted 22 February 2013 - 16:24

Simple fact is the more power you have, the more fuel you use. See http://www.spritmoni...wer_vs_mpg.html


Wrong.

If that's the case how is it a 1.0 eco boost engine can now make more power than an old 1.6 16v engine, yet be a lot better on fuel?

Technology has changed a lot in the last 10 years and some engines are newer design than other meaning they are more fuel economical, the MPG figures are pretty much the same for Skoda 1.6tdi engine weather the higher or lower output.

#25 Brimma

Brimma

    'Briskoda Friends'

  • FREEDOM
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts
  • Location:nr Lincoln
  • Car:JPS Octavia and Fabia vRS (both Mk2 diesel combis)

Posted 22 February 2013 - 16:42

I believe that the 75ps 1.6 is just a detuned version of the 105

If you are prepared to consider a remap, it sounds as though those who can tune the 1.6 are getting the same figure (approx 135ps) from the 75ps as they are from the 105

The 75ps Elegance estate is about £815 cheaper than the 105, and a remap would be about £400, so it makes sense to buy the low power version, get a remap, and be £400 better off into the bargain...............I wish I'd thought of that :(
  • fluffmeister and PTG like this

#26 seboni121

seboni121

    Are we really here ?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,908 posts
  • Location:Cemaes bay , Anglesey
  • Car:VW GOLF 1.6 tdi 105bhp, match with bluemotion tech , gunmetal grey metallic

Posted 22 February 2013 - 18:51

I believe that the 75ps 1.6 is just a detuned version of the 105

If you are prepared to consider a remap, it sounds as though those who can tune the 1.6 are getting the same figure (approx 135ps) from the 75ps as they are from the 105

The 75ps Elegance estate is about £815 cheaper than the 105, and a remap would be about £400, so it makes sense to buy the low power version, get a recap, and be £400 better off into the bargain...............I wish I'd thought of that :(


Haha yeah hindsight is a wonderful thing lol

#27 PTG

PTG

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:45

I believe that the 75ps 1.6 is just a detuned version of the 105


ya, this is the key point: is it true??? they are the same engine with only a different electronics or they have also differences in some mechanics, sizings, size ratio between parts, materials...and so on... ???


I hope you can see my point: I 'm not sure the 75ps is just the detuned 105ps, it could have different materials specs or sizings...

someone can help me?

Edited by PTG, 06 March 2013 - 12:51.


#28 jaxx007

jaxx007

    Briskodian

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Car:Fabia Estate TDI 80 2

Posted 06 March 2013 - 23:09

I test drove both 75 and 105 hp diesels and the gear ratios are different. I'm sure the 105sat at 2k rpm at 70 mph, but the 75 sat at 2200 ish rpm at 70. Both were elegance estates.
  • PTG likes this

#29 PTG

PTG

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:01

I test drove both 75 and 105 hp diesels and the gear ratios are different. I'm sure the 105sat at 2k rpm at 70 mph, but the 75 sat at 2200 ish rpm at 70. Both were elegance estates.

Thank you so much!
this is very relevant since at 2200 rpm in the 75ps the torque is out of its maximum plateau while at 2000 rpm the torque of the 105ps is in the middle of the maximum plateau. The 75ps at 70 mph is already out of its optimal working regime...

nevertheless this can be due not to different gear ratios but just to a minor torque value, so the question about differences in mechanics, sizings, materials, is still open, as far as I understand...

#30 Brimma

Brimma

    'Briskoda Friends'

  • FREEDOM
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts
  • Location:nr Lincoln
  • Car:JPS Octavia and Fabia vRS (both Mk2 diesel combis)

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:15

nevertheless this can be due not to different gear ratios but just to a minor torque value, so the question about differences in mechanics, sizings, materials, is still open, as far as I understand...


I know this sounds obvious, but have you checked the specifications in the brochure




0 User(s) reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users