Which Tdi - 1.2 or 1.6 (75)

[a900ss]

Looking to buy a Fabia estate for the wife who would benefit from a diesel due to the mileage she'll be doing.

Car will be kept for quite a long time, probably 5 years and 100k if not longer.

What is the MPG/reliability/driving differences between the two engines?

The car will do very little motorway mileage, mostly 50/60 MPH driving on A roads and a little bit of town work.

Thanks in advance.

[a900ss]

PS - this is a follow on from the 1.6 diesel or 1.2 TSi topic that I posted about a week ago. Circumstance means mileage has gone up so defo in DERV territory.

[awfabia]

Have tried Green line 1.2 (3 cylinder) which I found harsh and noisy - maybe because of less sound deadening material to save weight. Also used other Skodas with 1.6 diesel which were much more civilized, can't remember if there's much difference in price.

Suggest you take a demo in both (1.2 first) and see what you think. Try for more than just a 10 minute 'round the block' demo.

Fabias are great cars, we've had up to 5 at a time in our family- see left!

[The Plumber]

Having read of one or two 1.2tdi failures, then the 1.6 would probably be the better choice if your after longevity; fairly uncomplicated and well tried and tested motor. Another thing that would also put me off the smaller motor is the greenline gearbox which I found has frustratingly high gears, sapping any hope of getting decent acceleration out of it. Obviously the flip side is better economy.

 

 

TP

[threadbear]

Owning a 1.6 TDi CR 105 and having had a 75 as a loan car, I can say there is little difference in performance between the two outputs until you need to overtake or climb a decent length hill. Then the 105 pulls away like the proverbial train!

 

Id go with the 1.6 75 rather than the clattery 3 pot 1.2 TDi. Id accept a few miles less per gallon for a more refined drive. Thats my opinion.

[bluecar1]

I have the GLII 1.2TDi and daughter has 1.6 105ps monte (well son in law has it now, she has 60ps citigo now)

 

so have a range I drive

 

GLII driven reasonably will give you better MPG than the 1.6, BUT comes at the expense of power and overtaking

 

if you look at the spec, the GLII comes with cruise, esp, HHC, aircon, and quite a few extras, only thing is the list of fatory fit options are limited, eg you can't spec a spare wheel from factory, or a towbar prep / fitted as these apparently do not fit with the "ECO" creds of the car

 

the monte pulls like a train and fun to drive, but about 10mpg less

 

depends what other than the commute what you want from the car and what spec options you want, kids transport, shopping (fabia estate has a great boot space)

 

the stop start saves fuel in town but little effect on motorway (unless you spend much time on the circular carpark called the m25)

[marcusthehat]

To climb on my virtual soapbox again.

Definately the 1.6 TDI, an absolute  wee "peach" of an engine, at least in the 105bhp guise.

And simply simply brilliant with the 7 speed DSG.

As long as one disnay park on gradients, in between other cars. 

[eccleshill]

Owning a 1.6 TDi CR 105 and having had a 75 as a loan car, I can say there is little difference in performance between the two outputs until you need to overtake or climb a decent length hill. Then the 105 pulls away like the proverbial train!

 

Id go with the 1.6 75 rather than the clattery 3 pot 1.2 TDi. Id accept a few miles less per gallon for a more refined drive. Thats my opinion.

That echoes my experience with the 105.  A week ago I had a 90PS Roomster loaner while my 105 was in for a service.  Initial reaction was wtf did I spend extra on the 105 and pay extra insurance because around town and cruising at 70 there really was no difference.  Then out on the A roads the difference became clear.  Long winding 50/60mph limit  section stuck behind a line of crawling traffic, hit an uphill dual carriageway section and floored it to get past.  On that section the 105 flies up to 70 and is still going.  The 90 got there much slower and wasn't going to do much more.  A couple more A road overtakes and the difference was really apparent.  I would be happy with the 90 but I am delighted with the 105!

The extra power doesn't always mean poorer economy.  I only have the trip computer to go by and it was pretty windy that day so take the next bit with a pinch of salt, but, the 100 mile run I did in the 90PS showed 51mpg on the trip computer.  When I do the same run in my 105 it generally gives me 55+mpg.

 

But there again the 90 had a steel spare wheel and I have the goo and compressor...  Isn't better fuel economy their excuse