The 220ps experiences, questions & answers thread

[Rainmaker]

Since a good few of us have now taken delivery of cars with this engine, I thought it was about time we had a thread of our own. I know the 280 thread has had a bit of a hijack now and then because we had nowhere else to post, as such, so I decided to start one of our own. Maybe this will die a death, maybe it'll be useful. Either way, it could be a handy resource for us current or prospective 220 owners to share information and tips etc without having to wade through dozens of pages about diesel economy or whatever in a more generalised thread.

 

So, if anyone has any questions, tips, observations or experiences to share regarding this engine/powertrain (or answers to those posted by others) then feel free to add them below. The only 'rule' I'll stipulate is please keep it mostly on topic if we can, lest we negate the point of having a separate thread. Comparisons to other engines/models/marques is fine but let's not start long discussions about things like the order process, i.e. something already having a dedicated thread.

 

I'll start us off: 

 

The fuel filler cap on newer TSIs states min. 95 RON whereas in the past it was written as 98(95) RON. On reading the manual this seems to be nothing more than a marketing exercise to make the engine appear less 'fussy' to the wider public.

 

According to the manual, engines requiring 98(95) should have fuel of 98RON or above to perform at full power and economy, but they can be run on 95RON at reduced power and economy if/when required.

 

Conversely, vehicles displaying 'min. 95 RON' need to be run on unleaded petrol of at least 95 RON (duh). However a teensy footnote adds that running engines thus labelled on higher octane fuel can increase the power and improve fuel economy. So, a case of 'you say po-tay-toe I say po-tah-toe'?

 

The dealer supplied my S3 with £10 of 95RON in it and the Maxidot was showing 28mpg 'since start' after driving carefully home. After brimming with VPower (I usually prefer Tesco M99) I'm now seeing 32mpg or so. Coincidence? What have you other 220 owners found?

[NX01]

Will happily join in with you Derv.

 

I got a full tank of fuel from the dealer, and the local garage to them advertises 97RON (BP) but when I pulled in yesterday to fill up as I was passing I could not find iton the three pumps I looked at so am guessing that the dealer only put in 95RON.  I instead went down the road to the ESSO garage and filled it back up with 97RON.

 

The car did 533.8miles on that first tank of fuel (full down to the start of the red) and put in 64.71 litres at £1.159 for 97RON.  Doing the calculations based on that I saw 37.5MPG or a cost of 14p per mile which is pretty damn close to my 11 year old Mondeo 1.8 with half the horse power.  If I look at the MAXI-DOT when driving I am seeing numbers up in the 50s, but obviously it drops like a stone when doing any form of acceleration from standstill or slow speed etc.  On a recent trip to London from Lincolnshire it averaged in the 40s for the trip which considering at the start it had done 180 mile from new and is now just under 600 miles I do not think is bad.

 

I noticed like you the filler cap saying 95RON as a minimum and not the 98RON that I expected, I wonder if it is due to the fact that the UK on really has 95RON, 97RON & the odd 99RON.  I certainly know going forward the lowest I will put in is 97RON.

 

I am certainly find the engine great with plenty of power and cruises lovely at low revs, have yet to manage to get it to 3000 let alone over that.  Roughly runs at a 1000RPM lower than my old car at 70mph.

 

The only thing that is taking some getting used to is the throaty sound of the engine as that is new to me, but as the dealer said it is the same engine they put in the VRS.

[Rainmaker]

Great info, and some fantastic economy there! I have to admit mine has seen higher revs a couple of times, but only once the oil was warm.

I found the engine definitely growls at you but it's not as vocal as the VRS, probably due to extra soundproofing on the S3. I wonder if the S3 has the soundaktor or not?

I too noticed the helpfully long gearing at motorway speeds. Mine does 2,000rpm at 70mph but interestingly only 2,100 or so at 80. That's a big increase in speed for barely no extra revs.

Regarding driving modes, I've found economy good for driving dual carriageways in 40 limits. It's fast enough, changes up very early, and 'sails' / freewheels on lift off. It also helps keep that wow factor when you go back to normal and sport modes. My theory is it'll help keep the power a novelty rather than me just getting used to it and no longer enjoying it. Maybe.

This thread will probably be a slow one but it's still nice to have.

[Nick_H]

That's right then !! Use our thread when you want then bugger off and make your own !

 

;-)

Edited 6 April, 2016 by Nick_H

[Rainmaker]

It's OK Nick you can still come and play with us. Just don't mention 4wd as we reserve the right to be envious.

[fj604]

I found that the best fuel economy is at around 60-65 mph on a motorway - it manages above 40 mpg. At 70 mph it's more like 36-34, at 120-130 kmh (mainland Europe) it was 34-32.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Rainmaker]

How do you find the throttle maps fj604? I find it feels adequate in normal mode but it only really comes alive in sport mode. I did wonder whether this was more than just a throttle map. Maybe the full grunt of the engine is only available in sport? I've not been able to play enough to test it yet.

[LSoutherland]

Hi,

firstly I love my 220 superb.

Mpg wise I'm getting 30 to 34 at best! I'm using vpower shell and leave the drive mode in economy by default and keep it there most of the week. Problem I have is it is too easy to pull down into sport mode or use the flappy paddles, I just love that engine grrr and the power it suddenly delivers, it's very simple to get up to warp speed! Fab engine.

[Rainmaker]

Hi,

firstly I love my 220 superb.

Mpg wise I'm getting 30 to 34 at best! I'm using vpower shell and leave the drive mode in economy by default and keep it there most of the week. Problem I have is it is too easy to pull down into sport mode or use the flappy paddles, I just love that engine grrr and the power it suddenly delivers, it's very simple to get up to warp speed! Fab engine.

 

Likewise... I'm trying really hard to be good for a few hundred miles, but the engine just begs to be spanked! The paddles make a huge difference for me, much more fun and control.

[LSoutherland]

How do people find the traction control when having a heavy right foot?

[Rainmaker]

How do people find the traction control when having a heavy right foot?

 

Absolutely fine so far even giving it beans. The only one time it's come in was on the first night we had it. It was bouncing down and the one road was really greasy with an adverse camber. I nailed it from the lights in manual mode and heard a half second of tyre squeal, the TC light flickered in my peripheral vision for a second and the car just carried on accelerating. That was the first, and last, time I saw it. No issues at all really, though putting 220+ hp down through two wheels was admittedly something I worried about a bit before the car arrived.I needn't have been concerned as it turns out. I am no stranger to 'brisk acceleration' or manual mode, either!

 

On a separate note, we had our first family trip out today. About 150 miles round trip with a good mix of nose to tail city traffic, moderately busy A roads (70 down to 30 back to 70 etc) and then a stretch up the M6 and M55 at 70 to 75mph indicated most of the time. The power is just effortless, and still surprises me. It was lashing with rain with a howling wind outside (I only know because the trees were blowing sideways), and the car was just planted, quiet and serene. The kids slept through it and the loudest thing in the car at motorway speeds was the baby breathing in the back. Seriously surprising, actually. It was also good to see how much water the P7s shift and despite some pretty wet carriageways the car never once went light.

 

It was a pleasant surprise to pull up (finally) on the sea front and notice that the Columbus was showing 42.5mpg. I'd have been pleased with 35mpg considering the abuse it took on the way there. We got 40mpg on the way back too, but there was much more traffic and we were into the wind. Can't argue with that, especially seeing as I made good use of the engine every time I needed accelerate back up to the limit. My wife has a serious spinal complaint (cauda equina) and normally can't manage more than 20 minutes in the car. After three hours round trip she was still fresh and rested, as was I. Getting the S3 with a TSI engine was definitely the best move I've made car wise in a very long time. Can't wait to put it through its paces at RoSPA tomorrow.

Edited 9 April, 2016 by Derv

[Norian]

@Derv: great reading your impressions about the S3 2.0TSI, it's really tilting the scale towards this engine for me also.

Really impressed with you mpg reading, just for some nonsense comparison, my 2.0TDI DSG manages 37mpg all time average, with a lowest of 50mpg driving on A roads at speeds around 60mph. Great figures on consumption, once again for the 2.0TSI

 

Will be looking forward for more reading on this topic

[Nick_H]

220 is a fantastic motor.... I spent all day yesterday in a 220.... Well I was using half throttle ;-)

 

( Dives for cover )

[Rainmaker]

@Derv: great reading your impressions about the S3 2.0TSI, it's really tilting the scale towards this engine for me also.

Really impressed with you mpg reading, just for some nonsense comparison, my 2.0TDI DSG manages 37mpg all time average, with a lowest of 50mpg driving on A roads at speeds around 60mph. Great figures on consumption, once again for the 2.0TSI

 

Will be looking forward for more reading on this topic

 

It really is a peach of an engine. I've only done 350 miles so far this week (that's low for a new toy in our house ), but the long term average is so far showing around 33mpg with a lot of cold driving around town. Unless I literally drive just around the corner from cold, the figure is always in the 30s (I can get 22mpg if I drive from our street to the next on a cold engine, but after that it quickly warms and the MPG shoots up). I don't think you'd be disappointed with one, and the more people who order the more like Skoda is to take notice and start balancing the building and promotion of good petrol engines.  I used to be obsessed with MPG, and I mean really. I eventually realised that the difference between 30mpg and 50mpg really isn't much in the real world (a few extra quid a week at most, i.e. brimming the tank a day or two earlier in the month each month), and that I could enjoy driving a petrol motor far more. I never used to 'get it' after years of driving diesels, but after a couple of years in petrols going back to a diesel is... interesting. I'll keep my 220, thanks!

[Rainmaker]

220 is a fantastic motor.... I spent all day yesterday in a 220.... Well I was using half throttle ;-)

 

( Dives for cover )

 

Haha.   What you make up for at the top end you lose in MPG and extra weight, so we're even.  :p

[Nick_H]

Haha.   What you make up for at the top end you lose in MPG and extra weight, so we're even.  :p

 

Hey no need to get personal !! I'm doing my best to lose weight !!

[Rainmaker]

Hey no need to get personal !! I'm doing my best to lose weight !!

 

Sorry flower. You OK hun? x

 

[philsmith]

I think that if Skoda had produced the 220 with 4wd I would have gone for that instead of the 280, the balance between performance and consumption is better for me.

 

Before I switched to diesels everyone was telling me that I should as I was doing about 20k/year at that time and would save £1500/year on fuel, my reply was "well what would I spend that money on?" answer "petrol!"

Glad to be back to proper fuel

[philpix]

I would have chosen the 220 Tsi but wanted 4x4 so went 190 Tdi

Anyone know why 4x4 is not offered with this engine?

[Rainmaker]

I think that if Skoda had produced the 220 with 4wd I would have gone for that instead of the 280, the balance between performance and consumption is better for me.

 

Before I switched to diesels everyone was telling me that I should as I was doing about 20k/year at that time and would save £1500/year on fuel, my reply was "well what would I spend that money on?" answer "petrol!"

Glad to be back to proper fuel

 

Good lad. My brother is an MPG freak, worse than I ever was, and recently asked my advice on getting his latest car. I suggested getting a 1.4 TSI or even a Pug turbo petrol (he likes the brand for some reason). He insisted diesels were better and now drives a brand new C4 Picasso with the last-gen 1.6 HDi, and he absolutely hates it. In fact the autobox in it is admittedly woeful, frighteningly so at times. He recently asked how I 'coped' with a 2.0 petrol (Mazda 6 naturally aspirated SkyActiv engine at the time) because he'd be mortified with mpg in the 30s and 40s, and I said 'Well it runs out of petrol sometimes and so I put more in?!'. He didn't get that lol.

 

 

I would have chosen the 220 Tsi but wanted 4x4 so went 190 Tdi

Anyone know why 4x4 is not offered with this engine?

 

Probably just to differentiate. If you could have a 220ps 2.0 TSI with 4x4 how many people in the (already small segment of petrol buyers) would then pay extra for the 280? To be fair for our usage I'm quite glad it's 2wd, and I never thought I'd say that. Most of the economy and weight saving is in the fact it doesn't have 4x4 running gear, and as I said earlier in the thread I've only ever lost traction once, and only then for a split second. I'm sure in winter driving through the moors or Welsh mountains the 4x4 might well come into its own, but for a predominantly city car in a warmish area of the UK it would just have been wasted weight for us.

[NX01]

Working my way the second tank of fuel in mine and it is estimating again 600 miles on a tank of fuel.  My first hit the red on 533 miles and the system said 50 miles left - so 583.  When I worked it out into pence per mile and it came to 14 pence I was all smiles as I have one fantastic car with an extremely smooth and powerful engine and it costing me less than my old Mondeo with half the horse power.

 

I think the 220ps TSI is very underrated and as more and more people get out there with it the reputation will spread.  My dealer was saying it is essentially the same engine they put in the Octavia VRS.

[Rainmaker]

Working my way the second tank of fuel in mine and it is estimating again 600 miles on a tank of fuel.  My first hit the red on 533 miles and the system said 50 miles left - so 583.  When I worked it out into pence per mile and it came to 14 pence I was all smiles as I have one fantastic car with an extremely smooth and powerful engine and it costing me less than my old Mondeo with half the horse power.

 

I think the 220ps TSI is very underrated and as more and more people get out there with it the reputation will spread.  My dealer was saying it is essentially the same engine they put in the Octavia VRS.

 

Yep it is indeed, it's the EA888 gen 3 TSI which is the same unit in the mk3 Octavia VRS.  

 

I posted in the Ask a Tech section the other day and it was confirmed that this engine does indeed have both multi point injection (MPI) and direct injection (DI). Basically the car uses direct injection to stabilise the idle and also when the car is under full load, but the rest of the time it reverts to MPI (aka port injection). The primary reason is to comply with the upcoming Euro 6c emissions regs, as DI creates a lot of particulate matter (i.e. soot) as a byproduct, and this way VAG have avoided needing to use a GPF (shudder). As a happy side effect, using the 'old fashioned' MPI whereby fuel and air mixture is drawn into the cylinders (suck-squeeze-bang-blow) means that the inlet valves once again get sprayed with petrol which helps keep them clean. This avoids the massive issues previous TSI engines have had with carbon build up on the inlet valves. It also means we get a nice quiet engine rather than the 'sewing machine' sound (aka diesel clatter) of those engines relying solely on DI. 

[kronik99uk]

Now done approaching 900 miles and am very VERY pleased with my TSI220 DSG, ave MPG to date 32.5. Nothing about the car displeases me, it does everything very well. Quite surprised how well it holds the road, much better the my previous C Max 2l diesel auto.

 

I have always liked the way diesels drive with lots of torque at the low end, but the TSI has really surprised me with how well the engine picks up even if you don't push it.

 

I don't regret moving to petrol one bit although feeding it Tesco Momentum 99 increases the cost a little.

 

I suppose if pushed I would say the road noise surprised me a little, but given that I have 2 32gb SD cards full of music, that lessens the problem.

 

Happy driving

[Enriquez]

Hi. I have an octy vrs with this engine and I'm waiting for l&k S3 with the same. I can say that my car has 249 hp from factory. Two of my friends with 280 tsi has "only" 278-279 hp. So, 29 bhp in difference it is not big enough.

[Rainmaker]

Now done approaching 900 miles and am very VERY pleased with my TSI220 DSG, ave MPG to date 32.5. Nothing about the car displeases me, it does everything very well. Quite surprised how well it holds the road, much better the my previous C Max 2l diesel auto.

 

I have always liked the way diesels drive with lots of torque at the low end, but the TSI has really surprised me with how well the engine picks up even if you don't push it.

 

I don't regret moving to petrol one bit although feeding it Tesco Momentum 99 increases the cost a little.

 

I suppose if pushed I would say the road noise surprised me a little, but given that I have 2 32gb SD cards full of music, that lessens the problem.

 

Happy driving

 

You'll very likely find that you get at least enough extra MPG to cover the difference between 95 RON and M99, if not more...

 

Hi. I have an octy vrs with this engine and I'm waiting for l&k S3 with the same. I can say that my car has 249 hp from factory. Two of my friends with 280 tsi has "only" 278-279 hp. So, 29 bhp in difference it is not big enough.

 

I'd be very surprised if it was that close, but I know in the past people have put the 220 on the dyno and received similar outputs so who knows? The S3 is only a single one tenth slower to 60 than the Octavia VRS so you should find it a comfortable swap. A little more insulated perhaps, but precise and engaging enough nonetheless.