m1kemex

Just to give you guys an idea of what I'm talking about:

Translation:- What a joy to find another lover of the Rapids! I have the sedan version, but honestly I like the hatchback better than you have. Too bad they never offered it here in Mexico (because mine is sold by SEAT under the name "Toledo"). If only I hadn't bought it anyway (although I'm not really complaining about the extra space in the trunk). Te ofrezco una disculpa. No se por que entendí que habías cambiado el motor completo (supongo que por lo que mencionas de haber tomando el turbo del motor de 1.4 de 150 caballos)...

Can a moderator please delete my last post? I misread it. I thought Pedro had swapped te entire engine...

¡Que alegría encontrar otro amante de los Rapids! Yo tengo la versión sedán, pero sinceramente me gusta más el hatchback que tú tienes. Lástima que aquí en México nunca lo ofrecieron (porque el mio lo vende SEAT bajo la denominación "Toledo"). Si no me lo hubiese comprado igual (aunque realmente no me quejo del espacio extra en el maletero). Se ve que le has invertido mucho tiempo y dedicación a tu coche y te felicito por ello. Yo el mio, desde que lo compré, siempre lo he visto como un Audi "disfrazado": porque literalmente todo lo que realmente importa es de esa calidad. Recientemente he visto un A1 de primera generación y me quedé asombrado: el reposamanos delantero es igualito. Y siempre me ha asombrado que pese a que lo han criticado siempre por sus acabados austeros, en lo que realmente importa, que es la calidad de ensamble y el equipamiento, siempre tuvo de sobra para su precio. No se allá en Chile pero aquí son pocos los coches que traen detalles como la puertita detrás del descansabrazos trasero (la que conecta con el maletero). El mio tiene también el asiento del pasajero ajustable en altura (que es raro ver incluso en coches más caros), portamapas en ambos asientos, cinturones de seguridad ajustables en altura, manijas para los pasajeros en las 4 esquinas, espacio para llevar anteojos... no se, supongo que esta de más que yo te diga todo esto, teniendo tú uno, pero es que no termino de entender que la gente no entienda que era una verdadera ganga para el cochazo que es (en España en particular, hablan muy mal de él, supongo porque es un coche tan práctico, que lo veían mucho como Taxi. Y además porque el Toledo original era derivado del León y éste deriva más bien del Fabia; siempre dicen que es más un Córdoba). En lo único que se ha quedado corto es, en mi opinión, la parte de la potencia. No es que le falte, en sentido estricto, para el tipo de uso para el que fue diseñado, pero el motor que yo tengo de 1.2 de 110 caballos resiente mucho cosas como usar el aire acondicionado e ir con 5 pasajeros en carretera. Quisiera actualizarlo obviamente, pero como seguramente lo entenderás, por mucho que quisiera ponerle al mio todas las cosillas que tú le has puesto tú al tuyo, realmente lo uso en tono familiar, y pues tengo que ser un poco conservador al respecto. Es una excelente plataforma para irle poniendo cosillas y vale la pena el esfuerzo. Aquí vendían el Golf y Todavía venden el Jetta, pero es que no se me antoja tener un coche mucho más grande y pesado sólo para tener más motor. Así es que igual que tú, yo lo que quiero es un coche más contenido en dimensiones y peso, pero con la misma potencia. Básicamente, quisiera ponerle el motor 1.4 de 150 caballos y la caja de cambios que sigue (tengo la de 200 Nm manual). Lo mantendría básicamente de serie salvo por el cambio de motor y transmisión, principalmente para no tener problemas legales y para facilitar el mantenimiento. (Igual y consideraría cambiar los frenos también. El mio trae 288mm ventilado al frente y 232mm sólido atrás con las ruedas más ligeras que encontré: Avus del Golf IV de 15". Pero creo que el freno de 312mm requiere ruedas de 16". ). ¿Crees que me pudieras asesorar? Me interesan TODOS los detalles que me puedas dar al respecto, especialmente si te ha surgido alguna dificultad y cómo la has resuelto. Por ejemplo: ¿con qué motor y transmisión venía tu coche de fábrica y cuáles monta ahora? Me refiero a los códigos de motor y transmisión. Dónde has conseguido las piezas y cuánto te ha costado... Muchas gracias de antemano y felicitaciones nuevamente. Saludos desde México. P. D. Mi coche esta de serie, salvo por algunas modificaciones muy sencillas que todavía no completo. Compré un interruptor de una Arona y un sensor solar para agregarle luces automáticas (limpiador automático no me interesa, ni retrovisor electrocrómico, sino hubiese cambiado todo junto). También compré el apoyacabezas central porque el mio sólo traía los laterales. No esta completo porque sólo encontré uno de los insertos de plástico que van en el asiento. También quiero ponerle aire acondicionado automático pero según he leído es bastante complicado. O la pantalla más grande...)

That's nice and encouraging. Care to share more details? What engine did you have? Which engine did you install? Where did you get it? How much did it cost? Did you change the transmission too? What issues did you have to overcome?

This is the car I would buy if it was sold here (1.5 and manual). I'm envious. It seems like you won't be able to get a manual transmission on a decently powered car soon.

It seems like I never replied to you @Carlston I was hoping to get a set of Pepperpots, but I never found any, so I ended up buying a set of new MK4 Avus 15" 6J wheels I found on sale. I fitted the stock size on them (185/60R15 Michelin Energy XM2) and went to Aliexpress for a set of generic hub caps, since the original ones have the old blue and white logo and look kind of odd. They didn't come that way, though. I had to buy the loose silver and black emblems and glue them. I replaced all five wheels, including the spare (I now have a full size spare, so no 80 Km/h limitation). Ride quality is fine, not great, because I'm afraid to hit some pothole and damage the rim. That's why I've been using 36 PSI on front and 34 PSI on the back. Steering is quite nice and I get very good mileage (I've seen as low as 4.xl/100 Km). Alloy wheels are definitely stronger than steelies. It looks really clean to me...

Sure, we all want lots of power. But for me, to upgrade my car (Rapid) to match the same amount of power of the larger VAG cars (Jetta / Golf / Octavia) would be more than enough because the other goal of mine is to do so without making maintenance for the vehicle too complicated (such as attempting to retrofit an EA888 engine). I want to be able to service my car with stock parts, just borrowed from other models. According to your input, in order to hit around 150 HP of power, I have three options: 1) Keep the CJZD 1.2 engine, and work from there. 2) Upgrade to the CZCA/B 1.4 125 HP block, and work from there. 3) Swap everything for a CZDA/B 1.4 150 HP version. Option 1: Keeping the existing engine From what others report, it seems possible to just upgrade the turbo and do a custom map, but it's complicated at the moment, because there is some incompatibility between the readily available turbo units and the amount of displacement provided by the engine. Summarized, they simply doesn't blow enough pressure at low RPMs to spin up the turbine, and then supplies way too much pressure at higher RPMs. A variable geometry turbo would probably solve this issue, and the first idea that comes to mind is to transplant the turbo from the new 1.5 TSI. However, there i still a mismatch of displacement (a larger one, in fact) and proper operation is not warranted. However, there is an alternative. The standard turbo design is modular and it seems like there is no necessity to alter either the turbine cartridge or the exhaust side of the casing. It should suffice, at least in theory, to built a custom intake casing with the variable flaps. Since this doesn't spin like the turbine, it doesn't require the same amount of accuracy, and it doesn't use exotic materials such as inconel. Therefore, it should be possible to build such a thing in a standard mechanical shop. Conclusion: the least expensive path, but complicated due to reliance on custom parts, so it kind of defeats the goal of keeping things stock. Option 2: Upgrade to the 1.4 125HP bloc and work from there What happens if you bolt a large standard turbo into a CZC? I guess you won't experience the low RPM lack of power others have reported, yet boost would be sustained longer than with the medium standard turbo, for some extra power? The way I see, this is the path to take if you want to avoid messing with the electronics, since you don't have to figure out how to handle extra features of the 150HP version with the existing ECU. It should require a custom map, though. Conclusion: It is way more expensive and complicated to swap the entire bloc, and also more wasteful. What do you do with the old bloc? Results, however, are kind of warranted with this option and I can see why @TheFozzy opted for this. Option 3: Swap everything for the 1.4 150HP With this option you're essentially copying the entire drive train of a different car. Issues are unlikely, since all the parts are already meant to work that way. But this is the most expensive option of all. Will an ECU from the 1.4 150HP engine play well with the rest of the electronics of the car? Who knows. General stuff: Can features like the regulated oil pump or the variable exhaust timing be retrofitted into the 1.2? Not that it's too important to do so, but it would be nice to explore that possibility, because I'm pretty sure it would have an overall positive effect on the engine (if it becomes more efficient, it has to burn less fuel to produce the same amount of power, and that not only increases your mileage, but also reduces the wear and the possibility of cooling issues). I've noticed that CZC (125HP) has a higher compression ratio than the CZD (150HP). And both CJZ (110HP) and CZC engines use the same type of Lamba probes, but the CZD user a different type. Are there other differences that I'm missing? P. S. I'm checking data from here: https://www.upownersclub.co.uk/attachments/ssp-511_the_new_ea211_petrol_engine_family-pdf.7106/

Oh, I got you. It's just that I can't believe they just lied there. It's not just a marketing gimmick; this is downright fraud. You can't put a 192 HP engine in a car and rate the car at 192HP. You have to rate the car according to what it actually produces. I wonder how does VAG gets away with this...

1.5 TSI Variable Geometry Turbo. Shouldn't be too complicated to adapt it mechanically. To have the electronics handle the extra actuator properly, probably much more complicated, but at least in theory, possible.

Unless I'm missing something here, this simply can't be true. Power is a factor of torque x angular displacement. So if you lower the torque, you must raise the RPMs, in order to have the same power output (this is, in essence, what a transmission does: exchange, both up and down, torque and RPMs). It's basic Physics... I've investigated and the manual 2015 Polo GTI uses the MQ350 transmission. There must be a DSG equivalent with a 350 Nm rating installed in the automatic version.

Well, I just spent the whole Sunday re-reading the thread and doing some research because I'm really into this. And I think it just paid off, because I picked up some bits that I missed at first. The most important of all: do 1.2 and 1.4 engines share the same basic bloc design? I remember someone mentioning that they do, and that they are just bored with larger cylinders. If so, they must have the same bore / cylinder spacing, and if that's true -and contrary to common sense-, then the 1.2 engine is stronger by virtue of having more metal on it. It appears to be the case, as both have 82 mm spacing, despite having different bore diameter (71 vs 74.5 mm). Sure, the displacement is lower, which limits the amount of power you can extract from it at the upper end of spectrum, but in the end, this is not a naturally aspirated engine, but forced induction, so it can burn as much fuel as we want it to, as long as it has enough oxygen for it, and it doesn't melt in the process... None of that concerns us folks who are just looking for modest power gains with minimal modifications (basically, the goal of this topic), like in the 140-160HP range. But it does, however, open the possibility (at least in theory) for some interesting future modifications, such as swapping the head to add exhaust valve variable timing, which appears to be only present in the 150 HP variant of the 1.4 TSI, and not in the 125HP version, or the 1.2. And of course, installing a beefier clutch and transmission. For now, I think all the problems mentioned here could be solved by a variable geometry turbo, as someone suggested earlier. Shouldn't our efforts focus on that?

Let's do some common sense analysis: Most people don't care about what's under the hood of their car, specially when it comes to transmissions. So why do they put an MQ200 transmission on the 125HP version of the 1.4 TSI and the MQ250 on the 150HP version, the later being more expensive? There must be a technical reason for it. I doubt people at VAG are stupid and they don't know that they could save money by installing the MQ200 across the entire range. One possibility I see is that MQ200 is destined for small cars while the MQ250 for medium cars, so the axles are different (wheel bolt pattern on small cars is 5x100 and 5x112 for medium and beyond). Maybe there is only one version of each, so you have to use the MQ200 if you want the 5x100 bolt pattern, and MQ250 if you want 5x112. However, this is obviously not true, having some cars like the Golf, with both MQ200 transmissions and 5x112 axles. The other possibility I see is the way the safety margin is designed. The rating of a transmission is not so much for continuous usage, but for catastrophic conditions. Like you push the clutch, engage first gear, forget you're pressing the clutch and release it suddenly. If you have an MQ200 transmission, and an engine with up to 200 Nm, such as the stock 1.2 TSI, it will just stall, and nothing would break. Same for the MQ250: up to 250 Nm, like with the 150 HP 1.4 TSI, a sudden clutch slam will result in nothing breaking and only stalling. But maybe -just maybe- if you install an MQ200 (rated for 200 Nm) with a 150 HP 1.4 TSI (rated for 250 Nm), if you accidentally slam the clutch, the engine will not stall, and something in the transmission is going to break.

That's the first thing I did when I bought my car. Some guy bought my wheels (16") and tyres and put them into an Ibiza MK5. He gave me his (15"), which I still have. Too bad the MQB wheels are tighter and don't clear the brakes without a spacer. I just have them in storage... I ended up replacing the steelies I had originally fitted with a set of Golf IV Avus wheels. From my research, they are the lightest 15" wheels that fit properly, other than the Audi forged Pepperpots... I was about to buy a set, but they sold and I've been unable to get more.

I think you're wrong here. The Rapid uses a lot of MQB parts, but the platform itself is PQ26+ I think. There are obvious differences, like wheel specifications (I've got a set of alloy wheels from an Ibiza MK5 and they don't clear the brake calipers without a spacer). The Rapid I have (a rebranded SEAT Toledo) uses exactly the same wheels as the Golf IV. I mean, literally (I've got a set of 15" Avus wheels on mine). Brakes are also the same (288mm ventilated front, 232mm solid back). Now that my car is about to hit 6 years old, and out of warranty, but in good shape (I've only put 50,000 Km on it yet) I've been thinking about the possibility of upgrading it. I was thinking about buying a nicer new car and keep this as beater, but the market is so depressing right now. There are literally no fun cars anymore and by fun I mean small, high powered and manual transmission (I can buy the WRX here but 1) It's not small and 2) it's a lot of money and I'm sure my another half would go ballistic...). They don't sell the Fiesta ST here, which is my idea of a nice car. I just read the whole damn thread and I wonder why nobody has brought up the topic of the transmission torque limit? The 1.2 TSI is always paired with the MQ200 (if manual), which is rated to 200 Nm (I know the DSG version is rated to 250 Nm). How safe is it to run 250+ Nm on an MQ200? Given that I can't simply buy what I'm looking for, and assuming money is not an issue, how likely do you think it is to swap both the transmission and engine with a stock 150 HP 1.4 TSI and MQ250? They did sell this model with the 125HP version of the 1.4 TSI and the DQ200 DSG transmission, so at least engine mounts and the like can be sourced easily. I'm not really looking for über power, just a reliable car that has a decent amount of power for the size. Damn Skoda for never releasing this combination... And damn the whole industry for not making more fun, manual transmission liftbacks. P. S. I'm exaggerating. They do make the manual Integra, but in their ****ty wisdom, it's not going to be offered here either.

Tell them that you've investigated over Internet (print this post, for example) and found you're not alone, that it's a known problem (although maybe not specific to VAG; high pressure pumps used in modern fuel delivery systems just hammer the injector rails) and that, given the age and mileage of your car, they should offer you a reasonable solution. I had to pay a little, but I consider it reasonable. Or go directly to the consumer authorities. This is not like a failing power window; a fuel leak is a fire hazard to you and to others in the street, so they *must* fix it.

Another follow up. I was hoping to make the wheels work and even bought some 5mm spacers. Then, I realized that I'd need longer lug bolts. Then, I realized that the way the wheels are machined (conical end), if I pushed them outwards, they would no longer be in contact with the spigot and would be centered just by the bolts. I was thinking abut getting a hub-centric spacer... and that moment I realized that this was getting too silly and I decided to scrap the project altogether. I would end up with a Frankenstein setup that'd just cause me trouble (like with the insurer in case of an accident). Today, early in the morning, I went to the tyre shop and for a very modest price of about 20 GBP they dismounted the 185/65R15 Turanza T001 tyres from the 5.5J wheels and remounted and balanced them into my Avus 6J MK4 wheels, with alignment on top. They did a good job but once I took the car for a ride I immediately found the feeling of it very funny. I noticed the tyres being too hard and went to my local gas station to have the pressure corrected (they have a nice, automatic machine). It was initially 44 PSI and now I'm running 32/30. It improved, but it still feels much different than before (185/60R15 on steelies). The suspension just feels way too firm. Weird, given the taller profile and lower pressure. I've been using the car without issues for the rest of the day (it doesn't rub anywhere) but acceleration and braking have definitely been affected negatively. Acceleration has become quite dull and it's hard to maintain a proper engine regime, as it doesn't recover well from slowing down. Braking also feels diminished. Both issues can be explained by the larger leverage produced by the bigger tyre; I'm just surprised at how sensitive the ride quality is from such small changes. Issues: * My tyre's DOT says they are 4 years old (1717). They look perfectly OK but the rubber may have begun to harden. * Ride quality, from a comfort perspective, is definitely worse with aluminum wheels (steelies flex and is an integral part of the suspension; alloys are stiff to resist fatigue). * Handling has become stiffer. I suspect that it has something to do with the caster disposition of the wheel. I'm now thinking about swapping the tyres for 195/55R15. In theory, they should be harsher, but in practice there is not so much difference because narrow tyres in wide rims(the setup I was running) prevent the sidewall from flexing, like Carlston said (we also have a Peugeot 208 here, with 195/55R16 tyres, and the ride quality is not that bad). My only concern is that the car would ride lower and be more likely to hit something. P. S. Money isn't really a problem, I'm just experimenting out of curiosity. I'll just sell the leftovers once I'm done.

Well, for a follow up, I installed the alloy wheels (5.5Jx15 ET40) on the car today and they don't clear the front brakes (mine is equipped with 288mm rotors). Radially they are OK, but they rub axially. And I just realized that clearance is not only affected by offset, which is already 2mm higher, but also by the narrow width of the wheel, which is about 6mm lower. Since the optimal offset is 38, the wheels should have an offset of 32 to run in the same position. So I'm like 8mm off. Is it a matter of adding a 8mm spacer or I'm missing something here? P. S. No wonder they are different: the Ibiza V appears not to be equipped with 288mm rotors, but 276mm.

The ER300 is still available. I saw them at Costco today with a manufacturing date of 40/20. I forgot to check the country of origin.

Well, some facts: MK4 (compatible) wheels: * 5x100 15x6 ET38 Avus I (1J0 601 025 B, 1J0 601 025 AA) are pretty much the lightest OEM aluminum wheels you can fit on this (or similar) car. They are 7.3 Kg with the hubcap (I have an old and beaten set). However, they are only rated to 500 Kg. * Most other 15x6 aluminum wheels of that generation are sightly heavier, but rated for 530/550 Kg. * It may be a typo, but there is a model (1J0 601 025 BD) rated to 580Kg. * Steelies (1J0 601 027) are between 9 and 10 Kg each (not sure) and rated to 550Kg. * 16" aluminum models are 6.5" wide and about 9.5 Kg. Rated to 550 Kg. Offset is 42. PQ era small car (Fabia / Ibiza / Polo and variants): * 15x6 ET38 steelies (6R0601027R) for 6 clips wheel caps are about 8Kg and rated to 500 Kg. (Alcar model 7760), MQB era small car (Fabia / Ibiza / Polo and variants): * 15x5.5 ET40 steelies (2C0601027A) are 6.6 Kg and rated to 515 Kg. (Alcar model 4055). This wheels are also manufactured in silver color. * A MQB era steelie + 185/65R15 Nexen n'Blue HD Plus + clip-on wheel cap is 14.6 Kg. (I just got a set of 4 wheels with tyres for cheap). * 15x5.5 ET40 aluminum wheels (such as the 6F0601025N) are about 8Kg but rated to 600 Kg (!). * Skoda Rapid / SEAT Toledo wheel clearance: * Based on the manual you can install 13mm snow chains on 195/55R15 tyres, that's 597 + 26 = 623 mm maximum wheel diameter. * A 185/65R15 tyre has a nominal diameter of 621.5mm. It is safe to use it. * Confirmed with anecdotic reports from (mostly Russian) forms. * Confirmed by a Kazakh publication which explicitly tests 185/65R15 tyres on a Skoda Spaceback.

Thank you for your reply Carlston, I've spent quite a bit of time lately researching the topic of wheels and tyres and I still think what I thought when I first started the thread: that Skoda fit too small wheels on the Rapid / Toledo. Even though it shares the PQ25 platform with vehicles such as the Polo / Ibiza / Fabia, it's really a much larger and heavier car, with the TDI version in particular approaching 1,300 Kg. Why, then, the base size for this model is 175/70 R14 on it when VW decided 175/80 R14 was appropriate for the Golf IV? Thing is, as long as you remain within sensible parameters, the physical size of the wheel doesn't matter than much. What matters is that the size of a tyre determines its typical load rating. So the main difference between 175/70 and 175/80 is, for practical purposes, is that one holds 500 Kg (84) each or 1,000 per axle and the other 560 Kg (88) each or 1,120 Kg per axle (and that's for the bare minimum, stripped-down version of the Golf IV sold in Europe; here the base model always used 615 Kg [91] tyres or 1,230 Kg per axle, the same the Virtus / Polo Sedan V mounts). I'm not saying that Rapids/ Toledos are ticking bombs; they aren't because it's an industry-standard to impose hefty safety margins on anything than can result in a lawsuit. I'm just saying that it's more "on the edge". The easy fox for this is, of course, simply to mount an XL tyre (88 rated) in 185/60R15. The ride is going to remain nice, the fuel efficiency good and it's not like this size is lacking grip for normal driving. You remain within factory specifications for any legal purposes. However, I've found so many things during my research that I'd like to report back here... I'll get back when I have more time.

Hi there, I purchased a brand new 1.2 TSI Manual SEAT Toledo (basically, a Rapid clone) in 2017. It came from factory with 215/45 R16 86H Bridgestone Turanza ER300 tyres and stock SEAT/Skoda 16" (6JA601025A, 7Jx16H2 ET46) wheels. I predicted since before the purchase that the ride quality would suck big time (to be fair, our streets in Mexico City leave a lot to be desired) and I was right. The wheels felt horribly stiff and transmitted every imperfection into the cabin with almost no cushion whatsoever. Needless to say, I only rode on them once (the trip from the dealer) and I took them off. I replaced them with 15 OEM steelies (6Jx15H2 ET38) with plastic caps that I got really cheap from someone who upgraded and 185/60 R15 84H Euzkadi EuroDrive 2 tyres tyres. I've been riding that way ever since and now that the car has 26,000 Km (despite using it daily I don't put heavy miles on it), I've started to notice uneven wear, with the front tyres wearing much faster than the back (I'm going to measure them tomorrow). And not just regular wear: tiny chunks are missing from the tread. As an immediate solution I rotated them and put the front at the back and expect them to last about 10-15K more. But I've been wondering: this never happened in my old Golf MK4 2.0; all tires (195/65R15 on steelies) wore evenly without rotation and lasted nearly 100K for a set (I only replaced the tires once and I sold it with 170,000 Km). It can't be peak torque, because both the 2.0 NA and 1.2 TSI produce about 175 Nm. My theory is that the tyres were wrongly specified for the car since the beginning. For example, the new Ibiza, which is a lighter car (1,125 Kg) uses 185/65 R15 as standard, which is roughly equivalent to 195/60 R15. The Toledo (1,175 Kg) is in between the Ibiza and the Golf (1,260 Kg), yet it specifies 195/55 R15! I'm planning on sizing the tyre up to the right size (185/65R15) but I'm afraid it might rub. What do you think? P. S. I no longer have the stock wheels. I traded them for a set of 5.5Jx15H2 ET40 (6F0601025G) with 185/65 R15 Turanza T001 off a 2018 Ibiza. This is my primary choice, but I've also been thinking about up sizing to 16 with 195/55 R16 (I found a new set of old stock New Beetle 6.5Jx16H2ET42 5x100 wheels for cheap). EDIT: Out of curiosity, I pulled the OEM spare wheel (185/60 R15 on a steelie) and weighted it. 15.4 Kg. The alloy off the Ibiza weights 15.8 Kg. But it should break even with the plastic wheel cap installed.

I believe the my SEAT Toledo (Skoda Rapid) has 288mm front brakes. I've been riding on 15 steelies since new without issues.

200 bar. Small displacement engines use atomized fuel as coolant. It wouldn't be wrong to say that the increase of operational pressure of the 1.0 is not really aimed at reducing consumption as much as thermal management.

They are not contradictory; it's just that it's difficult to reconcile practical from theoretical concerns. Theoretical: Against 1.0: * A 4 pot will always deliver a smoother output over a 3 pot (by missing one cycle every three, they deliver pulsating output). * The larger the total displacement, the more power it has before the turbo kicks in (higher output a low rpms). * The larger total displacement, the more dissipation area. * The larger the number of subdivisions for a given volume, the larger the dissipation area (it's the same principle as having thin fins on a heatsink). The last two points are über-important, as handling heat is the most important concern for any downsized engine. Against 1.2: * For a given output, the less the number of cylinders, the more torque provided with each stroke (three powerful strokes equate four weaker ones). Practical: 1.0 has a variable displacement oil pump (less energy lost in the lubrication circuit). 1.0 has a 250 bar direct injection circuit. 1.0 has sodium filled valves. Therefore, the 1.0 is more refined and likely a bit more efficient in the real world, as you say. But it doesn't win over the 1.2 TSI in all fronts. And, certainly, the 1.2 is a rounder package overall.