Skodaswe78

There is no mystery to it: the 1.2 TSI has more displacement, plus a smoother operation due the extra cylinder. True it has but my concern with what is written about displacement is that somehow a smaller engine is weaker built than a larger. This is simply not the case. Each engine of a certain size is designed to withstand the forces subjected to it over a lifespan that it is expected to last. Also more displacement equals more air pumped and often it is easier to extract more power as a consequence. Anyone who really knows about engines knows that cutting a cylinder on a 4 stroke engine is not a minor change. On a 4 cylinder, 4 stroke engine there is always one piston producing movement (only one of the four strokes -ignition and expansion- produces motion) at any time while, if you reduce the number of cylinders to three, there is an idle cycle every four in which the engine doesn't produce motion and depends on the flywheel to keep operating. Also true but the 1,0 isnt a 1.2 with a cut cylinder its a new design, with better thermal tolerances built into it, it also has more shared components with the newer 1,5L than the 1,2. Sharing a link to a engine family i worked on https://www.oxe-diesel.com/Products. this is an outboard engine family which me and my colleagues worked on that is based of car engines re-designed to fit an outboard system. With all the ECU, cooling, turbocharging and oil systems and what not that proved necessary. So im not a engine god in anyway but not an amateur atleast. Since they've improved manufacturing tolerances considerably lately, it's not the huge concern it was decades ago, but it's still producing uneven or pulsating power. The level of precision required to perform this has become so high, that VAG service manuals explicitly say that shops should not attempt to perform a full disassembly of the newer engines, as they are not equipped to put them back together to the tolerances they require to work properly. This, of course, applies to both 1.2 TSI and 1.0 TSI, but I suppose the average shop would have more luck attempting so with the 1.2 TSI than the 1.0 TSI. Normally major repair work on an engine today is not handled by the smaller VW dealerships, the remove an engine that has experienced a major failure and replace it. The failed unit is then sent to the engine plant for evaluation. Dealerships replace the powerpack and then they are done, atleast in europe they tend to do it this way. It takes too much time and cost to repair at the local dealership. Also the insurrance company dont want to pay for the labour of major repair. So to clarify my original point: yes, the 1.2 TSI and the 1.0 TSI are roughly equivalent to the average user, but that's only because they don't look at it with a critical eye. To the advanced user, it quickly becomes obvious that the 1.2 TSI is a rounder package overall. The 1.0 TSI uses many tricks (not tricks its. evolvement by experience of what works better) (besides the improved fuel pump) like a regulated oil pump (all pumps are regulated within a certain operating range, 1,0 uses a variable displacement pump that alter flow based on lubrication needs) and sodium filled valves (Due too better thermal design, which gives it a better capability to transfer heat away and actually handle more power) and it still lags behind. As I said, it seems more than obvious that the 1.2 EA211 engine was a stopgap to the 1.0, which was the preferred choice from the start due to manufacturing costs. (Yes it was since the 1,5 was on the way and the 1,0 already in the making the 1,2 was not usefull anymore it offered no real advantage over the 1,0 and could not compete with the 1,5 in efficiency without major design alterations and enourmous costs involved. It had basically engieered itself to death.) Had they developed the 1.2 TSI to the same level of sophistication of the 1.0, it'd probably be in the 130-140 HP range. (true but it was deemed to expensive and you already had the 1,5 with its dual cycle capability (miller and otto)) Also increasing power with almost 35% is not done in a heartbeat, it requires som serious design changes especially in the thermal loads area. Which is what kills alot of engines that is tuned by chip tuning. We saw that while tweaking and working on the engines for the outboards, heat killed alot of turbos and heads. I'm willing to bet on the reliability even. The 1.2 loses a bit of efficiency due to the fixed pressure oil pump ( not only that but sodium filled valves), but at the same time this makes it far less prone to fail. ( doubt that there are no evidence that a variable displacement pump is more failure prone) Time will prove me right. (Maybe).

Old thread but i still find the OP:s arguments a bit lacking. If you look at the torque and power curve of the 1.0TSI from a skoda with 115hp. The torque provided is comparable with the 1.2 all the way, you have similar value at 1500 rpm which is 175Nm all the way to 4500rpm where it is down to 175 again. In between you have 200Nm at 2000-3500. The 1.2 manages 175Nm from 1500 to 4000. Sure the 1.2 has a wider peak curve section but the 1.0 produces that amount of torque too in that rev range. Power wise the 1.0 puts out 80kw or more between 4000 and 6300 rpm, which the 1.2 manages between 4000 and 5400 roughly. My question is how is this an inferior engine? It matches the 1.2 no problem. Included is an official skoda engine data graph.