Is the 1.4 16v up to pulling the estate ?

[sjharley]

Hi all,

looking at purchasing a new fabia estate for the missus. It won't do the miles to justify a diesel but I'm concerned the 1.4 16v might not be up to much, does anybody have any experience of it in comparison to the 1.6 ?

[lemonvrs]

I have a 1.2 estate and even that little engine pulls it along very well. Even up fairly steep inclines its still pulling nicely. I tried a 1.4 16v and while it was ultimately faster at the top end there wasnt a great deal of difference round town, and the 1.2 felt more eager at lower revs too... try one first. The estate only has the 70hp 1.2 so dont try a 60hp hatch;)

[Hauptmann]

The 1.4 16V engine does not have a lot of torque at low rpm. It wouldn't be my choice for a load-lugger. You'd be much better off going for a diesel (and perhaps having it remapped for a bit more torque).

[ap0gee1978]

I had a 1.4 Roomster as a courtesy car, and it was a perfectly adequate lugger as I loaded it to the gunwales with house-moving / decorating rubbish destined for the council tip. (Not that I booked my own car in on that particularly day for that reason, or anything! )

Should be fine provided you're not in the grand piano moving game...

[Adrianh1]

If you can't run to a new diesel estate, buy a used one. For regular lugging it has to be derv, even if you're a low miler.

[ap0gee1978]

The 1.4 16V engine does not have a lot of torque at low rpm. It wouldn't be my choice for a load-lugger. You'd be much better off going for a diesel (and perhaps having it remapped for a bit more torque).

If you're thinking of remapping a brand new car, you probably bought the wrong one!

Just my 2ps...

[Hauptmann]

If you're thinking of remapping a brand new car, you probably bought the wrong one!

Why? You could say that about any car you buy, new or used. Remapping is a great way to get more performance at modest cost. The 1.4TDI, once remapped, can hold its own with a standard 1.9TDI at considerably lower cost.

I'm currently driving a 1.4 16V (its not my car, I'm doing a bit of repair work on it for a mate) and TBH is not an easy car to drive because of the very poor torque at low engine rpm. It can make pulling out onto a traffic island a bit of a 'heart in mouth' experience. Once the engine spins up its fine. Do a search and you will find many owners feel the same - its a common complaint of this engine in all its VAG applications.. OTOH the one I'm driving seems to be very economical, the trip computer is showing 40+mpg in mixed driving - although I'm not sure how accurate it is...

[ap0gee1978]

Why? You could say that about any car you buy, new or used. Remapping is a great way to get more performance at modest cost. The 1.4TDI, once remapped, can hold its own with a standard 1.9TDI at considerably lower cost.

Err, because one of the main reasons people buy a new car is to have the warranty, which is voided the moment you mess with the ECU??? There's about 600 quid in it between the 1.9 and 1.4TDI Fabia 2s, which after a remap would mean you'd "saved" about GBP200 - barely more than 1.5%, which you could easily make up with a good haggle. Then you have to take into account that, unless you were already paying a premium for a brokered insurance policy, you'd also have to pay more for insurance as you will no longer be quoted by most major (and therefore typically cheaper) insurance companies. To say the savings are 'considerable' is simply wrong...

I'm currently driving a 1.4 16V (its not my car, I'm doing a bit of repair work on it for a mate) and TBH is not an easy car to drive because of the very poor torque at low engine rpm. It can make pulling out onto a traffic island a bit of a 'heart in mouth' experience. Once the engine spins up its fine. Do a search and you will find many owners feel the same - its a common complaint of this engine in all its VAG applications.. OTOH the one I'm driving seems to be very economical, the trip computer is showing 40+mpg in mixed driving - although I'm not sure how accurate it is...

I don't need to do a search - I drove had one to myself for a day, if you bothered to read my earlier post. I'm well aware of the need to rev the 1.4 16v, but for whatever reason, it wasn't a problem for me (maybe I'm just good at adapting my driving style to suit different cars :ne_nau: ) AND I can't say I had any issues with carrying loads, as I also said.

At the end of the day, it's up to the OP to take a test drive and decide. If it's a diesel, fine. If he likes the 1.4 petrol and can adapt his driving to do what's required when carrying loads (as I did when I had one), then that's fine too. I note, actually, that the need to carry loads is inferred - it may well be that the OP is only worried about the extra weight of the body (all of 55kg), and simply wants an estate to transport a dog or something...

Either way, suggesting that someone buys a brand new car that doesn't meet their requirements just to modify it (with all the implications that brings), when an alternative that does meet requirements is available for a nominal price differential, is ridiculous IMHO...

[fabia55]

i've not driven a petrol 1.4 but on paper the 1.2 gives maximum torque at only 3000rpm and together with lower running costs, better fuel economy, cheaper insurance i don't see the benefit of paying extra for the 1.4 apart from faster top end speed.

[ap0gee1978]

Oh, and BTW, the 100bhp incarnation of the 1.6 (which was the alternative actually suggested!) had a decent reputation as a good 'all-rounder', so maybe a test drive between the two is what's needed...

[fabia55]

The 1.4 16V engine does not have a lot of torque at low rpm. It wouldn't be my choice for a load-lugger. You'd be much better off going for a diesel (and perhaps having it remapped for a bit more torque).

i disagree, at low revs the 1.9 tdi didn't feel ver fast until the turbo kicks in, by which time there is turbo lag. I think the 1.2 is still the best all rounder pound for pound.

I thought the 1.9 tdi would be a lot faster than the 1.2 12v but in reality not the cae when driving around town in low revs.

[lemonvrs]

I took a mate out in mine, he was very sceptical of me buying the 1.2 and said I should have got a 1.4 16v. Anyway, he was very impressed with the 1.2 and couldnt believe how well it pulled... Im very very happy with mine, you really should try one before going for the 1.4.

[Little Jo]

I've got the 1.4 16v estate and it's not a problem. Okay, it's no GTI, but it's competant. As long as the revs are above 2000 rpm, it goes okay and if you want to accelerate more quickly make sure you have 2500-3000 rpm.

We did 1200 miles in Wales last month and for nearly 400 miles, the car was well laden with luggage. It was fine. On the open road, it returns around 50 mpg. On my normal commute in Herts, it averages 43-45 mpg. The engine gets slagged off, but it's not as bad as people make out.

If you're used to a diesel, it will feel lethargic, but my husband moves between my car and a 1.6 16v Astra without problems.

[Captain Sisko]

Although if you really can do without buying atm wait for the 1.2TSI 100HP which is on the way in the new Polo

[sjharley]

Thanks I think I will try all three petrols if I can, its not just a question of not being able to run to a diesel, it simply won't make economic sense. My wifes existing car has only done 6500 miles in 4 years since new, only replacing it because she is now expecting our second baby and the little 107 3 door is causing issue lifting baby in and out.

At that rate the car will be dust and I'll have a bus pass before I get payback on fuel bills :-)

The miles she does are all around town but we want to use it to tour down the motorway to see her mother and at the moment she is too nervous of driving the Superb - I'm concerned because I want it to be comfortable to do those motorway miles and as its rightly been pointed out the diesel loves that stuff and I am spoilt a little by it.

[[email protected]]

VAG are in the routine habit of 'module-ising' their engines.If you have a look at the tech-spec pages of the Fabia brochure you will find that the 1.2 is 3/4 of the 1.6(bore and stroke are the same)-the engine being 'under-square' i.e the bore is less than the stroke measurement.'Under-square' engines are better at low and mid-range torque on the whole than 'over-square' ones,and if you look at the same tech pages mentioned above you find that the 1.4 is a short-stroke version of the 1.6.This perhaps explains the relative lack of pulling power of the 1.4('oversquare' engine)versus the 1.2('undersquare' engine).

Hope this helps explain the observations above.

[helix]

Thanks I think I will try all three petrols if I can, its not just a question of not being able to run to a diesel, it simply won't make economic sense. My wifes existing car has only done 6500 miles in 4 years since new, only replacing it because she is now expecting our second baby and the little 107 3 door is causing issue lifting baby in and out.

At that rate the car will be dust and I'll have a bus pass before I get payback on fuel bills :-)

The miles she does are all around town but we want to use it to tour down the motorway to see her mother and at the moment she is too nervous of driving the Superb - I'm concerned because I want it to be comfortable to do those motorway miles and as its rightly been pointed out the diesel loves that stuff and I am spoilt a little by it.

Hi

I'm assuming you want the estate because of your growing family (I was just wondering how much actual weight lugging you were going to do ie you may need the space but not that much pulling power)

You won't recoup the diesel costs over the equivalent petrol but the diesels may still be the best choice for your driving needs: the 1.4TDI is thought a very capable all rounder, though you'll possibly find it unrefined around town.

I've driven a few Fabia's so the below is based on that experience

What Car like the 1.4 petrol best as it's probably the most refined and quite a good all rounder too and value for money. Having driven a relative's 1.4 petrol I'd say you may find it a bit wearing for a long motorway journey as it's working quite hard at higher speeds. The 1.6, while more powerful is also rather coarse and whiny at 70mph I found. The 1.9TDI is the priciest and also a bit unrefined but a very competent motorway cruiser with lots of power in reserve, but it's not especially flexible at low revs and around town: probably not the engine for you.

As a previous poster has said, it may be worth waiting for the new engines (probably in the next 6 months or so: 1.6 common rail diesels and 1.2 tsi 105bhp to replace the 1.6).

Finally there are loads of young second hand Fabia's around so there's possibly a good deal to be done!

[Guest Fabia 12v]

I'm currently driving a 1.4 16V 100Bhp Polo... now when I have to go up a hill with a car full of people I have to drop 2 or 3 cogs to get it to go, on my own its fine. All the power and guts are @ about 3800rpm onwards so you have to 'drive' this engine to get the most out of i.

Put simply if your going to be doing a lot of lugging or will be using the car regulaly with 4 seats occupied... get a derv.

[Adrianh1]

A reminder about so-called coarseness and unrefinement of diesel engines. They are bloody awful for the first 10k or so, then something a bit magic happens and most become quieter, quite a bit more refined and more powerful. Trouble is, when people buy them new they're driving them at their very worst.

[EGC]

To the OP - DO NOT buy the 1.4 16V. Ignore the posts about 'adapting' your driving style to this engine - its basically a flawed design and probably the weakest engine in the range.

A couple of years ago we were in much the same position as you (i.e. wife wanting a town runabout and not covering enough miles to justify a DERV).

After a short test drive we went for a Fabia hatchback 1.4. It turned out to be a mistake because this engine has some signigicant shortcomings (and a short test drive doesn't necessarily show them up, depending on the route taken).

As already mentioned, the engine has poor torque at low rpm. Just as importantly the initial part of the throttle travel is very 'dead' and there is a 1.5-2 second delay before the power comes in. First of all we though this was a fault with our car so took it back to the dealers several times. Eventually they admitted this was a 'characteristic' (i.e. 'design flaw') of the engine. The story is that to get the engine to meet the latest emission regulations Skoda have had to electronically 'damp' the opening of the drive-by-wire throttle. This leads to very poor low-speed pick-up from standstill. My son learnt to drive on the car and at times it felt downright dangerous.

To be fair the car cruised quite well at high speed and gave good economy on a run, but paradoxically it was poor in town because the engine needs to be thrashed in the lower gears to get any acceleration.

As an added 'bonus' we had the engine warning light come on several times because of problems with the exhaust gas recirculation, which we were told is another characteristic of this engine. We had to have two new exhaust recirculation valves fitted which were fortunately under warranty.

My wife ended up hating the car and really didn't like driving it, so we sold it in August and bought a Diesel, which is massively better in the cut and thrust of town driving.

[cjb]

I'm currently driving a 1.4 16V 100Bhp Polo... now when I have to go up a hill with a car full of people I have to drop 2 or 3 cogs to get it to go, on my own its fine. All the power and guts are @ about 3800rpm onwards so you have to 'drive' this engine to get the most out of i.

Put simply if your going to be doing a lot of lugging or will be using the car regulaly with 4 seats occupied... get a derv.

Our Lupo is a 1.4 16v 100BHP. It's actually a fantastic engine for a bit of fun- revvy and powerful, but I think with the relatively lardy Fabia Estate body it might feel gutless low down and you'll feel like having to thrash it. There's plenty of power there, but as stated above it needs a bootfull of revs.

I'd disagree that it's a flawed engine- throttle response can be a bit strange at low revs (our version has a cable throttle and electronic body), but the engine itself is fine, at least in a light car with short gearing where the lower torque at low revs isn't an issue. It can be a real giggle flying past someone with a load of revs and the engine just coming on song at 4000- it pulls all the way to the redline.

[edit]

I've just read the comments about the 1.2 engine. It's surprisingly good, but no ball of fire.

For what it's worth, given the choice, I would buy a diesel or the biggest petrol I could afford.

[lemonvrs]

I did notice this hesitancy on the 1.4 I test drove, I also had a couple of roundabout moments too:OWhen I got back the salesman suggested I tried the 1.2, after just a few minutes I was convinced, and bought a car there and then. He said a lot of customers do the same as I did and go for the 1.2.

Yes, pulling a load with 4 up will severly limit your speed, but for 2 of us and luggage its great... I can honestly say that the 1.4 is only better high up the rev range, say from 70mph it pulls better, but not by much. Obviously the 1.9 will be the better engine, and had I the money available I would have gone down the 1.9 route, maybe in future if I decide to get another Fabia in three years I will go that way.

[sjharley]

mmm...well i am going to phone the dealer on monday and arrange to drive all four if I can.

[sjharley]

incidentally its space not weight

[cjb]

incidentally its space not weight

Yep, but a Fabia estate is fairly lardy even just 2 up.