.

but some either want more go or want to stir the gearstick less (I fall into the latter), I am a lazy driver.

That's easily resolved - get a DSG

That's easily resolved - get a DSG

I'm not THAT lazy.

the octavia is the same wheel base as the yeti but has a bit longer rear overhang and obviously a bit lower in height, about the same weight and better aerodynamics so i would have thought fuel economy would be excellent. Yeti's only group 2 insurance too!

As for bhp figures http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/145318-1-2tsi-news/

@ the ignorance of some people on this thread!

Across the whole VAG range:

The 1.2 TSI replaces the 1.6 16v - with the same power, more torque, better economy and better emissions.

The 1.4 TSI replaces the 1.8 16v - with the same power, more torque, better economy and better emissions.

The 1.8 TSI replaces the 2.0 16v - with the same power, more torque, better economy and better emissions.

Shows quite starkly how things have moved on over the last 5 years or so! All turbo charged relatively small engines v all naturally aspirated larger ones. It also demonstrates a simplification of the range.

Got me thinking that replacement is not always the same as equivalence: as an engine is withdrawn and another introduced the profile of the engine range alters, so it's not always easy to tell whether a contemporary engine occupies the same "slot" in a range from a few years ago. The picture with the VW group is complicated by the rather undefined position of the 113 bhp 1.6FSI which never really bridged the gap betwen the 102 bhp 1.6 8v MPI and the 148 bhp 2.0 FSI, and by the exitence of the 104 bhp 16v 1.6 which is related to the FSI, but not the MPI, which seems only to be found in VAG superminis!

For example if I recall correctly the mk2 Octavia was introduced with the MPI. This was dropped shortly after the 1.6FSI was introduced so in the Octavia it looked like the latter replaced the former. However I think other VAG cars retained the MPI and placed the 1.6 FSI between it and the 2.0 FSI so occupying part of the space a 1.8 might once have filled. Ultimately the 1.6 FSI was "replaced" by the 1.4 TSI which is more obviously equivalent to the old 1.8 for power and as Babs says, exceeds it for torque. (So if you follow a certain logic you could argue that just in the Octavia the 1.4 TSI ultimately "replaced" the 1.6 MPI, when obviously it hasn't really!) The recent reintroduction of the MPI in the Octavia reinforces the more realistic assesment that the 1.4 TSI fills the position of a 1.8.

The Octavia 1.2TSI has just gone on sale in the Czech Republic at 6000CZK more than the 1.6MPI (about £250).

The Engine that would be interesting is the 1.4TSI but in 160ps tune as per the Golf GT along with the 122ps one. I do think that 1.2 is going to be too small and may well in years to come put too much strain on the engine for such a big car.

James.

The Engine that would be interesting is the 1.4TSI but in 160ps tune as per the Golf GT along with the 122ps one. I do think that 1.2 is going to be too small and may well in years to come put too much strain on the engine for such a big car.

James.

The logic of the evolving engine range is that ultimately the 1.8tsic ould be replaced by the 1.4TSI 160. But in fact as far as I know the latter is only found n the Golf and its VW derivatives. Skoda and Audi, as well as I think the Passat seem to have stuck to the 1.8TSI. i don't know the reasonong behind this.

The logic of the evolving engine range is that ultimately the 1.8tsic ould be replaced by the 1.4TSI 160. But in fact as far as I know the latter is only found n the Golf and its VW derivatives. Skoda and Audi, as well as I think the Passat seem to have stuck to the 1.8TSI. i don't know the reasonong behind this.

Consumer pressure.

The 1.4 would be up to the job, but people (i.e. idiots) might not think a 1.4 "worthy" of a large family saloon.